Filed under Men's Rights, Sexuality
Castrated by chivalry
Out of Arizona, a story of a high school teacher turning his male students into little white knights:
In addition to the three R’s, boys at one Arizona public high school have spent the past year learning to open doors for girls, pull out chairs for their female classmates and stand when a girl enters a room.
Incorporating etiquette lessons into the classroom was the brainchild of Cord Ivanyi, a Latin teacher at Gilbert Classical Academy, a public college prep school 30 miles east of Phoenix.
Note the subtle subversive wordplay. The author is attempting to pass off chivalry as etiquette, when the two are completely separate concepts. Another reason why you shouldn’t trust journalists.
“I teach old-fashioned subjects,” Ivanyi told AOL News, “so I don’t think I’m doing anyone a disservice by promoting old-fashioned traditions.”
The “old-fashioned traditions” are dead for a reason – they’re counter-intuitive to success in our New Girl Order.
A teacher for 14 years, Ivanyi said he was inspired to start demonstrating what he considers proper etiquette after witnessing the coarse behavior that some of the boys in his classes displayed toward the girls.
“Boys treat girls pretty roughly,” he said. “And there was so much disruption, so I decided to do something about it.”
Why must I always have to break out Spengler’s Universal Law of Gender Parity? To restate:
In every corner of the world and in every epoch of history, the men and women of every culture deserve each other.
If boys as a group are treating the girls like shit, the girls probably deserve to be treated like shit. Forcing one side to back down just gives the other free reign to terrorize them.
The informal lessons began with Ivanyi standing up one day after a girl in the class had left the room to go to the bathroom. As she returned, Ivanyi held open the door for her.
“She had this funny look on her face,” Ivanyi recalled. “And the other kids giggled a little.”
Soon, however, Ivanyi was schooling the 10th-grade boys on how to seat their female counterparts at their desks, by pulling out their chair and sliding it underneath them as they sat. As a show of respect, the boys were encouraged to stand any time a girl entered the room.
And what, pray tell, did the girls do to earn this special treatment? Nothing? That’s what I thought.
I will reiterate what I said about chivalry months ago – it is a system that assumes that women are socially inferior to men, and thus need to be cared for and protected as a gender. As such, it is an anachronism in a world in which the sexes have the same privileges and rights. Novaseeker elaborates:
Chivalry once existed to encourage men to support and protect women in a social context in which men’s status as supporter, protector and father were acknowledged and celebrated (hence the picture here). It was the “glue” to bind men to women and children, and in return women pledged fidelity to ensure men that their investment in children was aimed at their own children.
Today, we live in a world where the roles of men as protector and provider are largely viewed as osbolete. Women are economically ascendant, men are economically descendant, and women are, in ever increasing numbers, electing to bear and raise children without men being involved other than in terms of insemination. The role of men has been marginalized, fatherhood has been made optional, and yet the social tilt against men has resulted in much public hand-wringing and finger-wagging at men, in spite of the obvious legal and cultural underpinnings of the current situation.
Stripped of its greater context, the “chivalry” that this ignorant mangina is imputing in his pupils is conditioning them to treat girls well for no other reason than because they have vaginas. It runs counter both to sexual success and the notion of men and women being equal that our feminist overlords insist on ramming down our throats. To be a “chivalrous” man in 2010 America is to swallow the giant, diarretic shit that society dumps in your mouth and beg for more.
Behavior that was once utterly foreign has become routine. “Ninety-eight percent of the boys stand now when a girl enters the room, and the girls love it,” Ivanyi said.
Of course they love it, you tool. Thanks to your bass-ackwards programming, your girls can now enjoy the privileges of the pre-feminist world while retaining the rights of the post-feminist one. Who DOESN’T want to have their pie and eat it too?
As a result of the emphasis on politeness, the overall mood in the classroom has changed markedly.
“There’s a different tenor in the class, a gravity attached to the girls. They’ve been more feminized in the boys’ eyes,” Ivanyi said. “These girls are reading Jane Austen novels in class. For them, chivalry hasn’t gone out of style.”
Yeah boys, put those girls up on that pedestal! Scrape and bow to the false goddesses you have created! And when the bell rings and those “more feminized” girls leap straight back into the arms of their take-no-shit bad-boy toys and assertive, rule-breaking boyfriends, don’t think too deeply about it, because Not All Women Are Like That!
