Chivalry – A Good & Honest Rant Is Epic To Behold

For the last two days I have been pondering the nature of female privilege and how it’s manifested. I’ve talked to my readers. I’ve seen videos. I’ve read feminist websites. Normally, I’m not an angry man. However, my bile rises when I think about something that one of my blog readers very recently relayed to me from his lawyer in regards to a court case with an ex: “You can never win against a crying woman.”

That is privilege. It is the privilege to be evil. It is the privilege to game the system with impunity. One of my recent posts highlighted that women assume protection from the nearest man. The terribly unintelligent and simplistic Amanda Marcotte prefaced one of her own comments with this: “Women’s need to be safe comes first.” No. Wrong. You lose. You might suffer badly at the hands of evil people. I will do nothing. I will turn my back and walk away. I will not indulge your privilege. Your safety is your own responsibility. Oh, and since Marcotte so enjoys accusing men of being creeps (link below), I get to do this: Hey Amanda, you’re a cunt.

Here’s a bonus: Let’s watch Judge Judy smack down a Cluster B (link below) bitch trying to game the judicial system. Judge Judy has taken the Red Pill but likely doesn’t know it.

Now let’s move on to the long rant from commenter Tom. The comment was the result of a recent post (link below) and I made no edits to his harsh and necessary words:

A woman stated: “I greatly appreciate chivalrous behavior, always. In fact, I absolutely LOVE IT!! ”

Yeah I BET you do. I would also *greatly appreciate* – and absolutely LOVE IT! — it if a woman took off her jacket and lay it over a puddle so that I can scamper over it to save my shoes, too. No matter how it inconvenienced her, or how much it cost her, if it totally ruined her jacket – even if it cost her her life to give me the life raft while I let her drown.

I would greatly appreciate that. I would absolutely love it.

Now you think that’s REPAYMENT ENOUGH? Saying you would greatly appreciate it – doesn’t make you “special”, sweety. It doesn’t even WARRANT or JUSTIFY it – or make you worthy of such generous behavior from men. And are you going to greatly appreciate enough to want to fuck him? NO?? Then what’s the point of making an announcement that you “greatly appreciate” it.? You actually carry on as if their is some tangible or worthwhile *reward* in it for men…. except for 5 cheap words you utter.

Let’s continue to lay it all down for women, just because they absolutely love it.

“I greatly appreciate chivalry” is the female fist in a velvet glove. ONE woman’s attempt trying to bring the “patriarchy” back because she realized – far too late – that feminism is a colossal failure.

Indeed, the only reason women were such a privileged class throughout human history was because only the GOOD parts of her nature were openly displayed in society for everyone to see. But feminism – for the first time possibly in all of human history – has allowed western women to show their TRUE nature, and is the worst possible thing you could have done for yourselves. Because now, the physical beauty of women comes as a double-edged sword of documented and well-known, unbridled greed, manipulation, selfishness and toxicity. And not since the time of Samson and Delilah have men been so KEENLY aware of the destruction and havoc women can visit upon them. What you “absolutely love” about chivalry, is harmful, costly, stupid, and not in a man’s best interests. The more ridiculous the stunt… the more you will love it.

And you had BETTER “greatly appreciate” what little there is left, because you will NEVER get it back. Feminism made sure of that. You have NO CHOICE but to greatly appreciate it.
Telling men you “greatly appreciate chivalry” is like openly announcing that you believe men should be inconvenienced (and should even DIE) for YOUR comfort and convenience.

Telling men you “greatly appreciate chivalry” and expecting it to be some kind of noble and humane statement does nothing but advertise that you believe your comfort should come first, and men are disposable.

And then you attempt to add on “but I do not feel entitled to it”.

Nice.

For all the men who haven’t read it, pick up a copy of Esther Vilar’s “the manipulated man” and you will see right through this nonsense. Kate Winset “greatly appreciated” it when she uncurled Leonardo’s frozen fingers and let him slip to the bottom of the sea. How sweet. Oh well. Another disposable male for female comfort.

Let’s keep falsely leading men into believing there is something worthwhile in it for them. Maybe enough of those idiots will believe you. So you’ll have to excuse us if we really don’t want to bow down and grovel to the modern female – just because you now SAY you “greatly appreciate it”.

Too little. Too late.

As a Man, I would “greatly appreciate it – in fact, I would absolutely LOVE it” if the modern female would shut the fuck up about chivalry as if she is an authority on the subject. And guess what, it takes less effort and energy than holding the door open. For all the men who faught and died in wars (and on the Titanic etc.) to give you the very freedom and liberty you take for granted every day of your existence…. you think you can manage THAT SIMPLE thing as a gift to men — in exchange for all the chivalry men have given you???

After all, shutting the fuck up takes less effort than pulling a chair out for me, so I know I am not asking for too much. Although you claim you don’t believe you are entitled to being treated like you are superior just because you were born with a vagina… you’re not really “entitled” to anything but air to breathe. Everything else you enjoy is a gift from Men. Right down to the water that comes through your tap, your internet connection , microwave, car, roads, tampons men invented for you, and just about everything else. Why don’t you “greatly appreciate” that , before you start lecturing men on whether or not they should be chivalrous to you. Because in the not too distant future, men will even stop giving you the time of day – never mind holding the goddam door open so you can waltz through it pretending you don’t expect it.

When that day comes…..

I would greatly appreciate that. I would absolutely love it.

Nope, Just Loathing (A Quick Twofer)

Men Are Creeps? Cool. You’re A Cunt

The Clusters – A Warning For Men

About these ads
  1. #1 by M3 on October 4, 2012 - 8:11 AM

    I’m starting to follow a line similar to Bill Maher’s ‘New Rules’

    ahem. New Rule..

    Whenever you are about to do something for a woman ask yourself ‘Will this get you laid’? If the answer is no.. DON’T DO IT.

    “A woman stated: “I greatly appreciate chivalrous behavior, always. In fact, I absolutely LOVE IT!! ””
    Will doing something chivalrous for this gleefully gloating harpy get me laid? Nope!

    Best soup nazi voice.. ‘NO CHIVALRY FOR YOU!’

  2. #2 by Spoos in August on October 4, 2012 - 8:12 AM

    I hold doors open if people are close behind me, because it takes very little effort and people do the same for me most of the time.

