Tag Archives: Chivalry

Obliviousness, Incivility, and the Destruction of the Old Order

I came across this article from some feminist who, according to the little blurb at the bottom, has written for “Jezebel, The Frisky, The Huffington Post and The Good Men Project.” In it she complains of the incivility of men in public:

It’s a drizzly Friday in Chicago and I’m leaving a bar with my roommate sometime after midnight. We’re on a quest for tacos and we’re discussing the finer points—Should we get pork or beef? From where? How many?—when you decide to make our conversation your business. You’ve been loitering outside the bar with your friends, but you hear the word “taco” and soon you’re in lock step with us, asking us about our “tacos,” laughing, hooting back to your friends. We push past—literally shoving you—and continue on our way.

Here are some things you should know about my week: I’m on the phone with my mom on my way to yoga when a guy leans out of a doorway, drags on his cigarette and gestures with his pelvis how much he is enjoying my yoga pants. I’m walking home from the grocery store and a middle-aged guy, maybe high, maybe drunk, yells at me, “Get back here, girl!” I’m waiting for the bus when a carful of bros whips by; one leans out the passenger window, points at the girls waiting at the bus stop and yells, “Yes, Yes, No…Yes!” After work, I’m walking from the train to my apartment and four teenagers are trailing me, discussing my body, guessing measurements; they know I can hear them.

This behaviour causes her to feel unsafe. This is understandable as she is a young woman and these men are quite obviously under-civilized brutes; rape or violence would not seem to be an impossibility in some of these situations and given the inherent physical inequalities between the sexes there is little she could do to defend herself (excepting carrying a gun, which someone who writes for Jezebel is unlikely to do).

This is not my issue with what she has written. The incivility of modern times sometimes irks me as well, although, as a tall, broad-shouldered man with confident bearing, I rarely worry for my physical safety.

Rather, my issue is that, as feminists are wont to do, she blames “the patriarchy” for the incivility of ruffians.

She, of course, being an miseducated feminist is oblivious to the twin facts that:

1) Men being uncivil is not “the patriarchy”, it is the breakdown of the patriarchy. It is men being freed from the constraints which the patriarchy put upon them.

2) The left-wing feminist politics she advocates are the primary cause of this breakdown.

Because of this her analysis, such that it is, is flawed.


Men’s sexuality, absent civilizational constraint, is naturally aggressive and promiscuous. These men laughing at a woman’s “taco”, grabbing ass, and doing pelvic-thrusts, are acting out their natural sexuality.

At one point in our society, this would have been unacceptable behaviour. Under the old order, lovingly referred to as the patriarchy, but probably more accurately referred to as civilization, civility towards woman was standard; it was called chivalry.

Men raised under this order would have been loath to issue even a mild oath in the presence of a woman, let alone crassly harass a woman over her “tacos”. Had a man been uncivilized enough to harass a woman in such a way, he would have suffered immediate consequences in the form of violence from other honourable men, and more permanent consequences from a loss of social status.

As an example of the sort of man the old order raised, we can use one Samuel Proctor, who tipped his hat towards a woman. When said woman asked what that meant he replied:


A man raised in the old order as Mr. Proctor was, would never have even considered joking about a woman’s “tacos”.

Civilization was used to control men’s natural sexual aggressiveness to create men like Mr. Proctor, who acted civilized and would control their aggressive sexuality for the betterment of society and the safety of women.

Some decades ago, a cabal of dissatisfied women under the label of feminism and a small, but vocal minority under the banner of affiliated progressive ideologies decided they did not care for civilization and its constraints. They rebelled against it and fought a long, hard ideological war to destroy it.

They won.

This cabal destroyed the old order and with it the control it had over men’s sexuality.

Men are now free to be uncivil brutes. Civilization no longer holds full sway over them.

Hence, “tacos.”


So, in finale:

Dear Feminist,

This is the world you desired.