Honestly, I think this jackass is doing nothing but creating a new breed of misogynist. It’s precisely the sheer gap between what they’re told what works to attract women and reality that causes most guys to flip out when they realize the truth, and this idiot is worsening the problem. I’m willing to bet that at least one of his more beta students will eventually stumble onto game literature and morph into a neg-dropping, LMR-defusing, woman-hating player straight out of a feminist’s nightmare. And the blame for every broken heart and black eye in his wake will fall upon the high school teacher who thought transplanting social mores from Jane Austen’s time into the modern world was a good idea. Hope you’re happy, bub.
Melissa Leonard, an etiquette instructor in New York for the past 13 years, applauds Ivanyi’s efforts. “I think it’s great if it’s practical etiquette instead of the white-glove, snobby kind.”
Leonard argues that learning proper manners helps kids navigate a variety of social situations. Sadly, too few have an understanding of the basics.
“There are some fundamental rules that are important for kids to learn, like looking someone in the eye when talking to them,” Leonard said. “And there can be a role for the school to play, especially if etiquette isn’t being taught at home.”
Woman defends system of bestowing unearned privileges on her gender – full report at 11. And there’s nothing “practical” about lying to people about the truth.
But is teaching gender-specific etiquette perpetuating what some consider sexist traditions?
Gilbert Classical Principal Brian Rosta stresses that the emphasis Ivanyi places on social graces is not an official part of the school’s curriculum.
Rosta has no plans to expand the politeness training, but he is a firm believer that schools can play a vital role in teaching manners.
“We often use the Latin phrase in loco parentis, ‘in place of parents,’ and sometimes we find that we need to fill the gaps that parents miss,” Rosta said. “If there are any life skills our teachers can help with, I encourage that.”
Schools as social engineering laboratories – another reason to homeschool.
What’s more, the parents of the students in Ivanyi’s class don’t seem to mind, either.
“The only negative thing I’ve heard are parents calling to make sure that their daughters say ‘thank you’ to the boys,” Rosta said.
See? These selfish wenches don’t even appreciate the needless genuflecting that their classmates are doing! I’ll bet these girls will come out of that class with the most bloated, swollen egos imaginable. I pity the men who’ll have to put up with their crap.
Despite my words here, I’m not strictly against chivalry. I’m willing to treat women in a chivalrous manner, provided they re-assume the social roles they had prior to the sexual revolution. Or to put it more crudely ladies, if you want chivalry from me and the rest of my gender, get in the kitchen and make us some fucking sandwiches. And if you could give up your right to vote, that would be awesome too. If you’re not willing to take this deal, kindly shut up. Gender equality includes the opportunity to be equally disrespected and spit on, and you can’t have it both ways. Civilization abhors a contradiction.
In the meantime, here is the face of an enemy of men:
Hat tip: collegeboy.
I threw up in my mouth a little when I read that disgusting article yesterday morning. Thank you for doing such a beautiful evisceration of it, FB.
Etiquette is dead. Fuck it.
Girls cling to its practice and romanticization while still enjoying modern liberties.
If the playing field changes, so should the rules.
Even his dog looks like a pussy
He was our upcoming renfield of the week, damnit . . .
Umm, I never heard of a boy standing when a girl (a classmate/contemporary) enters or exits the classroom. Standing up when an adult enters a room, or approaches you when seated, yes. And I’m middle aged and private school educated, so what is purported to be etiquette, but actually chivalry as pointed out by FB, is a relic of the ancients. All this teacher is doing is introducing confusion and chaos into the lives of teenaged boys.
Chivalry should have died with feudalism.
he doesn’t note the increasingly less deserving of chivalry behavior of most girls. media and marketing is to blame, but girls dress in a far more highly sexualized manner at younger ages than ever before. if a girls’ wearing tight short shorts with her thong sticking out the top….am i really going to rush before her to hold the door?
I’ll be a gentleman around ladies. I don’t see any ladies.
Dude has the beta face. The slack muscles, the imploring eyes, the supplicating smile. It’s all there before he’s even opened his mouth. Having a dog that size is just flat-out homo.
this is a motherfucking disgrace
We should start a letter writing campaign to tell this guy how counter-productive his idea is.
Here is his e-mail address: cord_ivanyi@gca.gilbert.k12.az.us
Taken from his school’s Web page: http://ec.gca.gilbert.k12.az.us/user_profile_view.aspx?id=c0bc7a0e-27af-4938-bc8e-912e2c776fb7
Which also contains a link to his blog: http://ec.gca.gilbert.k12.az.us/blogs/cord_ivanyi
Figures in his blog he mentions he likes the Dave Matthews Band, the most useless fake-hippie Beta music ever created.
“In every corner of the world and in every epoch of history, the men and women of every culture deserve each other.”
Great quote.