    Now, if I was with a woman I was sleeping with, I’d pick her up and carry her over the puddle. Not because I’m white-knighting, but because every chick I’ve been with gets all wet and tingly over it. Your mileage may very, but keep in mind this is another reason to not get with porkers.

    Now, lifeboat situation, me, my family, and my friends are the only people I’m looking out for, especially if things get rowdy. I’m not dying of exposure in the North Atlantic for some broad with nice tits, especially if there’s room enough for two on the impromptu raft.

  3. #3 by finndistan on October 4, 2012 - 8:45 AM

    Esther Vilar… That book is a slap across your soul, which throws you twice to hell, and then once again. You sit there with the book in your hand, your perception not perceiving what it sees. Colours mix into eachother, shapes loose their shapes, meaning gets lost, you are lost. Then you finish the book, put it down, and stand up straight, utter a “Fuuuuuck”, and open your eyes to see what is behind the seen.

    On youtube there is a series called “Psycho Girlfriend”. Even if she is exceptionally psycho, one can still see crumbs of their own exes in the series, God help you if that is not an ex. I advise to look at the short episodes, around 5 minutes each.

    On chivalry.

    Fuck chivalry.

    I am already working One third to half my time to supports some unknown cunts and their unknown bastard spawns because she made the choice to sleep with some useless male.

    If these women reward the useless males with sex and offspring, why should any other man, not rewarded by anything except “Let’s be friends” (Many of my hard working friends’ condition, and them having the blue pill does not absolve the cunts from their choices of spawning future parasites), do extra for women?

    If a woman cannot bring herself to the most basic act of smiling, which nowadays most women can’t and won’t, well, if the door slams on her face, I will not blame the man.

    Another question to ask:

    “Will she do the same for me”.

    She will not.

    Here is a facebook comment I got from a girl who (I later found out was some sort of psycho) was of the sweet and kind kind:

    “So what is wrong if men pay more taxes and die earlier? Can’t they be happy that their hard work was making someone happy?”

    I know you can’t believe this is said seriously.

    It was.

    And the manosphere is still discussing the proofs for “Female Solipsism”…

    Chivalry is dead.

    Girl comes to my place. Physically fit, Stwooooong and Indweependeeeent”, carrying a ten kilo backpack. A girl who in the past has negatively reacted to almost any masculine behavior in public.

    “You will not carry my bag?”
    “No”

    And that, my friends, is the modern woman’s independence.

    Dunno about them, but men, now have the perfect alibi for their full independence.

    “I am a feminist!”
    Or
    “I believe a woman can do everything a man can do”

    Plausible deniability, in case the society will try to enforce “Man up”

    sorry,

    Man gone.

    Comes back for a pumpndump, then, …gone.

    Man up?

    When my dick is up. When my dick is down, man gone.

  4. #4 by Spacetraveller on October 4, 2012 - 9:57 AM

    I do love Judge Judy!
    This particular case – shame on the woman.
    As Judge Judy says, domestic violence is a serious issue. And she uses it as a way of getting back at an innocent man.
    And all the while, SHE is the violent and crazy one.

    @ M3:
    Are you referring to acts of chivalry to your own gf or wife, or women in general?
    I suspect it is the latter you refer to, and now I am wondering what kind of chivalrous act merits such an immediate reward !
    Quoi???

    • #5 by M3 on October 4, 2012 - 11:03 AM

      If she’s made it to girlfriend/so level, chivalry isn’t an issue provided she acts the part of being a lady.

      Acts of chivalry have been beaten out of me. Chivalry is ‘being nice’. And from what i’ve learned, being nice is creepy. Being nice doesn’t entitle you to anything (so why give it away?).

      Rollo summed it up best here:

      http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/play-nice/

      I was ‘chivalrous’ throughout my teens and early 20’s. Didn’t earn me f*ck all in the relationship department. Holding doors open, pulling out chairs, helping carry bags, walking the dog, allowing myself to be utilized… and all i ever heard was how awesome, happy and lucky i was going to make SOME OTHER GIRL.

      If any effort i put in does not lead towards building a romantic relationship, it will not be applied out of some deluded notion of male requirement for helpless… errr.. empowered and strong independent women

  5. #6 by Jacquie on October 4, 2012 - 9:58 AM

    This topic has been confusing for me about how to respond to it. Starting The Manipulated Man earlier this week led me to recently post about these confusions and many questions as to what would be considered appropriate responses to acts of chivalry. I’m not that far in the book, but, yes, already slap-in-the-face information and hoping it may clear some of the confusion. As for the questions I have, not sure if it will clear all of those up. I know the thoughts about chivalry from those around the manosphere, but I still encounter it at times IRL. With what I understand up to this point I feel wrong in whatever way I respond to unsolicited offers of help or chivalry. What are some thoughts or advice for someone trying to understand a topic that currently feels like a mine field?

    • #7 by Spacetraveller on October 4, 2012 - 10:12 AM

      Jacquie,

      A simple smile and thank you (even if the chivalrous act was unsollicited) was always the gold standard, I thought.
      But clearly, lots of women don’t bother. And now, men want more for their chivalry, apparently. Like M3’s comment suggests.
      So yes, it is becoming quite the minefield…

      And now I would also be interested to know what the men here would like us women to do in response to their gentlemanly gestures…

      In Switzerland where I live, I routinely offer 3 pecks on the cheek for a man I know at least a little when he does something nice (where a simple smile and ‘thank you’ won’t cut it). :-)
      The cheeky ones demand a fourth kiss because 3 kisses is routine even among strangers. Hahahaha.
      The even cheekier ones get a ‘friendly’ slap when they demand more than 4 kisses (and they sometimes do lol)
      But no-one ever demanded what M3 is wanting…
      So I would like to know…what heights of chivalry does M3 get up to?? :-D

    • #8 by LostSailor on October 4, 2012 - 11:36 AM

      As Spacetraveller said, a smile and a “thank you” should be sufficient for most common, day-to-day courtesies. She’s also right that most women don’t bother, so being courteous in return does get noticed.

  6. #9 by Ian Ironwood on October 4, 2012 - 10:34 AM

    It is vital for men to remember a few IMPORTANT things about Chivalry that women CLEARLY have forgotten:

    1) True chivalry wasn’t holding open a fucking door. It was sparing your life when we sacked your village.

