Previous post
Men are blaming the death of chivalry on the rise of radical feminism. Can’t say that I blame them.
Who says guys can’t communicate? A recent survey I took suggests that guys are eager to offer their opinions, if we ladies will only listen. Unfortunately, when the subject is the near-extinct idea of “chivalry,” many women are quick to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear. Yet so many of us women spend our days lamenting broken relationships and marriages and wondering, Where have all the good guys gone?
Last summer I polled college guys from across the country and abroad at the National Young America’s Foundation Conference in Washington, D.C. Ninety-three percent of them said that chivalry has decreased in current times, and 84 percent of that group attribute this decline primarily or at least partly to the rise of radical feminism in society.
One man stated that feminism “devalued chivalry and made it seem sexist.” Another man proposed that the “‘I-don’t-need-a-man culture has crippled chivalry in the public sphere.” Yet another said that it was “difficult” to be chivalrous because some women portray chivalry as “subordinating, disrespecting, and devaluing.”
It seems that men are lodged between a rock and a hard place. If they try to be chivalrous, feminists call them sexist. Yet if they treat us the way the feminists say we want to be treated—the same as a man—we complain of not getting enough respect.
How do guys define chivalry? Three out of four responded that it had to do with respect, honor, and courtesy towards women. One man spoke openly: “Chivalry is the notion that a man has the duty to respect and serve women.”
Another man affirmed: “It is a set of manners and respect a man should show to a woman as a demonstration of respect towards her.” Another guy said women “need to understand that chivalry isn’t being put down like feminism would like you to believe, but rather is a way a woman can command respect from a man.”
Too often, however, these same men lamented that their efforts to be chivalrous were met with scorn.
I’m completely unsurprised. The rest of the article concerns what women should do with this information, and is a great read, and I wish more women would read it. Unfortunately, I doubt that they will.
I have to say that a lot of times, I really hate that as a woman I’m lumped in with the bratty feminist women who have done this. I really do. I never asked for the feminization of men, and I certainly don’t like the death of chivalry. I know for a fact that chivalrous men still exist — Matt is one of them — and women who appreciate chivalry still exist.
I’ll admit that I’m one of the first to say that a lot of men need to get their balls back, to be frank. But I’ll never deny what caused men to be so feminized, and that was the fault of women. And I hate it, especially on issues like chivalry. How is it that so many women can’t understand how much respect comes with that? A chivalrous man is a man who will respect you, honor you, and love you. Not only will he respect, honor, and love you, but he will fight to defend your honor and your respect. He will fight for your love. And that, ladies, is a real man. Why on Earth would we want to make them extinct?
Hat Tip: Conservative Grapevine
Shannon in AZ says: A man that respects, honors and loves the woman he is with will stay with that woman as she returns the same feelings. Where those feelings are absent, playing the field will take place.
Will says: There is one upside to this trend: if I am chivalrous toward a woman and she lambasts me for it, I know right away that this is not a person who I need to spend any more time with.
Andrew says: Another thing is it seems once women start hitting their late twenties, the feminist brainwashing begins to wear off. Some of the women who used to call me sexist are now saying how they never realized how respectful of a guy I am. So to all chivalrous conservative guys, hang in there and don’t let feminists get you down. Most of them will mature some day.
Robert Arvanitis says: Casey:
Our ancestors faced a dangerous world, and had their own instinctive reasoning to survive. A male, female and child are on the savannah. They spot a predator. The female grabs the child and runs. The male turns to face the predator.
If he doesn’t stand, the female and child are run down.
Likewise, if she doesn’t flee, the stand is in vain.
I for one won’t stick around if she’s whining about “comparable-spear-worth issues.”
J David says: This is one of those articles I normally comment on, but it has gotten to the point where I think, “What’s the use?”.
Our culture has deteriorated to the degree that marriage is disdained, distorted, destroyed, and thus the gender roles with it. It is obvious to a degree that now barely calls for more than a shrug and a sigh.
If queers can “marry”, if mothers can kill their children with the approval of law, if women can use men as mere sperm donors and then be encouraged to legal take all they own, or ever will own, if women can become each others’ husbands with society’s approval, and Big Brother is every child’s father…what’s the point? I think the “point” is “…of no return.”
Cro says: J David has it right…
This society is no longer worth saving IMHO. Better we try to concentrate on what comes after it completely collapses.
J David says: For another excellent example of reasons to have DISDAIN for the modern female mentality, see “My Sugar Daddy” from the DailyBeast, linked at Grapevine today.