With that in mind, Scottish women must be absolutely terrible:
http://planetgrok.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/scotsmen-the-most-alpha-men-in-the-west/
I wasn’t sure if the teacher was gay until I saw the picture. Gay men always have to defend women no matter what.
Boys these days are being raised by single mothers at home, and gay men at school. It’s a shame.
What a fag.
I feel sorry for the dog.
*cough* standing when girls enter the classroom? That’s not chivalry, that’s female supremacy.
thanks for the props ferd.
but on some serious shit. what the hell was this beta thinking? I mean all boys standing up when a girl enteres the room?
Their vaginas aren’t laced with gold. lulz
Why should men be nice to women? What is in it for them?
Ka-ka-kaboom! Ferdinand Bardamu NAILS another one!!
“If boys as a group are treating the girls like shit, the girls probably deserve to be treated like shit”
Or, they could be learning the behavior at home. Either sex that is. If young girls (or boys) are guilty of any shitty treatment of the opposite sex, I hold the parents/guardian accountable. They officially can not be held responsible at an age under…..8-ish. I would even go higher and say 15-ish but you all will east me alive on the “taking responsibility” argument. I work with young children and trust me when I say, they learn EVERYTHING they are doing from watching others all the while without the capacity to understand any motives behind it. It is simply behavior at this point. Mimicked behavior.
Teacher said: “Behavior that was once utterly foreign has become routine. “Ninety-eight percent of the boys stand now when a girl enters the room, and the girls love it,” Ivanyi said.”
Ferdinand’s response: “Of course they love it, you tool. Thanks to your bass-ackwards programming, your girls can now enjoy the privileges of the pre-feminist world while retaining the rights of the post-feminist one.”
–Splendid response. This part is too true.
Ferdinand says: “And when the bell rings and those “more feminized” girls leap straight back into the arms of their take-no-shit bad-boy toys and assertive, rule-breaking boyfriends, don’t think too deeply about it, because Not All Women Are Like That!”
ok, so here is how it breaks down–
ALL girls/women will have an episode with either a crush or a sexual relationship with a “bad” boy. It is part of a natural testing of herself, boundaries, lessons, etc. But what you all need to then sub-categorize this and say that only….30% of women actually continue a PATTERN of such entanglements. I’ll even stretch it to 50% of girls are guilty of this in society today due to where the sex roles seem to stand. MOST always this relationship happens to girls in their twenties. It’s almost inevitable if she goes off to school. Every psychology text on female development covers this “period”. So, if 95% of girls go through at least one of these relationships, you, as men, are bound to have her leave you for dude or know someone who has had it happen to them. But, only a smaller percentage stay stuck in the period and they are usually the broken ones. Something happened. The problem is to figure out what kind of upbringing produces the type of girl who would somehow equate meanness and asshole tendencies and treatment from a guy as something that stimulates her. A 100% of females may respond to this, but that percentage drops dramatically with the number of females that allow it to happen for longer than a short period of time. If a girl is chasing a guy who hardly gives her much in return, I would venture to guess she is “chasing” the love of a parent in some way or was lacking in supervision and/or love while growing up.
Ferd says:”I’m willing to bet that at least one of his more beta students will eventually stumble onto game literature and morph into a neg-dropping, LMR-defusing, woman-hating player straight out of a feminist’s nightmare. And the blame for every broken heart and black eye in his wake will fall upon the high school teacher who thought transplanting social mores from Jane Austen’s time into the modern world was a good idea.”
–Listen, if one becomes so burnt on an entire idea of living, say believing in the good of the opposite sex, then they maybe should have stepped out for a while. What are the odds of picking only “fucked up” girls or guys repeatedly? I don’t buy it. Someone’s choosing wrong. The idea is to be wise enough to live and taste life and not O.D. on it and the darkness it can show. Dabble if need be, but christ, don’t put your face in it.
–also, players don’t break hearts. The nature of their short relationships doesn’t allow anything more than a shallow (non heart) connection to be made. If a girls “falls emotionally” for a player she has an underdeveloped emotional time line. She is ignorant to true love.
Oh most women chase bad boys all the time. Until the bad boys don’t find them hot enough even for a one-nighter. That is pretty much how all women will behave, all the time, unless social mores restrict it.
Jane Austen wrote about this. Lizzie Bennet, smart and sensible, went head over heels for the bad boy Wickham, and detested nice guy Darcy, despite Darcy’s wealth and power. It was only accident and social mores that prevented disaster.
ALL WOMEN ALL THE TIME WILL CHASE BAD BOYS. As long as they can. That’s just the way it is. Don’t make a maniac out of me (and the guys get shirts)*
The guy looks gay. He’s a HS teacher. He’s probably gay. That’s who gets hired. They won’t fuck the girls, so administrators love em.
*Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick.
dude…Darcy wasn’t exactly a nice guy. Come on…there’s electricity between opposites, period. He had a major stick up his ass which translated into moody, mysterious, and “pent up” energy. He had all kinds of inappropriate aggressiveness and strange stiffness to him.
p.s. Wickham had to LIE to win the TEMPORARY affections of miss Bennett. The time she spent with him she believed him to be of a different character. Darcy was layered, hard to figure out. He thought he had it all concluded regarding women and he knew exactly what he was looking for…etc. Miss Bennett came along and showed him what package love would come in….her. Darcy showed her the same.
Remember what I said about chivalry – it made sense in the days when the girls PARENTS had a major say in who she married, and chivalry was meant to impress the PARENTS, not the girl herself.
Thus, in the old days, chivalry WAS the way to get laid.
But today, it is a disaster.
On the bright side, a teacher like this will certainly ruin the lives of some of his boy students, but others will have such a negative reaction that they will become masters of asshole Game. Sometimes, that counter-reaction also happens to something that is too excessive in one direction.
“Ninety-eight percent of the boys stand now when a girl enters the room, and the girls love it,” Ivanyi said.
Guess which 2% of the boys are going to get laid in a few years?
Look at how sad the dog’s face is. Imagine the horrors that the dog must endure every evening…
Here is the webpage of the teacher.
As well as of the principal.
Now, are we activists against Misandry or not? Call up the principal, and POLITELY say that you don’t think this is fair to EITHER gender, due to the utter incompatibilities seen in real-world realities. Otherwise, just email.
This appears to be a PRIVATE school, so they may be more prone to listening than some public indoctrination camp.
So are we just going to comment about it, or are we going to start exerting some pressure?
This appears to be a PRIVATE school,
My mistake, scratch that.
I would have far less of a problem with this if I saw the same level of ‘etiquette’ required of the girls. The guys still would not get laid, but at least it would be fair and non-misandric.
But no, this is misandry and female supremacism, pure and simple.
Honestly, I think this jackass is doing nothing but creating a new breed of misogynist.
I’ll say it specifically : He is creating the future Sodinis, Abdullatabs, and John Walker Lindhs.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and that is what Ivanyi is doing.
In my opinion, the smartest comment on this thread is Krauser’s:
“I’ll be a gentleman around ladies. I don’t see any ladies.”
but……….. I don’t see very many gentlemen either. Instead I see a bunch of coarse pussy worshipers complaining about the quality of women. Men wanting to be the female equivalent of sluts complaining about female sluthood: Pimps complaining about the morals of whores.
Manners are important, they are more than service a service to others, they are a sign of cultivation, culture and self discipline. They are a mark of quality and what separates polite society from the knuckle-grazing, idol watching proletariat. Who do you want to be? Dan Draper or Tucker Max?
I’ll admit that Ivanyi is pushing it too far. No woman deserves the right to courtesy by the simple fact of being a woman, and the lower the rank of woman the less respect I give her, but it doesn’t mean I have to act like an uncultivated boor towards her if I find her behaviour repulsive. Even contempt should be cultivated in its form. Men shouldn’t be knaves because the women are skanks.
A man with manners doesn’t have to show them always, but there are certain things he won’t do. There are certain actions that mark you as a lesser human being. Picking on weaklings, farting at a funeral, stealing your friend’s girlfriend, picking your nose, voting Democrat, etc are all signs of low standards, and a man’s gotta have standards. Ivanyi is wrong in what he is doing but he’s onto a fundamental truth; many men are crude.
This, of course, leads to Spenglers comment:
“In every corner of the world and in every epoch of history, the men and women of every culture deserve each other.”
The average western male probably deserves a coarse slut. He isn’t much better.
well frickin said slumlord!
We had a music teacher in high school who did this kind of thing. He seemed to do it to lord over male students, sticking himself into the teen love world. He got fired for sleeping with students.
Just saying.
“Look at how sad the dog’s face is. Imagine the horrors that the dog must endure every evening…”
–that was pretty funny.
I had one, ONE gay teacher while going through grade school/ high school and he had to keep quite about it. Is it just my age? I can’t explain it any other way…it was an “arty” school and in liberal New York State…I guess it was just the times to not be open in western NY. Thank god.
scratch that…one gay teacher that we knew of.