    2) Chivalry MUST be a matter of Grace. You cannot compel it. It cannot be universal. Chivalry is the grace extended by a man to the rest of society, a pledge to use his power on their behalf whether the issue was societal or military. That decision can only come from him, alone, it cannot be compelled and it cannot be mandated. When the expectation of Chivalry exists, Chivalry itself cannot.

    3) Chivalry can only come from a place of strength and power. No strength, no power, then no ability to use that strength and power (or refrain from using that strength or power) on behalf of another exists. Since feminism has universally attacked the idea of the powerful man, then no feminist is ever entitled to an act of Chivalry. Tell her to carry her own damn bag.

    4) You cannot have the “chivalrous” ideal of respect for women without first embracing the respect for men upon which chivalry is founded. As a warrior’s code, Chivalry primarily regulated affairs between men, between warriors. Without those bonds and strong relations, then you’re just a single chump willing to work for a woman for free. With those bonds, then you are part of a greater group of the strong and powerful men who can collectively use their power on behalf of others . . . if they choose.

    If women got a good, healthy dose of authentic Chivalry, half of them would pass out from the ignomy and the other half would pass out from the dampness of their panties.

    • #10 by wayofmen on October 4, 2012 - 4:07 PM

      Your comment is spot on. Chivalry does not exist in a vacuum.

      • #11 by Infantry on October 4, 2012 - 10:12 PM

        Well done. I was going to write something similar, but you beat me to it. The following should be burnt across the irises of all ‘nice guys':

        3) Chivalry can only come from a place of strength and power.

        Chivalry isn’t something that makes you attractive to women. Its behaviours often come from men who are already attractive, already powerful and are excercising restraint according to their OWN beliefs. They don’t do it for validation. That’s weakness. They do it because they want to do it.

        With those bonds, then you are part of a greater group of the strong and powerful men who can collectively use their power on behalf of others . . . if they choose.

        Emphasis on ‘if they choose’. Chivalry is best thought of as independant personal moral code that IS excercised in a vacuum. I hold the door open for an infirm old lady who says nothing – I don’t care. I’m doing it for me, not for the ‘thankyou’.

        Seeking validation for your actions is not chivalrous behaviour.

  7. #12 by Anonymous on October 4, 2012 - 10:59 AM

    But wouldn’t you agree that it’s better to maintain a frame of bemused indifference rather anger? When I see long angry rants like this commenter’s (as much as I sympathize, don’t get me wrong), I see a man failing to hold and control the frame.

    • #13 by theprivateman on October 4, 2012 - 11:11 AM

      For the most part, yes.

      Occasionally, some anger is quite appropriate. Masculine anger, when used sparingly, is a strong and intimidating force. Behind such a rant is a man with righteous and understandable anger. The unspoken and truly scary question is, “how far will he go with such anger?” This question is at the root of feminine fear of men and the feminist demand to emasculate scary, angry men. “Be in touch with your emotions” was the demand of men for a generation. However, that didn’t include anger. Anger is a valid and respectable emotion.

      • #14 by Ian Ironwood on October 4, 2012 - 11:56 AM

        Covered this on my blog today: the usefulness of male anger in an office setting. Check it out.

      • #15 by Tom on October 6, 2012 - 11:12 PM

        I didn’t really see it as “anger” but as I re-read it, I suppose it could be perceived as such. The typed word is some mere 7% of communication – the other 93% is tone of voice and body language. That is not present here…….so unless one is an exceptional writer, there is a 93% change one will not come across as intended. I am not an exceptional writer.

        As privateman said “Anger is a valid and respectable emotion”. And I will complete that sentence by adding: “….. in the face of injustice.” However, no matter what kind of injustice a man must endure in today’s social climate, any “rant” or expression gets automatically disqualified as unjust anger.

        But since the unspoken and scary question is “how far will he go with such anger?”… I may have answered that in the example I left below, which shows that I extend no woman “chivalry”. Keeping my hands in my pockets and *doing nothing* to bow to her whim and expectation …. is not remotely the same as , say, charging into a full movie theatre and opening fire. There’s a very real difference there.

        The modern/western female is the most privileged class of human the planet has ever seen. The things they take for granted (while holding their hands out for more) are so outrageously off the charts… I can’t even finish this sentence. The non-action of doing nothing is not “anger”. In fact, it’s amusing to watch the reaction.

        A woman recently asked me for a cigarette. She didn’t say “hi”, or “good evening”, or “please”. So I simply said “no” and turned back to my conversation which she so rudely interrupted. Not “no, I don’t have enough”…. or “no + an explanation”. I just didn’t give her what she wanted. Just “no”. SHE was the angry one, while I watched in amusement how such a creature could feel SO entitled to anything and everything – from even a complete stranger without offering anything in an exchange for it…. that she would react so negatively when she doesn’t get her way – looking at me like some kind of INSECT.

        That’s what’s wrong with women today.
        Yet if you ask her, she would call herself a “good woman”.

        The last man who asked me for a cigarette already held up 2 quarters in his hand and offered to pay for it. He expected nothing for free. So I smiled, gave him three and told him to keep the change. And he was grateful.

        That’s the difference.

        I understand my father better now 10 years after his death than I did when he was alive. It wasn’t “anger” when he didn’t give me a dollar for the school picnic – or when he said “no” whenever I wanted something. It was “tough love”. He was TEACHING me something.

        But when you try and teach a woman something…
        she will think you’re being “cruel”.

    • #16 by marcjbrutus on October 5, 2012 - 12:12 AM

      There is much anger among some men in the manosphere precisely because male anger is an unacceptable emotion as PM points out. Moreover, male anger generally tends toward violence. And to be masculine, that’s really the only place it can go. When men rant or yell angrily, they sound emotional like women. When they display their anger through actions, all hell breaks loose, but at least no one accuses them of being a wuss. So angry men have to find a way to deal with their anger without becoming violent which could land them in jail and without ranting which will emasculate them in the eyes of many. That anger has to go some place. Fortunately, the manosphere gives men a place to do so without becoming violent. Sometimes angry men will still sound overly emotional, but as long as they vent in blog comments, they have a good chance at maintaining frame in person. Thats when it matters most.