You and your ideological kin spent decades ruthlessly destroying the old order which kept men civilized. You smashed the patriarchy which kept men’s naturally externalized sexuality healthly internalized and productively directed.

You denigrated the institutions which controlled men, smashed the civilization which ordered men, and have created a generation of brutes and half-men.

You asked for sexual license. Men are now free to express their sexuality without consequence.

You asked for freedom to pursue hedonism. Men are now pursuing hedonism.

You asked to be freed from the rules of civilized conduct. Men are now freed from these rules as well.

You rejected your role as a lady. Men are rejecting their role as gentlemen.

These rules were made to protect you, dear woman. The patriarchy was made for your benefit. The old order existed to serve you.

You desired, nay demanded, them destroyed, and destroyed they have been.

When you destroy civilization, incivility will be the order of the day.

You have got what you asked for, enjoy it.


A Traditionalist


Chivalry, the Lady, and the Old Order

Some chick at the Atlantic is asking for chivalry to come back. As is standard is many modern pro-chivalry arguments, she is talking only of men treating women as special, not about women’s corresponding duties under chivalry.

At one point in the article she asks:


She then goes on about some stupidity about respect and civility.

The simple answer though is yes.

Chivalry and equality are not and can not exist simultaneously.

Chivalry is based in a hierarchical world-view and can not be separated from that worldview.

Chivalry is far more than simple respect and civility. Chivalry is a code whereby the stronger and superior man (the knight) extends his strength and protection to his inferiors who were too weak to protect themselves (women and children).*

In the chivalric hierarchy knights were strong protectors, women were weak and in need of protection. Inherent inequality is built into chivalry.

In exchange for this protection, women submitted to men and acted like ladies. They complemented the men’s strength.

Chivalry rested on this traditional order of society, where inequality and feminine submission is an accepted fact of life. Without this old order, chivalry is impossible.


Besides inherent inequality, chivalry also requires on other thing: that women act like ladies.

If either of those two conditions is broken then chivalry can not exist. Any acts you do to be “chivalrous” are nothing more than chumphood and supplication.

A lady was originally a noblewomen. Over time, in romantic chivalry it came to refer to a virtuous women. Nowadays, its usually used as somewhat more polite/formal term for women. Only ladies deserve gentlemen, a term with similar origins and complementary meanings as that of lady.

Fundamental to the conception of both the lady and the gentleman is the concept of honour. A man’s honour in the romantic realm was found in his protection of and graciousness towards women. A women’s honour was found in her chastity and her graciousness towards men.

We already know how a gentleman acts; we call it chivalry. So, I will not go further into his duties. But how does a lady act?

A lady is chaste; she does not slut it up, she does not dress like a cheap hooker, she does not tease, and her flirting is light, discrete, and indirect. A lady does not compete with men. A lady acts with propriety and decorum; she is gentle, polite, well-mannered. A lady is feminine, she knows her nature and acts according to it. A lady is beautiful; she knows that her natural god-given beauty is a delight for the rest of the world, so she seeks to maintain it rather than destroy it. A woman who acts this way is deserving of chivalry.

Chivalry is for ladies. It is not for modern, independent women.


Women, you have a choice.

You can like ladies and accept either inequality or submission or you can cast these off.

If you decide to act like ladies, men can act like gentleman and be chivalrous in return.

If you decide to act like modern, independent women, then you have made the choice to reject chivalry. If you ask for men to be chivalrous, all you are asking for is unearned privilege. You sound like a spoiled brat.

If you do not hold up your end of the chivalric bargain, why the hell should men be expected to hold up their end?

Do not ask for or expect chivalry; in fact, you should be repulsed by chivalry.

Enjoy your hook-ups.


At this point some may be wondering if I am anti-chivalry. The answer to that is no, I am very pro-chivalry.

But chivalry exists as a part of the old order. Apart from that old order it is meaningless.