Stephen J. says: I think there’s a lot to be said for this, but I will point out that the feminists did have a point that goes unmentioned here: Chivalry very much is the idea that a man has a duty to respect and serve women — but quite a lot of men practiced, and still practice, an unspoken corollary to that, which is that women owe them for that; owe them submission, owe them sex, owe them compliance, whatever.
It’s very much the classic situation: some men pick up the tab because they think it’s the right thing to do, and some men pick up the tab because they still think it obliges their partner to put out at the end of the night.
In a (rather oversimplified) sense, radical feminism was the decision that women could afford to do away with the former type of male if it meant they didn’t have to put up with the latter kind any more. But like all throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater decisions, it had a distressing tendency to produce the worst of both worlds: the men who tried to be chivalrous for its own sake were treated like pigs and gave up, and the men who affected chivalry to manipulate women simply had to get smarter about their tactics. So rather than giving up the good to get rid of the bad, you simply wound up with the good being gone and the bad getting worse.
RA says: Its true. American women want it both ways. They want to be loved and cherished, treated as the weaker vessel, put on a pedastal of putting them first. Then they want to be equal with their man, the corporate partnership school of marriage.
Men are better at competing. They say, bring it on. Then when they crush their competion, the feminist, they are insensitive beasts.
Corporate partnerships NEVER last more than five years. It don’t work.
I go to a conservative Baptist church. Even there I would estimate that 80% of the women have a feminst world view. That is in direct opposition to what the Bible teaches. Yet ask them if they are feminists and they would deny it.
Feminists have fixed the courts (divorce and child custody) and the rest of society against men. Then women want men to play nice.
Its amazing men are willing to date without a prenuptual agreement protecting them from the anti-male courts!
J David says: See also Dr Helen’s comments on bewarethedoghouse.com video…
J David says: You are SO RIGHT, RA, I am also, and grew up in that environment, and saw the same thing. My mother has always been vociferously anti-feminist, while in actual practice is one of the most truly feminist, in the modern sense and use of the word, that I have seen. She made vigorous efforts to “feminize” me while I was growing up, but succeeding mainly in making me more stubbornly MALE, and much more contemptuous of any use I might have for relationships with them. The unspoiled ones, admittedly, have natural attributes as women, that men don’t possess and certainly could be helpful, but in this present day are so difficult, expensive, and time-consuming to find THEY HAVE NOT BEEN WORTH IT TO ME. Now that I am at what could be described as “middle aged”, I no longer possess the physical desire, the emotional need, the youthful enthusiasm that would keep me seeking, and a long history of experiences to make me supremely cynical about the worth of even bothering any more. I don’t think I am alone in my cynicism…
Stephen J. says: “Even there I would estimate that 80% of the women have a feminst world view. That is in direct opposition to what the Bible teaches.”
Depends on how you’re using ‘feminist’. There’s a case to be made that St. Paul was actually the first person in history to insist on the essential equality (though not identity) of men and women:
“A man should fulfill his duty as a husband, and a woman should fulfill her duty as a wife… A wife is not the master of her own body, but her husband is; in the same way a husband is not the master of his own body, but his wife is. …In the end–and in the Lord–man is not otherwise than woman, and woman is not otherwise than man; and though woman came from man [cf. Eve from Adam’s rib], so does every man come from a woman–and everything comes from God.” — 1 Corinthians
Like every other movement, classical feminists, radical feminists, and old-school chivalrists can all honestly say they believe in the equality of men and women; it’s simply getting straight how they mean that word. (Of course there are hypocrites in any movement, but let us grant the benefit of the doubt for now.)
J David says: Paul also lists, in several letters, specific detailed lists of man responsibilities, and woman responsibilities. It always convenient to leave out, marginalize, or down-play the specificity of gender roles assigned by Paul for the “feminized” of the professing Christian community of women who think they are setting themselves free.
I’ve alway considered myself chivalrist. Ladys first, hold the door for people in general, always walk around and open the car door for my wife, wait to be seated and hold the chair, and be polite in mixed company. Part of chivaly is just good manners with everybody after all. Funny thing is how conscense of it I now am out in public. I try to, and often go out of my way to do chivalous thing as sort of a statement. Instead of just holding the door I’ll announce “Ladies first!”, and will sometime wait on a woman so I CAN hold the door or whatever… kind of like trying to make an example for those around me. One of the main things I try to do is acknowlege people with a smile or nod. One more than one occasion my chivalous act has been met with “I can do that myself!” responce. I always answer with “Yes ma’am, I know you can.” and a smile. A smile can be the best weapon in the world to change an attitude.