  8. #17 by LostSailor on October 4, 2012 - 11:41 AM

    You might suffer badly at the hands of evil people. I will do nothing. I will turn my back and walk away. I will not indulge your privilege. Your safety is your own responsibility.

    The success feminism has had up to now has only been because men have allowed it. It will be difficult to roll back the cultural and legal changes wrought by feminism, but it starts with not indulging feminists. It’s great that men are starting to wake up and determine that we will not be handmaidens to our own enslavement.

    And feminists tremble inside at the thought…

  9. #18 by groundhog on October 4, 2012 - 1:14 PM

    My first post on here. I don’t know if any of you have seen The Office Uk but on the subject of entitlement queens and male chivalry, this is pretty enlightening: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdQ90mb0mWs
    The key phrase is “do you think we really care as much about your baby as you do? Just because you let some useless tosser blow his beans up yer muff?”
    Of course, he’s considered Neanderthal, creepy etc. but it’s Red Pill wisdom.

    • #19 by theprivateman on October 4, 2012 - 1:18 PM

      That was fucking hilarious. I don’t know if the UK version of The Office is broadcast here. I doubt many Americans would understand all the UK slang and the accents!

  10. #20 by just visiting on October 4, 2012 - 1:23 PM

    A world without chivalry is a world without femininity. Ultimately, you’d finish what feminism started. The eradication of femininity. So, I guess it comes down to whether or not you’d want an entire population of unfeminine women. Do you despise feminism more than you appreciate femininity?

    Case in point. Up until high school, most of the schools that I attended were inner city. (My mother had certain liberal ideas) Very difficult to be a girly girl type or even nice. Girls were expected to be tough. Girls who were not, were picked on by other girls and boys. The only reason that I could get away with being a girly girl was because most of my friends were boys that I played sports with and I was always the most athletic girl. I also knew how to fight. And did. As a child, the irony was not lost on me that the only way that I could be a girly girl nice type was because I could fight. Other girly types gave up after being picked on and conformed. Femininity wasn’t worth the hassle.

    • #21 by theprivateman on October 4, 2012 - 1:50 PM

      Given that it’s the current social expectation for women to have general disrespect and loathing for men, I invite women to make the first move towards femininity by giving men respect and affection for their accomplishments and masculinity. When that happens, I’ll change my mind about chivalry. Until then, I’ll be poolside, watching the decline.

    • #22 by Chewie on October 5, 2012 - 6:56 PM

      She’s got a point. I taught in the inner city and most of the girls were just as hard, if not harder, than the boys. Girls started the majority of the fights there too. I seem to remember many of the boys keeping their distance from the girls.

      • #23 by P Ray on May 29, 2013 - 6:45 PM

        Girls started the majority of the fights there too. I seem to remember many of the boys keeping their distance from the girls.
        That’s because any guy interfering there can have a false sexual harassment charge levelled against him – teachers included.
        Sorry women, sort out your own fights – women don’t fight men’s wars for them … vice-versa!

  11. #24 by Leap of a Beta on October 4, 2012 - 1:31 PM

    I just did a post about an event and conversation I had with a prospect last night related to this. I’d love some feedback on my frame control and asserting myself.

    Prospect that had been super flirty long distance for months told me she’d just been raped. Seemed to want to friendzone me and use me as a therapist. Bleh. No thanks.

    As Mentu said: No booty, no duty.

    Hopefully I handled it well so as not to get trash talked, but still maintain my frame, boundaries, and expectations for future interactions.

    • #25 by Spacetraveller on October 4, 2012 - 3:44 PM

      @ Leap,
      Sorry to hear about this woman’s plight if she was really raped as she says.

      I don’t think being a therapist for a woman you don’t have an established connection with comes under the heading of ‘chivalry’. This is perhaps a ‘specialist area’. She is obviously hurting. She may not want male company right now.

      But you are not obligated to stick around if you feel you are not best placed to help her in the therapist role. It may be kinder to leave her if this is the case.
      But if you can handle what she has been through, and you feel confident that she won’t ‘friendzone’ you forever, then…go for it.

      But whatever this is, I am not sure it can be called ‘chivalry’.
      What do others think?

    • #26 by Candide on October 4, 2012 - 6:55 PM

      Mate, you dodged a bullet. That sounds like a classic Cluster B move. An actual rape victim would never tell a stranger she’s only known for a few months over long distance such an intimate & horrifying episode of her life. However, Cluster B chicks who love that kind of attention whoring would frequently use similar moves to draw in Captains Save-A-Ho aka their bread-n-butter.

      • #27 by Leap of a Beta on October 5, 2012 - 12:03 AM

        Yeah, the more time I’ve had to consider it and the more feedback I get on it…. The more glad I dodged her coming and was able to set the frame I did and hold my ground. Getting laid is not worth a false rape claim with such a high risk chick.

  12. #28 by someguy302004 on October 4, 2012 - 4:55 PM

    PM, I’m sure you are also getting a kick out of this PAY THE TAB screed here http://andthatswhyyouresingle.com/2012/10/01/reader-rant-guys-if-you-want-to-get-laid-you-must-pay-the-tab/

    • #29 by theprivateman on October 4, 2012 - 5:41 PM

      When feminism meets dating, feminism takes a back seat.

      • #30 by Hamster Tamer on October 5, 2012 - 11:23 AM

        Lulz… very “convenient”, that… much like the incompletely named Selective Service (aka The Military Compulsory Service Bureaucracy, aka Draft Board for non-US readers).

  13. #31 by Take The Red Pill on October 4, 2012 - 9:36 PM

    When the paychecks are handed out, women screech “I DEMAND EQUALITY!”
    When the bills come due, the same women screech even louder “I DEMAND CHIVALRY!”

    Be a happy bicycle — ditch the smelly old fish and GYOW.

  14. #32 by Vicomte on October 4, 2012 - 10:38 PM

    I attempted chivalry twice.

    In eleventh grade I once had to go to the front of the classroom to get a piece of paper to write notes on. I arrived at the paper a few steps ahead of a female classmate. I noticed this as I began to reach for the paper, and consequently paused, so the aforementioned classmate could secure her pulp before I indulged in mine (I wasn’t about to hand her the paper, one can only ask for so much).

    She thanked me for my noble gesture by likewise pausing, making ‘WTF face’, snatching her paper, and replying ‘Whatever!’.

    My teacher took a moment to tell her I was being a gentleman.

