Monday, April 16, 2012

Chivalry is only dead if you let it be dead

Dalrock has a new post today, in which he takes a writer at the Canadian Post to task for her article on the anniversary of the Titanic sinking. Of course, the CP was asking for it when they titled the article: Titanic Anniversary: Is a man brave or condescending if he lets women and children go first?

How dare those awful men let themselves drown in the icy North Atlantic! Equality demands that men fight their way into the lifeboats, "women and children first" be damned!

I grew up reading tales of male gallantry from King Arthur and his knights, right on down to the Hardy Boys. Call me old-fashioned, but I still think it's the man's job to slay dragons (and spiders). Men are the rescuers, and women are the rescued.

It took a while, but I eventually managed to get my wife trained to wait for me to open her car door. It's a small gesture, but it's symbolic. A feminist would say that it's symbolic of my need to control my wife, or that I'm suggesting she's not capable of opening her own door. That, like most things that feminists say, is bullshit. It's a gesture of kindness and respect. It's a masculine duty, although modern society deprecates such notions.

You also won't see my wife pushing a lawn mower or taking the trash can down to the curb. Those are "man jobs" at our house. I'm aware that my wife is plenty capable of opening doors, pushing lawnmowers, and toting trash. She does much tougher jobs, like putting in a new flower bed, for fun. But if I sat on the porch with a beer in my hand while she mowed the yard, my grandfather's ghost would pay me a nocturnal visit to ask where my genitals had gone.

What does this have to do with Game? Why, everything!  Game, properly understood, IS a modern version of Chivalry. Like the knight on a quest, the man who has taken the red pill must go his own way. Like the medieval man, the man who knows Game knows the weakness of women, and the need to protect them. Contrary to feminist rhetoric, you are stronger than your wife; or at least, you should be.

Chivalry is noble by it's very definition. As John Huizinga said, "the source of the chivalrous idea, is pride aspiring to beauty, and formalized pride gives rise to a conception of honour, which is the pole of noble life."

So have some pride, and give rise to honor. Don't let the feminists take away chivalry.


  1. " A feminist would say that it's symbolic of my need to control my wife, or that I'm suggesting she's not capable of opening her own door."

    Yeah . . . fuck 'em. If someone said that, the only proper response is "No, it's not symbolic at all. I am controlling my wife. But I prefer the term 'management'." And then tell them that, y'know, they might be really very pretty if they'd JUST try a little make-up.

    That's entertaining all on it's own.

    I second the defense of Chivalry -- which has gotten a bad rap in the Manosphere sometimes -- and I plan on doing a post on the subject Real Soon Now.

  2. You might like this article by Caleb over on Taken In Hand. He writes:

    "The power you give her through your chivalrous actions, by being in love with her and through your fidelity, can be balanced and easily exceeded by being her lord and master, taking and keeping her firmly in hand. A strong man does not need to diminish his wife or his love for his wife. A strong man can be chivalrous, passionately in love and faithful to his wife and still have enormous power over his wife.

    Devote effort to making yourself stronger if necessary. If you choose instead to avoid chivalry, fidelity and passionate love, you will actually be weakening yourself as a man and diminishing your pleasure, passion and enjoyment in your marriage, and sooner or later you will become dissatisfied in that barren wasteland."

    ~ Gila ~

    Tried to log in but it isn't working. Sorry.