My grandad always told me, “Just because a girl doesn’t know she’s a lady isn’t any reason not to treat her like one.”
Guys should be chivalrous towards women regardless of the response they get. The women who respond well to chivalry are the ones you are looking for, but if you never extend the courtesy in the first place, you’ll never find ’em.
I agree that rampant misandry is a problem, but to me, an equally disconserting problem is that men’s reaction to misandry is often to act like a whiny puss.
Stephen J. says: “Paul also lists, in several letters, specific detailed lists of man responsibilities, and woman responsibilities. It always convenient to leave out, marginalize, or down-play the specificity of gender roles assigned by Paul….”
Well, sometimes it’s tough to get across the distinction that one can believe in legal and moral equality of the sexes without asserting that any perceived differences at all are either illusory, arbitrary or irrelevant.
In all fairness, the people arguing that there are real differences which justify differing social treatment have historically tended to be men explaining why women had to be excluded from something, so a certain skepticism of motives is not unfounded.
Tennwriter says: Men and women are biologically different, and this is more than plumbing works. Who can doubt this?
Equal standards for different things would be an injustice. Also obviously true.
Thus separate roles at the level of man and woman with separate lists of privileges and responsibilities is just.
At a deeper level, man and woman are alike. We are human, and stand equally in need before God. At an even more broad level, we are beings with a physical nature, and stand in need of oxygen. But at the level of man-woman, we are different.
The man is chivalrous, and loves his wife more than his own life. The man is also the final authority and spiritual leader. If you take away the privileges, its only fair to take away the responsibilities. But that way leads to barbarism.
J David says: …And with that *skepticism*, here we are. In the end the individual is responsible to adhere to instructions loving granted them by a gracious Creator, and quibbles with them not only a their own risk, but at the risk of dependents, mates, churches, gov’ts, society and civilization.
I am responsible to as I am told, as is everyone else, in fact, even those who don’t recognize higher authority than themselves, who will still reap the results of mistakes known and unknown. How anyone FEELS about, or rationalizes, or justifies their actions is irrelevant to the actual facts of results. We see in our society clear results of leaving Judeo-Christian heritage and its foundation in Scripture…and thus we sit here discussing it.
J David says: Results mean everything – Intentions, unfulfilled, mean ZILCH.
Thomas Jackson says: If manners are dead what can we expect of chivilary? Having spent a few decades destroying traditions, respect, manners, and ethics are we to be surprised that a man wouldn’t offer his seat in a lifeboat to a woman if their ship was going down.
People reap what they sow. Just think back about the last time someone didn’t hold the elevator door for you, let a door slam shut on you, spoke on a telephone as if you weren’t there. Look at the comments of the progressives whenever someone has a misfortune or how our society chooses to treat people of faith.
People worked hard for this society. Hope they like what they created.
Stephen J. says: “Results mean everything – Intentions, unfulfilled, mean ZILCH.”
Even that’s not always true. Lewis has a great example in Mere Christianity: “I am not angry – except perhaps for a second before I come to my senses – with a man who trips me up by obvious accident; I am very angry with a man who tries to trip me up even if he does not succeed. Yet the first has hurt me and the second has not.”
It is certainly true that good intentions which are never acted upon are of very little value. But little value isn’t the same as zero value. And salvation – for both people and societies – can sometimes turn on the difference. Neither thief on Calvary with Christ could do anything for Him; they accomplished no useful results whatsoever. But one wound up in Paradise and one did not.
Some radical feminists denounce chivalry out of a sincere if misguided desire to better the lot of their fellows. Some denounce it sheerly out of personal hatred born of true suffering. And some denounce it because they find that the easy and popular choice to feeding their vanity and social pride within their peers. If we wish to convince people of the worth of this derided thing “chivalry”, we have to know exactly why it’s being derided – and intentions, there, become critical.
I’ve took a few feminist classes just to remind the ladies… I want to be a MAN. Non of the gender crossing trash, I want to be a man of men so you shouldnt feel bad to fixing dinner after a hard day of rebuilding roads for the Obama Administration. I would give my life for my woman, all I’m asking is for a sandwich and clean socks. Yes its too simple for Liberal brainchilds (they can afford nannies for that chit) however it is still epic.