    She still didn’t get it.

    Another time I saw a little girl drop a gumball on the floor and try to eat it. I gave her a quarter for a new one, and she only thanked me after prodding from her father.

    Bitch.

    • #33 by Hamster Tamer on October 5, 2012 - 12:35 PM

      In both cases, as presented, you overplayed, and even overstepped, the so-called chivalry, to a point that it came across as awkward, invasive even. In both cases you, very blatantly, were waiting for GRATITUDE, and were quite miffed when it wasn’t forthcoming. Not alpha.

      In the first instance, there was plenty of paper for both parties, and a class to get underway, thus your gesture was dubious at best, and may have come across to Ms. WTF as a stilted, approval-seeking beta move. Would be informative to know sex, age, and general background of the teacher. (Would also be informative to know if Ms. WTF liked being pushed hard up against the lockers, for some vigorous “necking and petting”, at any point in her high school “career”… lulz.)

      In the second case, it *sounds* like you interjected yourself between a father and daughter, both of them strangers to you. Boundaries exist and must be respected, in this case, quite serious boundaries. Never feed a stranger’s dog w/out permission, and NEVER give someone else’s child money w/out a parent’s permission.

      If dad’s attention was elsewhere when little girl (age?) was pulling an unsanitary move, then civility (not chivalry) requires only bringing Dad’s attention to the matter, nothing more. It’s then up to DAD to be the hero/provider/lesson-giver/disciplinarian/slacker/etc.

      We all have our quirks; mine work against me all the time. Having only done this twice, it sounds like you have this quirk well under control. ;^)

      • #34 by Vicomte on October 5, 2012 - 3:42 PM

        At least four people got the joke.

        You do realize I didn’t include enough information to lead to any of your conclusions?

        Or am I the one missing the joke this time?

  15. #35 by 3rd Millenium Men on October 5, 2012 - 1:50 AM

    “Judge Judy has taken the Red Pill but likely doesn’t know it.”

    Hahaha great call. Love her smack downs.

  16. #36 by wingman on October 5, 2012 - 7:12 AM

    I’m confused by this issue. If we accept that biological differences between the sexes are the cause of ingrained behaviors (allowing for reproduction and survival), we accept reality as it is and avoid the urge to ‘correct’ 10,000 years of history. The issue isn’t so much ‘chivalry’, which I interpret as masculine ‘manners’ aimed at the feminine, it’s the nasty entitled attitude one encounters. I’m happy to hold doors, buy a coffee, etc. Small acts of chivalry are just part of a man’s life. The vast majority of the time, these small acts are appreciated, and in some way rewarded. I have found the more feminine the lady, the more chivalry is appreciated. In the words of one of the greats – ‘treat the princesses like courtesans, and treat the courtesans like a princess’, but always be a gentleman..

    Am I dating myself?

    • #37 by Ian Ironwood on October 5, 2012 - 7:37 AM

      You are conflating Chivalry with Generosity. Both are important, and both are serious DHVs, but to understand the essence of Chivalry you have to go to its roots, which are within the ancient warrior-societies of our tribal ancestors. The elements of Chivalry which specifically include duties to women are fairly late additions to the code, and were based on the idea that women were weak and powerless.

      Women aren’t weak and powerless anymore.

      That doesn’t mean that Chivalry isn’t a noble moral philosophy anymore; on the contrary, living up to the ideals of Chivalry is extremely empowering to a man. But as noted above, Chivalry can only come from a place of strength and power. If you are neither strong nor powerful, then the Chivalrous pursuit is not to demonstrate how Generous you can be in recompense, but how to make yourself strong and powerful. Nor is it designed to make you more attractive to women through its practice — it is through the practice at Chivalry that you develop your Alpha, and that is what makes you more attractive. Properly practiced, Chivalry is a lot more like Bushido.

      • #38 by Infantry on October 5, 2012 - 10:59 AM

        I was going to mention Bushido above too. That’s exactly how it is. Its what you do independant of greater society and cultural influence. Proper exercise of it is only possible when you already have strength.

    • #39 by LostSailor on October 5, 2012 - 8:18 AM

      Am I dating myself?

      Well, it beats staying home alone…

      • #40 by wingman on October 5, 2012 - 9:15 AM

        Smart ass.

  17. #41 by The One Reason on October 5, 2012 - 11:26 AM

    (Cannot seem to be able to reply into the sub-thread cascade itself…
    Although the italics were f-ed, I assume that this quote was Infantry’s.)

    Chivalry isn’t something that makes you attractive to women. Its behaviours often come from men who are already attractive, already powerful and are excercising restraint according to their OWN beliefs. They don’t do it for validation. That’s weakness. They do it because they want to do it.

    Exactly.
    One of the extremely rare cases of me holding a door open, two young women, the first one with a pram. As her friend didn’t seem to have the wits to hold the door open, I went ahead and held the door for the both of them. Now, I was well-dressed with a tie etc. and I didn’t acknowledge their thanks with anything but a short grunt. I did it because I felt someone had to do it and there was no supplicating frame of mind, just masculine decisiveness taking hold of a situation.

    Later in the same clothing store, the prammer opened me with a rooshian “opinion opener” about some cr*ppy men’s coat to which I laughingly replied and went into the fitting booth. (No, her friend didn’t seem of cockblocky type, but the prammer wasn’t enough of my type etc. Moreover, a potential bullet dodged.)

    And keeping within the subject of prams & male (anti-)chivalry in the form of handing out judgment, three(!) prams side-by-side within a narrow mall entrance corridor. As I passed them, I shot those three ‘teen’ moms a remark encouraging them to spread out even more, which was immediately met with an entitled laughter akin to “we do what we want”. I stopped a few feet in front of them and turning my head stared them down as they smilingly averted their eyes, then continued along shaking my head.

    One could view the masculine reaction to women’s behaviour as either willing and non-needy ‘chivalry’ or, if need be, scolding them when they are out of line or disrespectful. Amused mastery works just fine, thank you.

    [Note to our US readers - a "pram" is a baby buggy or possible a stroller]

  18. #42 by Hamster Tamer on October 5, 2012 - 12:41 PM

    EPIC guest rant, further cementing this blog in the Manosphere!… does “Tom” = “Deti”?… lol.