* quiet about it
ALL girls/women will have an episode with either a crush or a sexual relationship with a “bad” boy. It is part of a natural testing of herself, boundaries, lessons, etc. But what you all need to then sub-categorize this and say that only….30% of women actually continue a PATTERN of such entanglements. I’ll even stretch it to 50% of girls are guilty of this in society today due to where the sex roles seem to stand. MOST always this relationship happens to girls in their twenties. It’s almost inevitable if she goes off to school. Every psychology text on female development covers this “period”. So, if 95% of girls go through at least one of these relationships, you, as men, are bound to have her leave you for dude or know someone who has had it happen to them. But, only a smaller percentage stay stuck in the period and they are usually the broken ones. Something happened. The problem is to figure out what kind of upbringing produces the type of girl who would somehow equate meanness and asshole tendencies and treatment from a guy as something that stimulates her. A 100% of females may respond to this, but that percentage drops dramatically with the number of females that allow it to happen for longer than a short period of time. If a girl is chasing a guy who hardly gives her much in return, I would venture to guess she is “chasing” the love of a parent in some way or was lacking in supervision and/or love while growing up.
More or less true, I think.
It’s certainly very irritating, to say the least, for guys to see their peer women pairing off with asshats — it’s demoralizing. I know it was for me when I was in my 20s. I understand that for many women that’s an experimentation thing, whereas for other women it seems to be more of a preference. The trouble is that it *still* leads to bitterness. The challenge for younger guys is to be patient until they are a bit older and the women are a bit older — say, late 20s. By the time a woman is in her late 20s, you can tell whether she is addicted to players or not, and avoid the ones who behave that way — at least you can tell more easily than you can when they are in their early 20s. The chances improve in being able to discern better as you age a bit, yet this requires patience which is often on short supply during the 20s when our male hormones and libido are at their peak.
It’s sometimes not so simple, though. What do you make of the woman who was always good and so on and didn’t experiment with the bad boy but then 5-10 years into her settled marriage, decides she doesn’t like that she missed out on that experience and does something reckless. Clearly a lack of maturity, but it’s not *that* uncommon really. I would wager that most female affairs are with the kinds of men that they would not have married (and perhaps still would not marry, yet there is often self-deception there … we know from stats that almost no affairs blossom into lasting marriages) — alpha type men who may no longer be exactly “bad boys” like they may have been in the 20s, but are still not the kind you want to bring home to mother — yet sexy for that bedtime/emotional adventure.
I don’t think women ever *lose* the taste for this completely. Look at the cult of middle aged women around characters like Edward Cullen or Don Draper –> one is a classic bad boy turned loyal love fantasy, while the other is just a not-so-moral-yet-suave-and-attractive semi bad-boy married guy. The taste for adventure and excitement still seems to be there among many older women. Most of course do not indulge this, but some do. Trying to guess on the front end which ones will and which ones won’t is not as easy as it may seem, as some of us can attest to.
slumlord shook his fist:
but……….. I don’t see very many gentlemen either.
What came first: ladies ceasing to be ladies or gentlemen ceasing to be gentlemen?
There is a difference between manners and chivalry. Speaking to people clearly, looking them straight in the eye, holding doors open for people regardless of sex and age when entering first (women also MUST do this), refraining from swear words in speaking to people, these are not chivalrous actions but the actions of an educated, restrained person in control of himself/herself and confident. Politeness costs one nothing, but it is not chivalry.
I would not stand when a woman enters, and remain seated when a man enters, at a meeting. I stand for both, and shake their hand in greeting. It is merely polite, a measure one did not grow up in a barn. In return, I expect politeness given to me, and when I do not receive it form negative opinions as the upbringing, character, and self-restraint of the man or woman involved.
————————-
As for Darcy-Wickham, what is great about the novel is not the hamster rationalization, but the true portrait, by a woman, of what drives female lust and desire. It is all surface. Women judge ONLY by surface, and absent the social mores (no sex before marriage) and accident (spending time with Darcy’s family, friends, tenants, who all vouched for him) EVEN a smart, self-controlled, and observant woman like Elizabeth Bennett would have happily married Wickham, had she but a dowry to have made it his worth to pursue her fully.
Indeed if you look at her idiot younger sister Lydia, ruled by her passion and lusts, and Elizabeth, they both fall immediately for the same guy (Wickham) because he plays the bad boy thing. Elizabeth was no different than Lydia in anything other than luck, for all her intelligence.
Which brings us to today. We don’t live in Austen’s time. First, a man who has “layers” (i.e. is not a social butterfly, highly verbal, flirter and flatterer and ladies man, which is not natural and indeed lacking in most men from birth onwards) loses out. He has no way in which his family, friends, and others who know him can vouch for him.