Defector says: Speaking as a guy and one that tries to be a chivalrous one, its hard not to see how guys can just look how feminists and their quislings act to it and say “Why should I bother?”
Much like a market, if there’s value in gaining these traits then there will be more that practice it
mer says: Reminds of a time back in college. I was raised to hold doors open for people, especially elders and any “non-male” of the species. Going into one of the buildings, I got to a door at the same time as a female, so naturally, I opened the door and held it. She started arguing and screaming at me for doing it. I let her rant for about 30 seconds, then calmly said “Just go through the door, bitch”. She shut up and went through the door, glaring at me the whole time.
🙂
Stephen J. says: “I would give my life for my woman, all I’m asking for is a sandwich and clean socks.”
Sounds noble, and I applaud the sentiment. But wouldn’t most women rather have a live husband who helped out once in a while than a dead one who never did?
Cousin Dave says: “Chivalry very much is the idea that a man has a duty to respect and serve women — but quite a lot of men practiced, and still practice, an unspoken corollary to that, which is that women owe them for that; owe them submission, owe them sex, owe them compliance, whatever”
Steven J, if you’re talking about traditional chivalry, I have to somewhat take issue with this. If there was any aspect of female compliance in traditional chivalry, it was only after marriage. When dealing with women to whom they were not married, men were expected to act with upmost honor and to respect the virtue of the women they interacted with at all times. If a man took a woman to dinner, he had no right to expect anything whatsoever (beyond her showing up), not even a goodnight kiss; whatever happened aftewards was entirely at the woman’s discretion. That’s not to say that women didn’t have obligations under chivarly, but those were entirely different from the lies that gender feminism propagates. I use this example to illustrate:
At one time, women had the privilege of slapping men who acted inappropriately towards them. It was at her discretion, and no man dared to respond in kind. Women were the judges of whether a man had committed a dishonor, and to a man so judged, there was no permitted response except to slink away and be reminded to behave better next time.
However, this privilege was not to be abused. That was the woman’s obligation — to use their discretion wisely and sparingly. Slapping a man gratuitously was a breach of honor of the first order. If a woman slapped a man without good reason, the man had a perfect right to physically restrain her, and there was no prosecutor anywhere who would file charges (nor would any woman dare to press such charges). And a woman who committed this breach frequently could expect to be ostracized from her social circle.
One of the things second-wave feminism did was abrogate women’s obligations under chivalry. They left unanswered the question as to what happened to men’s obligations, thereby creating the “door dilemma”: a guy holds the door for a woman and gets glared it, and then he doesn’t hold the door for the next woman and he gets glared at. Gender feminism then seized on this and explicitly reinstated men’s chivalrous obligations, while disowning women’s obligations. Thus, the new chivalry is that any woman can slap any man any time she feels like it. She’ll get a “you go girl” from her social circle, and the man has no recourse (and the law will enforce this).
J David says: Bringing the law into this, as it is presently used FOR women, and against men, is an important point. It takes all of this “chivalry” business out of the realm individual politeness and generalized social mores and into gov’t sponsored preference system making ALL women potentially dangerous to come into contact with, as they are the preferred plaintiff before the law. Any accusation made by them has standing, while the male defendant is guilty before proving himself innocent. Even the most casual contact with them can be potentially dangerous, and PMS is now a viable excuse for women to kill. Several personal experiences of random female insanity is more than enough to encourage giving most of them a wide berth as a matter of policy.
J David says: StephenJ sounds like a liberal, whipped weenie… Let’s see how it works for him once his present squeeze has squeezed him for everything she thinks she can get out of him and decides to throw him away.
J David says: I’m sure having helped around the house once-in-awhile will give her a moment’s pause before she ruins him, takes all of his children, and everything he ever makes in the future.
J David says: My father has always been a model citizen, and pillar of whatever church he goes to or job he works at, and everyone who knows him seems to like him. He never did “smoke, drink, cuss or chew, and don’t go out with girls that do” and my mom has been abusing him for forty-seven years now. She has episodes of pure, off-the-wall crazy, often for no more reason than some slight imagined in her own mind. She does it ’cause it occasionally gets her what she wants to shut her up, and simply because she can. The woman your momma was tends to be who women in general are, but, in fact, that stereotype is fitting most women now, and more importantly, what women seem to approve of amongst themselves. “You go, Girl!”
Snowdog says: I have very old-fashioned parents, so I was taught to be chivalrous, as well as solicitous of the elderly, when I was a young man. I was also taught that true chivalry is unobtrusive. In other words, it is just something you do, not something that you call attention to.