  19. #43 by xsplat on October 5, 2012 - 3:37 PM

    I enjoy a chauvinistic anti-chivalry. When going out shopping with my girl, after purchasing small items for myself I hand them to the girl to carry. If we are carrying heavy groceries I’ll carry more, but apportion her a share. The idea is that she is there to serve me, but if my strength is needed I can volunteer for a moment.

    That the weaker neotenous sex expects to parlay their weakness into a servile attitude from men is clever. Men who get wise can turn the tables on women though, and use their weaknesses against them. Make them into helpers. Attendants even.

    The idea that the only other option to dealing with women under their rules is to go your own way and not deal with them at all misses a lot of opportunity. They also have attraction triggers that work quite well in our favor. One of these attraction triggers is being dominant – anti chivalry in other words. Expecting servility from them, rather than giving it.

  20. #44 by Candide on October 5, 2012 - 11:14 PM

    Men in my local area are learning quickly. In recent years, they have stopped giving up their seats on public transport, holding doors open or looking out for the safety of female strangers. The last one is a hot current topic right now after one woman got raped and murdered. However, men looking out for the safety of women they don’t know are treated with suspicion and called creepy, and her man and male friends were not with her that night when she was out drinking, so she had no protection. It’s very reassuring that some manboobs walked down the streets among various feminist chicks to peacefully protest against Violence Against Women though. I’m sure the loonies and other dangerous criminals are quaking in their boots.

    Women are very quick to bring up things like they SHOULD be safe to do blah blah blah but never think about the practicality of ensuring said safety. Who do they think protect their safety? Care bears? They declaw most men, treat the warriors who would protect them with suspicion and contempt, then bitch that the handful of dangerous men are threatening their safety.

    A Violence Against Women case like that one used to really get the men here fired up about protecting their women, but now it seems that other than some lip service from the usual manboobs, it’s getting a collective “aww too bad, poor girl” or simply radio silence from the rest of men. Any attempt from men to explain why has been shut down pronto with “Misogynists!!!! Hang them!!!”

  21. #45 by Luneta Laredo on October 6, 2012 - 3:34 AM

    I am the original commentor who inspired Tom’s reply. I tried to respond yesterday but was having difficulties with WordPress and it never did get published. So I will try again.

    Ordinarily I would not respond to a writer such as Tom, who peppers his prose with gratuitious expletives, name-calling, and ridiculous assumptions. Although I have much to say in reply, I think it’s best to ignore this kind of destructive and infantile behaviour. I do feel compelled however to respond to a single comment he made — more for the benefit of Christian Manosphere readers than for Tom.

    Tom wrote:

    Now you think that’s REPAYMENT ENOUGH? Saying you would greatly appreciate it – doesn’t make you “special”, sweety. It doesn’t even WARRANT or JUSTIFY it – or make you worthy of such generous behavior from men. And are you going to greatly appreciate enough to want to fuck him? NO?? Then what’s the point of making an announcement that you “greatly appreciate” it.?

    As a Roman Catholic, what Tom describes as “f**king” is an act reserved, wisely, for the confines of sacramental marriage. As to whether there is any “reward” for a man who acts chivalrously (and by “chivalry” I refer not to the rare heroic act of taking a bullet for a woman, literally–which I think it’s safe to presume Tom has never done–but to simple acts of courtesy which emphasize gender differences and allow men to strengthen their self-image in the role of protector–such as opening doors, seeing a female to her car late at night, etc.)–if the man and woman are both single, the cultivation of a mutually respectful relationship may indeed lead to marriage, a sacrament in which sex, in all its power, volatility, and joy, plays a vital part. Clearly, for a man not marriage-minded, or a man who disrespects God’s law with respect to confining sexuality to marriage, or who does not enjoy the non-tangible rewards of traditional gender roles, who value respect between people including those of the opposite gender, there is probably “nothing in it” for him to be chivalrous.

    IRL I do not wear my Catholicism on my sleeve. As an age-adjuted “HB9″ or so (lol) who puts a lot of time into my clothes/appearance, I tend to get a lot of male attention from men like Tom, who happen to be a dime a dozen in our paganized, post-Summer of Love culture. I am however getting better every day with subtly sussing out their value system before I consider accepting a date. Reading the Manosphere is helping me greatly in this regard to learn about how the “Toms” of the world really think. Many men who think like Tom won’t even bother with a formal date – instead, they go straight for the “kill” (i.e “pump and dump.”).

    If there are any good Christian men out there reading, please know that females like me are on the lookout for you for marriage. There is nothing more manly or attractive–nothing more “Alpha”–then a man who sees in each woman the image and likeness of God, and no joy in life greater than a marriage between a man and woman built on this principle. I speak as a widow who was privileged to be married to such a man.

    For those who carry on like Tom, with gratuitous profanity and name-calling–you have very little self-respect, and you will attract user-women (and there are man) who will disrespect you. You will be hard pressed to attract a woman of quality in your life, if that is, deep down, what you actually seek, unless you change.

  22. #46 by Luneta Laredo on October 6, 2012 - 3:43 AM

    APOLOGIES – I thought I proofread, but there are still a few errors – I am having formatting problems with WordPress this week. The post should read:

    I am the original commentor who inspired Tom’s reply. I tried to respond yesterday but was having difficulties with WordPress and it never did get published. So I will try again.

    Ordinarily I would not respond to a writer such as Tom, who peppers his prose with gratuitious expletives, name-calling, and ridiculous assumptions. Although I have much to say in reply, I think it’s best to ignore this kind of destructive and infantile behaviour. I do feel compelled however to respond to a single comment he made — more for the benefit of Christian Manosphere readers than for Tom.

    Tom wrote:

    Now you think that’s REPAYMENT ENOUGH? Saying you would greatly appreciate it – doesn’t make you “special”, sweety. It doesn’t even WARRANT or JUSTIFY it – or make you worthy of such generous behavior from men. And are you going to greatly appreciate enough to want to fuck him? NO?? Then what’s the point of making an announcement that you “greatly appreciate” it.?