I am pro-chivalry, because I believe in resurrecting that old order. Within that old order, chivalry is a wonderful thing for both men and women. Outside that order, it is nothing.

As long as the old order remains buried, no male has a general duty of duty towards women.

In fact, every male should refuse to extend chivalry to a modern, equal, independent woman.


If you are thinking of being chivalrous ask yourself three questions:

1) Does the woman I am about to be chivalrous think she is my equal?
2) Does the woman I am about to be chivalrous to think a women’s place is to submit to a man?**
3) Does this women I am about to be chivalrous comport herself as a lady?

If the answer to the first is yes and the second is no, treat her as the equal she believes herself to be. (If you do not know the answer, use social cues to determine the likely answer).

Do not give her chivalry. Do not hold the door open for her. Do not pay for her. Do not fight for her. Do not die for her.

As well, I would suggest not marrying her, but that’s an argument distinct from chivalry.

To give chivalry to any women who believes she is equal to you is to insult her. Chivalry implies and necessitates inferiority; by giving it to her you are telling her she is either inferior to or in submission to you. Given her stance on equality this should be repugnant to her.

Any women who believes they are equal yet demands chivalry is either insulting herself, selfish, or just plain stupid. Refuse to play into her stupidity.

Respect a women who thinks she’s your equal by treating her like an equal.

If the answer to the third question is no, then she is not a lady and not worthy of knightly protection. Do not waste yourself on her.

If a women acts like a lady, and believes in either male superiority or complementarianism, then be chivalrous. She is submitting to you, your protection, and your providence and is deserving of having it provided to her. Do not fail her.


* The worldview of the chivalric code was also based on militarism, fuedalism, and Christianity. From these flowed other parts to the code such as knightly honour, duties to countrymen/Christians, and duties to God, which are also intrinsic to the code, but these aspects are not what most discuss when talking of chivalry nowadays. For this particular post, chivalry will refer only to knightly duties to women as distinct from the other parts of the code, unless otherwise stated. I’m not sure if it is possible for the part of the code dealing with knightly duties to women can be separated from the rest of the code and remain logically coherent, but in practice it has been, so I will assume for this post that it can be.

** This second question allows for complementarians/first mates who may hold to metaphysical equality, but not practical equality. I would argue that practical inequality is all that is fully necessary for chivalry to be extended, so complementarians and first mates should be provided with the protection of chivalry. But I could see where it could be debatable to hold metaphysical inequality as being necessary for chivalry; in which case you would withhold chivalry from most complementarians/first mates.

Lightning Round – 2012/10/24

Are you masculine enough to deserve the feminine woman you demand?
Related: Feminism can not exist where masculine men do.

The Captain gives entitled whiners a smack down.

Oneitis causes death.

A good wife is a home maker; a bad wife is a home breaker.

A women declaring oneself a born-again virgin would be a greater deal-breaker than her not being a virgin. If a woman has slutted it up, she should at least be honest about it instead of living in self-delusion.

Marriage: What’s in it for men?

Athol has a post on the effect of vasectomies on sex. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a negative effect, as semen gives benefits to women and a  vasectomy may block some of those.

This seems fake to me. I’ve never seen a women be that rationally calculating before.

An interesting hypothesis: Feminists cry because they are brain-damaged.

I am in favour of chivalry as a concept, but I believe it should be reserved for ladies and not wasted on ungrateful feminists, sluts, and egalitarians.

Sometimes, Roissy can really turn a phrase.

The etymology of the word slut. It is exclusively female.
Related: SSM has a revelation.

The Captain opines on black men and the manosphere.

A good look into the insane, rambling mind of a frivolous divorcee, hypocritical feminist, and self-indulgent narcissist. Fascinating reading of a hamster going full-tilt if you can stomach the pure, unfiltered mind vomit of a horrible example of womanhood.

The church-going travails of a traditionalist.

Teaching teens game. I’m interested in how this will go.