Secondly, all women can and do sleep with Bad Boys. FIRST. Who remain the most important, and emotionally strong-connection, men in their lives. All that is left for most men is either becoming a bad boy themselves, and pursuing younger women without much attachment, or a loveless, sexless marriage as a “Kitchen Bitch” with the open contempt of their wife who makes it clear that she has no respect for her husband as a man, a romantic object, a sexual object, or anything else other than a provider of money and domestic services (itself a low-value, low-status job hence “Kitchen Bitch” nomenclature).
Today, the Elizabeth Bennetts run through several Wickhams, and at best settle for a pseudo-Darcy (lacking the money/power) they despise for their lack of bad boy-ness. Or they view that prospect (a Kitchen Bitch provider) with despair and go the single motherhood route, increasingly this is the goal of White middle class women.
I mean, after all, the lesson of Pride and Prejudice is that female hypergamy has to be controlled, like male competition for women. Otherwise you have pretty much the entire Bennet daughters all ending up like Lydia, only without a Darcy to bail them out.
Nova’s observation about Edward Cullen, Don Draper, and the rest of the hunky bad boys is straight on. You don’t see much appetite for Darcy like characters (stiff, awkward, prideful, but decent-hearted) in female-oriented fiction.
Elizabeth’s found Wickham charming and allowed him to poison her view of Darcy, but she never fell in love with the cad.
“Had I been in love, I could not have been more wretchedly blind. But vanity, not love, has been my folly.”
Also, Wickham may be a bad boy, but he doesn’t play the bad boy. His glamour comes from being in the military and what he does play is the victim card.
I disagree with you Whiskey, in that manners and chivalry form a continuum, though I agree the current conception of chivalry is a mutated form of the original. Chivalry with not about being a supplicant towards women, or even an exultation of them, rather it was a code of conduct which emphasised benevolence toward the weak and defenceless. Remember, it started off as a warrior’s code and not as a lover’s guide. Furthermore, from the little of the literature that I have read on the subject matter, the knight always gave his affections to the chaste and gracious woman, not the common skank. Chivalry was selective.
Tupac:
What came first: ladies ceasing to be ladies or gentlemen ceasing to be gentlemen?
Good question. Cads have always been with us, as have whores, but the one common constant in western society has been that a man can’t get sexual access to a woman without her consent. Rape has always attracted social opprobrium and censure of some kind. Women set the tone of the sexual market place and there is no escaping the fact.
Male behaviour is therefore strongly influenced by the criteria with which women evaluate their potential mates. If Tucker Max is getting the action while Mr Nice Guy isn’t, men are going to start behaving like Tucker Max. It’s pretty simple. The general decline in male behaviour is simply a follow on from the decline in female behaviour that has been happening since the First World War. Women are leading the rot, so yes, women are leading the way by their decline in behaviour. (A discussion on the social forces which caused this to happen is worthy of a book length post)
They aren’t however wholly to blame men as men have blindly followed on. Lead by their dicks, men are quite happy to accept any type of skank behaviour as long as they can get some action. As a result, their behaviour has coarsened as well. Men bitch about the decline in western civilisation whisit being active participants in the forces which are undermining it.
Look, I’ve always had the attitude that I’d rather be alone then settle down with a skank. I’ve always aimed for the fruit at the top of the tree, even though it meant that I went hungry for a long long time, the low hanging fruit wasn’t worth it. In the marriage game, second best isn’t good enough. If more men had my attitude, skank behaviour would stop really fast. I can’t see women getting themselves out of their current predicament. What I imagine will happen is that the hordes of lonely spinsters, that form an ever increasing presence in our society, will be warning to young girls. Bitter spinster aunts and unkempt cat ladies will form a stronger argument than any appeal to female logic. To quote Roissy, the beast must be force fed until it chokes on its own gluttony.
They aren’t however wholly to blame men as men have blindly followed on. Lead by their dicks, men are quite happy to accept any type of skank behaviour as long as they can get some action.
The sexual revolution really started to pick up momentum when the sex ratio started to favour men during the 60s and 70s. Men at that time took full advantage of the situation and were for the most part quite happy with the change in female sexual mores. Men during this time didn’t give much thought to how this might affect their sons and grandsons, let alone society at large.
Peter Frost writes on this here:
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2009/08/where-are-women.html
Oops.
Lead by their dicks should be Led by their dicks….
My bad.
I not so sure that it’s a simple numbers game Thursday. I think that the change in culture was far more important. A superabundance of women and a more permissive culture resulted in a fornicating Nirvana.