As for dealing with the very rare hostile female, calling them names seems inappropriate. It’s easier to say: “I’m not holding the door because you are a lady. I’m holding it because I am a gentleman.” Smile politely and walk away.
Anna says: And this is supposed to be eye opening?
Sorry, but i have known this for years. Anyone with even a half a funcitoning brain knows this. Simple insight, nothing more.
Never knew something this obvious could cause such lush fervor.
Anna says: Addtionally, what’s happened to chivarly and manliness? I see this more often in older men.
As my mom says, today’s men only think fro the waist to the toe, not from top of their heads to the toe.
On one hand, you can all blame feminism, but relinguishing simple manners and courtesy should never go out of style, or be subjec to the political clime or fashionable thinking of the day.
Good manners carry you through any enviroment.
So, kind gentleman, step up to the plate, and be proud of your manhood. A feminine woman will find your most pleasing and attractive.
mentor07825 says: I find this article very interesting. I’m a 19 year old male, college student. What is interesting is that it’s not just the older woman and men that have this problem, but it appears to be the younger generation as well. I’d know, I’m going through it. I have very few principles, but they are the ones that shape my attitude towards people. 1) Treat others the way you want to be treated.
2) Treat others the way you feel are being treated. (more recent)
3) Be chivalrous with women (basically the same as (1))
I have to tell you, I find it increasingly hard to follow number 3 due to the idiocity of women here in Ireland (where I live). Take, for example, a recent situation with me. A girl friend of mine, whom I hardly talk to because she’s useless with a mobile phone, after a month of no contact called me up on my first week in college. It was an hour conversation, 2 minutes of it was about me and college and the rest was spent on fixing her bf issues because that’s why she called me up (she didn’t say, but I knew). So I rolled up my sleeves and I helped her. Apparently she thinks he broke up with her because she did not want to do *it* one night. He never said why he broke up with her. At the end of the conversation I told her two things that she should follow.
1. Never go back to him. If you think that he broke up with you because you didn’t want to do it then he’s not worth it.
2. If you talk to him, before you make any decision of anything, think about it for a day.
We were planning to meet up after three days, and in those days I called and texted her to see how she was getting on. The day before we met up she said she got back together with him. I’ll admit, I was annoyed, but she must’ve had a good reason and thought about it…Nope. We met up, and we started talking about it. She went back to him because:
1: It was a 6 month relationship
and, my personal favourite
2: She wanted to see what would happen.
I told her I was annoyed and disappointed with her. But because I’m such a nice guy she didn’t take me seriously, although she did say she was getting the vibe that I wanted to push her onto incoming traffic, and I so wanted to. Went to a bar, I paid for our drinks and we walked back. Along the way I learned that her mother even said not to go back to him, and she said that the best thing to do is to get “under another man.” I then said, “Well, you know I’m always here for you Jessica, even for that!” and she said, “I’ll never consider you.” A bit hurt, she went on to say that it’s because I’m like a brother to her and that I’m nice. This is where I get to the point of this. My problem, apparently, is because I’m nice. I’m chivalrous. She goes back to a man who, and I quote from her, “I feel hurt and badly bruised.” but would never consider a nice guy, not even jokingly.
This is the age where Chivalry is on life-support. It holds no meaning or value, hell, it’s even looked down upon apparently, because we’ll always be the fall-back guy to pick up the pieces. That’s all, we’re the menders of the female emotional state, and not considered as an option of a happier emotional state. It’s the jerks, or the people who don’t follow such principles, get the girls all the time. I see this all the time with the people around me, and it hurts a bit that such values are not important or that because we have such values that they have everything they could possible want as friends. Now, there are some girls that do still see such men as people to go out dating with, but these are so few and far between. I can’t help but feel accostumed to the irony that when I hear a woman say that there are no nice men out there.
Anyway, take this whatever way you want. The age of Chivalrous behaviour is on life-support, and it didn’t get there by the makings of men.
mentor07825 says: Also, I just wanted to add one more thing. I treat men the same way as I treat women, with respect. I open the doors and all that. The funny thing though is, I get more respect from men then I do from women.
Men have always been known for their chivalry. If they are treated well by women, they get treated better in return. If women want to be taken good care of by their men, they need to respect and treat their men with dignity.
Men have always been known for their chivalry. If they are treated well by women, they get treated better in return. If women want to be taken good care of by their men, they need to respect and treat their men with dignity.
39 Comments