    I am a Roman Catholic, and in my eyes, what Tom describes as “f**king” is an act reserved, wisely, for the confines of sacramental marriage. As to whether there is any “reward” for a man who acts chivalrously (and by “chivalry” I refer not to the rare heroic act of taking a bullet for a woman, literally–which I think it’s safe to presume Tom has never done–but to simple acts of courtesy which emphasize gender differences and allow men to strengthen their self-image in the role of protector–such as opening doors, seeing a female to her car late at night, etc.)–if the man and woman are both single, the cultivation of a mutually respectful relationship which includes routine acts of chivalry may indeed lead to marriage, a sacrament in which sex, in all its power, volatility, and joy, plays a vital part. Clearly, for a man not marriage-minded, or a man who disrespects God’s law with respect to confining sexuality to marriage, or who does not enjoy the non-tangible rewards of traditional gender roles, who does not value respect between people including those of the opposite gender, there is probably “nothing in it” for him to be chivalrous.

    IRL I do not wear my Catholicism on my sleeve. As an age-adjuted “HB9″ or so (lol) who puts a lot of time into my clothes/appearance, I tend to get a lot of male attention from men like Tom, who happen to be a dime a dozen in our paganized, post-Summer of Love culture. I am however getting better every day with subtly sussing out their value system before I consider accepting a date. Reading the Manosphere is helping me greatly in this regard to learn about how the “Toms” of the world really think. Many men who think like Tom won’t even bother with a formal date – instead, they go straight for the “kill” (i.e “pump and dump.”).

    If there are any good Christian men out there reading, please know that females like me are on the lookout for you for marriage. There is nothing more manly or attractive–nothing more “Alpha”–then a man who sees in each woman the image and likeness of God, and no joy in life greater than a marriage between a man and woman built on this principle. I speak as a widow who was privileged to be married to such a man.

    For those who carry on like Tom, with gratuitous profanity and name-calling–you have very little self-respect, and you will attract user-women (and there are many) who will disrespect you. You will be hard pressed to attract a woman of quality in your life, if that is, deep down, what you actually seek, unless you change.

    Private Man, thank you for allowing this middle-agedCatholic widow a forum to express my point of view.

    • #47 by P Ray on May 29, 2013 - 6:49 PM

      If you believe in sacramental marriage, sweetie,
      you better be a virgin at marriage.
      Otherwise you are what is known as a “Cafeteria Catholic”.

      You will be hard pressed to attract a woman of quality in your life, if that is, deep down, what you actually seek, unless you change.
      There are not many of those such women for average guys.
      It seems many women only show quality … when they can be easily replaced.

  23. #48 by Tom on October 6, 2012 - 8:27 PM

    Name calling?? You will notice the only name I called you was “sweetie”. So you can stop pretending like I called you “b*tch”. However, I can…. if you prefer.

    Fascinating that you maintain men should strengthen their self-image in the role of “protector”. In doing so, are you implying that women are inferior and cannot protect THEMSELVES? You may want to keep that thought to yourself in an age where women are pretending to be “equal”, “strong” and “independent”. Men are not required to treat you as an inferior. But if you insist…..

    •••••

    Recently a woman accused me of being “chivalrous”.

    And as a man, when I’m accused of something, I actually THINK about what that something is — before running my mouth. Since a woman accused me of being it, I chose to define “chivalry” in terms that a woman could understand.

    The only reason I held the door open for this woman, is because I thought she was going to walk right into it and give herself a big nasty bump on the head… and we can’t have that.

    I don’t like bruised peaches either – and that’s not “chivalry”.

    Women don’t seem to be able to open anything correctly without a man’s help.
    A jam jar ….. a conversation ….. potato chips…… nail polish…… their legs.

    Women have asked and expected me to open all of those for them. Including nail polish – which is designed for women to open. But you poor inferiors can’t even seem to do that. So why would a DOOR be any different??

    So ladies, please don’t call me chilvarous just because I don’t like a woman to hurt herself. Persistence, alcohol, and making sure your woman isn’t banging into any doors has worked since the beginning of time.

    “CHIVARLY” —>> is when some poor shmuck has to put on his suit of armor and make sure his slutty girlfriend isn’t whoring herself out for more male attention on Match.com / MySpace / Facebook or any other dating websites.

  24. #49 by Tom on October 6, 2012 - 9:02 PM

    PS. Honored my comment was featured. I tip my hat to you gents. And I feel compelled to add for your benefit a learning experiment I conducted recently.

    An LA9 and I went out to celebrate a achievement in my professional life, for a nice dinner under an open sky. I picked her up, and remained in the car while I waited, and didn’t get out to open the door. Left the car with the valet and received my first shit test. We were waiting for the elevator up, and another couple had just arrived. Appearing to struggle with her coat….

    “Can you hold my purse?”

    MANSWER: “Absolutely not.”

    The look was priceless. Both hands remained in my pocket as I looked her straight in the eye with a confident smile and didn’t blink. She froze. Completely disarmed and her value just plummeted in front of the other couple. The other girl shot a look at her man to see his reaction. His beta eyes widened then he looked down as if not to have heard it.

    ME: “Just put it down on the ledge over there. I’ll wait.”

    SHE: “You’re such a jerk!”

    ME: “I LOVE it when you call me that”.

    DING!! The elevator arrives and I cut to small chat with the other guy completely ignoring what just happened. The other girl was PISSED. I had just undone months of manipulating her man into a lapdog. She will have to work much harder now, as I just became his personal hero.

    The evening evening “with a bang” ( if that’s the phrase ), and everybody here knows it wouldn’t have – had I held her purse for her.

    MANCLUSION: Chivalry is bad for you.

  25. #50 by Luneta Laredo on October 6, 2012 - 10:09 PM

    Tom,

    The creator endowed us all with both a conscience and free will. May God’s grace find in you someday a repentant and charitable heart.

    Blessings,

    Luneta

    • #51 by Tom on October 6, 2012 - 11:57 PM

      “The Creator” does not exists, silly.
      Snap out of it.

      Cute try, though.

  26. #52 by Luneta Laredo on October 7, 2012 - 1:55 AM

    Tom,

    You will be screaming for the mercy of that creator you don’t believe in about ten seconds after you die if not less.

    Blessings,

    Luneta

    • #53 by Tom on October 7, 2012 - 2:22 AM

      Ah yes. Another cheap and transparent manipulation tactic. A failure attempt at instilling “fear”. Women do this to Men in the form of “IF YOU DONT MARRY ME – YOU’RE GOING TO DIE ALONE!!!!”. She can’t get a man to embrace her by positive means, (or by being a lovely person whom he would WANT to marry), so she brings on the oh-so-predictable *scare tactics* to get him to believe that she is his first, best(?), last and only choice at having any kind of worthwhile future. But dying alone is still infinitely better than living a single day with a cunt like that.