Here is an interesting article from the All China Women’s Federation.26000 women sampled. Now China has a surplus of males relative to females so you would expect that women would have more partners than western women, but the strong influence of culture overrides the simple numbers. Asian women have less partners even though there is an abundance of men. Western women, particular women influenced by Anglo-Western culture have become particularly trashy
Whiskey- Elizabeth Bennett did not fall for Wickham, nor did she desire him. It seemed to me she simply flirted with the idea of any interest in him. Believe me, as a girl, when I read the dialog between her and Wickham after they encountered Darcy on his horse, she was inquiring as nonchalantly as possible about Darcy. I know how females work…she wanted Darcy and hated herself for wanting him due to her beliefs of him having a lousy character. Her curiousness gave her away. So, in a sense, you’re right, she wanted the “bad” boy –just not the one you’re thinking. I found Darcy to be bubbling with sexuality. Too bad the bad boys of today aren’t more like him…simply misunderstood and in need of a good shag.
They aren’t however wholly to blame as men have blindly followed on. Lead by their dicks, men are quite happy to accept any type of skank behaviour as long as they can get some action [...] I’ve always had the attitude that I’d rather be alone then settle down with a skank.
Sounds like you’ve got a little SoCon in you, Slumlord. ;)
As a result, their behaviour has coarsened as well. Men bitch about the decline in western civilisation whisit being active participants in the forces which are undermining it.
Yet can you really blame men when it is women who have left them with the stark choice of either ratcheting up the Game vs. celibacy?
Well maybe there’s a God above
But all I’ve ever learned from love
Was how to shoot somebody who outdrew ya
And it’s not a cry that you hear at night
It’s not somebody who’s seen the light
It’s a cold and it’s a broken ‘Hallelujah’ — Leonard Cohen
There are no knights today, nor dragons. Chivalry, as part of the tradition of medieval courtly love, didn’t even exist between a lord and a lady. It existed between a lady and her lord’s knight – who basically got bestowed with flowers or his lady’s colors or whatever, but by the rules of the day, nothing sexual. At least he wasn’t supposed to.
Kindness and politeness should never go out of style. But, men, how many sandwiches do I have to make you to get you to stop and change my tire once on the road?
Slumlord:
I wasn’t trying to minimize culture, just point out that when men had a bit of an upper hand in the sexual marketplace during the 60s and 70s they did not behave with any more concern for justice or civilized values than women are behaving now that they have the upper hand. Which supports your point that men aren’t so great either.
I am in favour of a more equitable sexual regime, but it is foolish to base the argument for such on the high moral character of the average man.
Asian women have less partners even though there is an abundance of men.
It is a somewhat open question whether women use a favourable position in the sexual marketplace to play the field or to take their pick and settle down with the best man they can get. Women don’t tend to like variety for the sake of variety, so it appears that when they have the upper hand they mostly don’t play the field, though they may delay their final choice for as long as possible.
I am in favour of a more equitable sexual regime, but it is foolish to base the argument for such on the high moral character of the average man.
Agreed.
“But, men, how many sandwiches do I have to make you to get you to stop and change my tire once on the road?”
I don’t think you made any of those passers-by any sandwiches at all. If you truly want a male tire changing service on call, you’d better drive around with a cooler containing the necessary sandwich supplies, plus a marker and piece of cardboard to advertise the fact that you are amenable to an equitable exchange.
Condoms are on us.
Or not. ;)
This is why I have Roadside Assist.
I just think it’s sad that there’s no pay-it-forward mentality. No, I have not made those passersby sandwiches, but I have put together a plate of whatever I make my husband for dinner for the homeless guy at the highway exit many times. And have volunteered in soup kitchens and for Habitat for Humanity and spend hours at my son’s school every week. Etc., etc., etc.
Whatever.
“This is why I have Roadside Assist. “…”my husband”
Well then! Why are you so concerned that no other man white knites you for something you do not need while waiting for Roadside assistance?
“but I have put together a plate of whatever I make my husband for dinner for the homeless guy at the highway exit many times. And have volunteered in soup kitchens and for Habitat for Humanity and spend hours at my son’s school every week.”
I don’t understand what these activities have to do with men taking time out of their lives to help you when you have not done anything for them, and you have roadside assistance. And a husband.
Maybe you should give that bum a trac phone so you can call him whenever you need help and he can earn those plates of food.
I don’t need someone to change my tire, but there are other people who do have emergencies, including a number of men I know who don’t know how to change a tire either.
My point was that helping other people is a good thing to do, whether you get something out of it or not. If we are bartering for any and all services now, the end is nigh.
That kind of approach went by the wayside as social cohesion became less pronounced. Today we live in “communities” where no=one knows each other very well and we all kind of do our own thing. This tends to lower social cohesion, and also tends to lower the tendency to help other people in need — there is less of a social connection to other people overall. I don’t see this reversing, really. If anything, we’re becoming less communitarian and more atomized with each passing year.
The end has already come and gone, sweetheart, you just missed it. What exists now is purgatory.
Hmm… I had an interesting experience today, which is relevant. I think.
We went to check out a local homeschooling co-op, and I was struck by how polite both the boys and the girls were. The boys did open the doors for the girls, but the girls would always politely thank them. I also sometimes saw girls open doors for other girls, elders (including me), and even the boys, so I think the emphasis there is on being polite, in general. I don’t think that sort of refinement is a bad thing, as long is it isn’t only expected from one side and not the other.
The girls seemed very well-raised and demure, and the boys seemed unusually self-confident and (yes) chivalrous. I thought it interesting, for instance, that the girls were in charge of passing out refreshments to guests, handing out name-tags, etc., but the boys were leading us around and explaining the curriculum and such. And I was astounded by how well-spoken they all were. A year ago I probably wouldn’t have noticed this dichotomy at all, but I’m more aware of it now.
Although the conservative uniforms, and the fact that the children are all products of devout Christian families, probably added to the general atmosphere. The classes were amazingly well-run, as well. It was also interesting that many of the parents attending were men (my husband included). Most such meetings tend to be female-dominated.
Interestingly enough, my car did stall in the middle of an intersection a couple of weeks ago, and before I could call Roadside Assist or my husband, a very nice man stopped, expressed concern about my son being in the backseat of a stalled car, and helped me to get it to the side of the road. I also had a someone pull me out of a snowbank a year or two ago – he drove past and then reversed and yanked me out.
I live in a pretty conservative part of the country. We are not immune to what you are talking about in terms of community ambivalence. But I’ve made an effort to get to know my neighbors, to snowblow their sidewalks and driveways if I’m out there doing mine, to give excess produce from my garden, free babysitting, or a ride somewhere in a jam. Last fall when I was trying to hook up an extension to my bicycle so my son and I could ride together, I didn’t have a big enough certain kind of screwdriver (? the six-sided one that looks kind of like a star?). I mentioned this to my neighbor, and he immediately dropped everything to fix it for me.
So I think community can still be manufactured, but you have to work at it. The tally is not even – I’ve done more giving to neighbors on either side, but yesterday when I got home to 5 inches of new snow, my neighbor on the one side was busy removing it from my sidewalk with his snowblower.
[...] higher value. No low status man can afford to treat other people, especially society’s pedestalized women, [...]
[...] In Mala Fide: Castrated by Chivalry [...]
[...] Bardamu: Castrated by chivalry and [...]
[...] be successfully attacked by far fewer writers. What if, for instance, we all linked to the blog of female supremacist high school teacher Cord Ivanyi (my blog is number 3 on Google for his name, by the way) with the phrase “the world’s [...]
So 98 per cent of students in his class comply. Wonder what happened to the other 2 per cent of feminists, free-thinkers, otherwise political dissidents and gender variant people? Did he line them up against the wall and shoot them?
I am a feminist. I agree 100% with this post (though obviously I don’t care for terms like mangina).
Special treatment for women has no place in an egalitarian world. Having teenagers engage in an archaic kabuki performance of outdated gender roles doesn’t do either boys or girls any favors.
I agree that girls do not deserve to be treated well by virtue of being girls. However, I think girls and boys deserve to be treated well by virtue of being human. It should go both ways. That goes back to the point that etiquette is not the same thing as chivalry. Good manners shouldn’t be gendered.
The author of this rant is an uneducated swine. If you have such little respect for women that you cannot accept the fact that we men should yield to assist them, you should be ashamed of yourself. What do you on dates? How do you treat your mother? How dare you bag on a school trying to make a difference in America by teaching young men to treat women with respect. You know good and well that women have always been treated like garbage by men throughout history. I am sure you are one of those men, and your comments contradict one another. Sure, we are all equal, but why not make such a simple gesture when you know it will win the hearts of any woman- any person, mind you. I pity you and your lack of common sense, and your lack of chivalry.
[...] in a “chivalrous” manner. Last Thursday, I got a comment from “Charlie” taking offense at my offense: The author of this rant is an uneducated swine. If you have such little respect for women that you [...]
I got a good laugh out of this one! I guarantee you the girls feel awkward by such displays and are laughing at the whole thing once they are outside of class, before and after they hook up with the bad boys who turn them on.
[...] Chivalry existed because women were social inferiors who needed to be protected, not because men felt like being nice to them. If you gals want to be treated like ladies, you have [...]
[...] knights, chivalrous cowards, male feminists, woman-worshipping conservatives, cuckold fetishists, and other assorted [...]