Proof of the attractiveness of the dark triad.

Seems Frost has jumped on the Koanic Tech/Edenism band wagon. Not sure if I buy it, but it’s interesting. I plan to learn more.
Related: Forney has created an Edenic link aggregator.

Frost is picking himself up after arriving back to where he began.

Let the boomers starve.
Related: Screw the boomers, they fucked us over hard.

The “war on women” is a dangerous myth.
Related: Women are beginning to realize the damage feminism has done.

Whited Sepulchre prescribes some truth pills on Obamacare.
Related: Death panels? What death panels?
Related: Yeah… Our health care is not better than the Yanks’.

Vox has an interesting post on the lawsuit against the Italian geologists. Not sure what to think, but he makes a persuasive argument.

Wright on why libertarian purists should vote for Romney.
Related: Romney kills a speech and rips liberal a new one.
Related: Why are there so few female libertarians? I think it’s simply because women are herd creatures, while libertarianism is an individualist philosophy.

If Romney’s stable family and home threaten your values, there’s probably something wrong with you.

Tim 2012. I’d vote for him.

The squeeze on the middle class.

The people you meet on public transit. Hehe.

If you’re giving child support and poor, it’s about to get worse.

Some humour from /b/. Hehe.

The unintended side effects of divorce on ballroom dancing.

Steyn on the feds controlling children’s lunches.

I might have linked this before, but it bear repeating. Paul Krugman is a dishonest hack.
Related: An excellent chart comparing the Reagan recovery and the Obama “recovery”.

Peak oil is the BS of dishonest hacks.

The IRS sells your private information for only $35.

The implications of being able to genetically identify potential future criminals.

12-year-old shoots home intruder. Props to her.

(H/T: SDA, Instapundit, Maggie’s Farm, SSM, Alpha Game)

Lightning Round – 2012/10/10

A salute to conventional wisdom.

Destroying our kids, one drug at a time.
Related: John Dewey is one of the worst Americans ever.

If she’s had sex before marriage, she’s probably had better sex before she married you.
Related: Ruined by 5 minutes of alpha.

Debasing marriage.
Related: Peter Pan Manboys.
Related: Mark Minter on marriage. Nihilism in action.
Related: The importance of marriage. Part 2.

Feminist responds to Aurini. Can’t handle red pill; calls him a monster;.
Aurini responds.

The Bible: the original Red Pill.

Some brides are just disgusting.

Most women aren’t worth chivalry.

No dating relationship should last 9 years.

Game Theory: The Axioms of Game.

The misandry bubble has popped. The anti-feminism bubble is beginning.

Boomers and the War on the Young.

SAT Data: Boys score better, even though girls do better in school.

The manosphere is for men.

The good guys win one.

Female doubts about a marriage lead to divorce (men’s don’t).

Science: Slowly destroying egalitarianism brick by brick.

Better strength than smarts.

Frost contemplates being back home.

As I’ve written before: child care is not economical.

Cool. I hate the phone, but I hate texting even more.

Why liberals are ugly redux. The original.

Society requires old men to be dangerous.

The decline occurs because society is corrupt at every level.

Liberal economics. We trade “leadership” for stuff.

Estonia: Austerity works. Screw you Krugman.
So did Reagenomics. Screw Keynesianism.

Producer tells the truth. Leftists freak out.

Alternatives to tough luck for libertarians.

Socialism in action. Good food banned in schools.

I hate the phrase “correlation doesn’t equal causation“. It is almost always used as an intellectual cop-out by people who don’t understand it.

The miracle of photoshop.

Hehe… Tolerant leftists and dating conservatives.

Striking is for ignoramuses without self-respect.

How it feels to be smart. I’m not quite as smart as the writer, but his observations seem about right.

(H/T: SDA, Maggie’s Farm, Bitter Babe, 3MM, the Captain, Instapundit, Shining Pearls, RWCAG)