      The church does this too.

      The Message: “IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD AND EMPTY YOUR WALLET INTO THE OFFERING PLATE – YOU ARE GOING TO HELL!!! WHERE YOU WILL BURN FOR ALL ETERNITY IN SMOKE AND DAMNATION AND FIRE AND….” well, you get the idea. When the church can’t convince you to believe in a non-existent God, they break out the same scare tactics women do. It’s a fascinating, really.

      However, women who try this tactic seem to overlook the fact that women typically outlive their husbands by about 8 years. So even if he DOES marry her sorry manipulative ass, it is SHE who is almost certainly more likely to “die alone”. So her argument fails instantly.

      While it was another adorable attempt, you might want to rethink your strategy. Because it didn’t work, sweetheart. But while you wish me to hell and follow it with hypocritical bullshit “blessings”, I will wish you a pleasant evening.

      That’s called “being the better man”.
      (That was invented by Men, too.)

  27. #54 by Luneta Laredo on October 7, 2012 - 3:37 AM

    Tom,

    May the peace of Jesus Christ, who died for both women and men alike, find its way to your heart, for it is self-evident that you are not at peace.

    Blessings,

    Luneta

  28. #55 by Luneta Laredo on October 7, 2012 - 3:45 AM

    ” But while you wish me to hell and follow it with hypocritical bullshit “blessings”

    Tom,

    An important doctrinal clarification that I forgot to add – I cannot speak for Protestants, but I am certain no Catholic wishes anyone, including you, to go to hell. What we wish is for you, and others like you who are a law unto themselves, to turn away from sin and toward God. It is called repentance and conversion, and most of us pray for it frequently. Any Catholic reading this blog who knows his faith can confirm. Moreover there are many stories in the 2000 year history of the Catholic Church of grievous sinners who became great saints.

    “O My Jesus forgive us our sins
    and save us from the fires of hell
    Lead all souls to heaven
    Especially those most in need of Thy mercy.”

    Blessings,

    Luneta

    • #56 by Tom on October 7, 2012 - 4:35 AM

      This is fascinating. And what “grievous sin” have I committed exactly?? Not holding woman’s purse is not a sin. Is it? Thrill me with your acumen. I just love it when a woman pretends to know what’s best for a man – more than he does.

      Every woman’s hubris.

      Since you cannot speak for Protestants, as a raised Protestant (Confirmed Lutheran, specifically) I can tell you that there is no major difference….. except that protestants don’t worship Mary (the way catholics do) – and I can proudly wear a condom on my cock. But I no longer attend church because of the fear mongering. Avoiding hell is a bullshit reason to believe in something.

      A woman in a church is a like a bartender at an AA meeting.

  29. #57 by Luneta Laredo on October 7, 2012 - 5:37 AM

    And what “grievous sin” have I committed exactly??
    Tom,

    An individual who presents his opinions–no matter how ill-informed–as objective facts (i.e. “God doesn’t exist because I don’t believe he exists”) is an individual unable to look critically at either himself (or herself) or the world around him (or her).

    For example, Catholics don’t “worship Mary” — they honor her. I have learned that it is ordinarily a waste of time however to explain the difference to most Protestants, Agnostics, or Atheists because they are ignorant about basic Catholic theology, with heads usually filled with disinformation about it and no desire to genuinely learn.

    Since you don’t believe in God, however, any mortal sin you have committed according to the teachings of the Catholic Church is of no relevance to you–which does cause one to wonder why you even bother to ask such a question. If you are genuinely curious, the information is available online to anyone with the capacity for simple internet research.

    Ordinarily I would be much more helpful in response to such a query, but your profanity-laced opening pitch to me is not characteristic of a person of good character, and as such, I prefer not to waste my time on it.

    Blessings,

    Luneta

    • #58 by Tom on October 7, 2012 - 1:31 PM

      I didn’t say ” God doesn’t exist because I don’t believe he exists”….
      He simply doesn’t exist. It’s not an ill-informed opinion. It’s a fact.

      Just like there is not a mouse on Mars. I don’t even need to prove it. Based on all evidence , probability, scientific facts, and tangible data… we can be absolutely certain that there is not a mouse on Mars.

      Like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. If they exists in your imagination, then it doesn’t make other people “grievous sinners”, or “evil” for not subscribing to your imagined belief system. Don’t be ridiculous.

      This is a discussion , blog entry and thread about chivalry and how you don’t deserve any. If you wouldn’t like to debate religion, please extend the authors and owners of this blog the courtesy of taking your religious debate elsewhere. You are presumptuous, rude and intrusive and outrageously arrogant , and not a person of good character.

      Since you refuse to respect others…..
      You don’t even deserve basic decency or respect in return.

      …. let alone “chivalry”.

      Thank you for making the point.

    • #59 by LostSailor on October 7, 2012 - 2:20 PM

      This isn’t the forum for discussing theology. But your weak attempt to use religion to excuse your demand certain behavior from men or trying to shame men into treating you a certain way doesn’t fly in the Manosphere.

      You don’t deserve particular treatment just because you are a woman or a Catholic. You get the treatment you deserve based on your own behavior.

      Your retreat with a sniff of faux indignation at supposed “profanity” only underscores the weakness of your argument.

  30. #60 by Luneta Laredo on October 7, 2012 - 1:42 PM

    Tom,

    As far as I know this is Privateman’s blog, not yours. Had he as blog owner asked me to leave I would have done so immediately. With that said, I will not be posting here again.

    I wish you peace.

    Luneta

    • #61 by Tom on October 7, 2012 - 1:46 PM

      Yes I am fully aware it’s private man’s blog. I have something known as “good character” where I am considerate of others. Why don’t you? Take care and don’t let the door hit your vagina on the way out.

  1. Sometimes, the world shows how much it deserves to burn « stagedreality
  2. My One Experience with Chivalry « stagedreality
  3. Linkage Is Good For You – Octoberish | Society of Amateur Gentlemen
  4. Lightning Round – 2012/10/10 « Free Northerner

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,349 other followers

%d bloggers like this: