Chivalry - Are western men too chivalrous?

chivalrous knight rescues damsel in distress

Chivalry

Are western men too chivalrous, or not chivalrous enough?

Hi Harry,

I've been a long time reader of your excellent site.

As something of a "throwback" (and proud of it) myself, I do have a question regarding the roles of men in an "ideal society". Were I to find myself in a "Titanic" situation, let's say, I would not feel right in taking the place of a woman or a child on a lifeboat, and I do indeed think that men have a protective duty towards the women in their lives.

Well, that would be your choice. I do not know what mine would be given that many factors would probably sway my attitude. However, if I was the captain of a sinking ship, I would not choose to save the women over the men. I think that I would make the passengers draw lots.

And if they were westerners, I might even toss the women overboard myself in order to slow down the rate of sinking and, hence, maximise the longevity of everyone else.

LOL!

I think that western women have more than enough privileges in their lives.

And I would feel similarly if I was in charge of a hospital casualty unit dealing with a sudden influx of broken bodies. I would not send all my staff to the aid of the women first.

I might have done this forty years ago, but I would not dream of doing so now.

Indeed, were another man to insult a woman I was out with, I would feel honour bound to retort with at least words, if not with my boots and fists.

You have failed your MRA exams with your last seven words.

"He looked at my legs, just because I am wearing a short skirt. Go and beat him up."

"My boyfriend loves me so much that he beats up anyone who offends me."

Resorting to violence in order to 'protect' a woman from verbal offensiveness is exactly the kind of thing that enables women to induce violence towards men merely by claiming that they are deeply offended in some way. And much unwarranted male violence is, indeed, triggered by men blindly responding to comparatively trivial, or even totally imagined, sleights against women - women who often pretend to be offended precisely in order to incite violence towards others without getting their own hands dirty.

It is a ploy that many women use simply to exert power and to flatter themselves.

Indeed, many hundreds of black men were actually lynched not so long ago in order to avenge the various complaints that prissy white women often made about them - indeed, often accusing them falsely of 'rape' or sexual assault when, in fact, those poor b*ggers were highly unlikely even to utter an impolite word against them, let alone rape them.

lynching of black man

Guilty!

And if you really believe that offensive words directed at women are somehow the equivalent of physical violence against men then you have been well and truly suckered by women.

Furthermore, I suspect that you are partly fooling yourself into believing that you would merely be defending her by resorting to boots and fists. My guess is that you would be lashing out because it was mostly you who felt insulted.

I feel that we, as men, have these responsibilities- to care for women and to fight for their honour and way of life, as in the case of the brave men who went forward in all of our wars, and these responsibilities are perhaps onerous, but are part of being a man.

Times have changed. In those days, most women felt responsible for the well-being of their men. There was a mutual reciprocity that does not exist today.

And, further, by continuing to overprotect today's women when they would do precious little to protect you - if fact, when they would most likely do the very opposite - you are merely encouraging them to walk even further all over you and your fellow men; and, indeed, your country.

And most of those brave men whom you talk about would not have put up for long with the attitudes of the women that we have today.

And as for their 'honour'!??? Huh!

What honour?

Women do not have honour. It is not a quality that they possess. If they possessed any honour, we would not have them saying and doing what they say and do. And they would certainly not want you to use your 'boots and fists' simply to defend their 'honour'!

I think that you are confusing their ego with their 'honour'.

Ego they have a-plenty. Honour they have a-none.

(Of course, I exaggerate - for effect!)

... I simply wouldn't feel "right" were I to behave in what I felt was an unchivalrous fashion, for example using my physical strength against physical female aggression, or letting a door close in a young lady's face.

I think that you are slightly deluding yourself by imagining situations wherein you are being aggressed against by a woman versus those wherein you are being aggressed against by a man. And in your imagination, you see the aggression of the woman as being less of a threat to you than that arising from the man - which is, of course, most likely to be the case in real life.

And it is largely - but not wholly - for this reason that you reckon that you would less likely use physical aggression against a woman to defend yourself.

In other words, it is not solely because she is a woman that you would less likely use physical aggression. It is because you would perceive her as being less of a threat to you - which, mostly, she would be.

But, in my opinion, you should, more or less, feel the same way towards a man.

In other words, if a man was being physically aggressive towards you, but you could contain him without much in the way of retaliation (i.e. as if he was a woman) then I would argue that you should try to resist any temptation to go beyond that which is required to remove the threat to you that he poses.

aggressing women can be very violent indeed

But, be warned, aggressing women can be very violent indeed. And many men would find it impossible to defend themselves successfully from their violence without using violence themselves.

You delude yourself very badly indeed if you really think that you could successfully defend yourself against a serious attack from any woman without using violence.

But, of course, you have been brought up to see things this way.

Indeed, many malicious women will actually provoke violence in their men towards themselves simply in order to be able to claim at a later point in time that their partners were violent towards them. These women know full well that few people will believe that their male partners were simply using violence because it was the only means whereby they could successfully defend themselves. The aim of such women is to demonise their partners while portraying themselves as hapless victims.

And it is a common occurrence!

"Mr Nice Guy" usually ends up getting nowhere, while "Mr Bast'd" gets all the dames.

Notwithstanding all this, I also have to tell you that if ever you find your female partner being violent towards you then there is a very good chance indeed that whacking her back will solve many of your problems. Many women of the non-malicious variety actually feel happier when they know that their partners have limits beyond which they are not permitted to go - which, basically, is why "Mr Nice Guy" usually ends up getting nowhere, while "Mr Bast'd" gets all the dames.

But you are going to have to work that one out for yourself.

Finally, with regard to your comment about not letting a door close in a young lady's face, I wouldn't let it close in anybody's face!

And, basically, what I am driving at is this.

The respect that you say that you would give to women, you should also give to men.

Why not? Wherein lies the problem with this notion? Is it such a big deal to do this?

A similar feeling, I'm afraid, attaches itself to generalised social issues, for example. I would not feel right in turning my back on a young woman in need, whereas a young man, well, I might rationalise that, as I would expect myself to do, he could make his own way out.

Well, I must disagree completely.

Men are far less likely to get themselves out of trouble successfully than are women - by a long way. And I cannot at the moment think of one single area where this is not usually the case.

... My current thought is that the problem with feminism as a general social force is that it is attempting to paint my 'chivalrous' actions as somehow detrimental to women- by being 'patronising'. Perhaps, but who is it who has been telling women that a man who holds a door open for them with a smile is a patriarchal dinosaur or, worse still, simply trying to get them into bed?

I have never actually come across this attitude in real life, though I keep hearing about it. And I open the doors for women all the time, but I also do the same for men.

Indeed, I think that, nowadays, I am relatively unaffected by the gender of the person with whom I am interacting. But this does not mean that I end up treating them similarly because, for the most part, they are usually behaving differently - as a result of their gender; if you see what I mean. LOL!

But the notion that holding a door open for a woman is 'patronising', or that it is simply a man's way of trying to get her into bed, is just another example of those revolting feminists trying to demonise men by suggesting that even their most pleasant of behaviours is nothing more than an evil con trick.

you can barely look at a woman or a child these days without being suspected of something.

These revolting women have been doing this sort of thing for 30 years! And, as a result, you can barely look at a woman or a child these days without being suspected of something.

Every kind gesture is deemed to be packed with wicked intent.

They demonise your every move!

And this is why you need to stand up and fight against these revolting women instead of meekly allowing them to poison your entire world.

They really are deeply unpleasant women; extremely nasty, extremely malicious, highly vindictive and with a deep-seated hatred of men that they wish to promote in others.

You must wake up to this.

Let me try to help you.

Most of these feminist 'wimmin' and their lackey boys - such as those working at the BBC and, of course, lying female politicians like Harriet Harman - will scream and holler at you if you so much as make the mildest of criticisms against, say, blacks, Jews or gays. "By demonising them you will incite violence against them," they will proclaim hotly.

In other words, they are firmly of the view that people can be incited to violence against others merely by criticising them.

But they have no qualms at all about launching full campaigns of sheer hatred against men that go well beyond simple criticism - doing almost everything imaginable to portray - often very graphically - men as demons of one sort or another.

In other words, they believe that even mild criticism can incite violence against others, and yet they are perpetually demonising men in the most horrible way!

Tell me. What can you conclude from this? - other than that they are purposely and persistently trying to stir up violence against men!

There is no other realistic conclusion that you can come to!

Take it from me. These are really nasty people. And they are very much your enemy. And they are doing virtually everything that they can to fu#k up your life - and to profit from doing so.

Now, you might think that they do not, in fact, realise what they are doing. But, they do. They know exactly what they are doing.

I can assure you that lofty professionals who work in the media, in the government, in advertising, in long-time activist groups such the NSPCC and the various women's groups are very much aware of the impact that they have on people. It is something that they obsess about all the time.

It is their business.

And, as I have pointed out, these people will mostly claim that even the mildest of criticism can incite people to violence.

So, please, please, do not delude yourself into thinking that these people are simply misguided.

They are not.

They are malicious. They are self-serving. And you are their whipping boy. They do not give a toss about stirring up hatred or violence towards 'men' - so long as they profit.

But they would not dream of doing this to other groups.

You've been on the front line a lot longer than me, so to speak- any advice for a relatively green recruit?

Well; in summary, I would have no qualms about using physical force against a woman who was aggressing against me, and I would use just enough force to remove any serious threat to me - just like that police officer was doing recently when he was caught on CCTV. (He was whacking her upper arm to stop her grabbing at his testicles. And, in my opinion, he was quite justified in doing so.)

But I would do the very same if a man was aggressing against me.

women very often incite violence towards men

Finally, I would ask all young men to open their eyes to the fact that women very often incite violence towards men by claiming that they have been dreadfully 'abused' by them in some way - and that they very often exaggerate, or just lie. And they also often collude together to give the impression that they have been horribly abused. This is an old trick that women have used since they were chimpanzees, and one that has become somewhat more institutionalised these days thanks to feminism, and that has been perpetrated on a mass scale throughout the feminist-dominated media.

"Women are always victims." "Men are always perpetrators."

But the truth of the matter is this.

Men are for more likely to be the victims of just about anything that you can think of, and western women, for the most part, are far better off than their men. Indeed, women right across the planet seem to survive most circumstances far more successfully than do their men.

Physically, they are less powerful than men, but constitutionally they are stronger than men. And when it comes to negotiating or manipulating their way through the minds of other people, they leave men standing at the starting line.

But it seems to me that you actually think that women are 'better' than you, simply because they are women ...

One Iraqi Woman Is Worth All Iraqi Men The proud among us believe that killing all of Iraq's men is easier to accept than violating the honor of one Iraqi woman," said Sheik Jamaleddin al-Kobeisin.

... but I can assure you that they are decidedly not.

The malevolence and the self-serving aspects of women's natures are just far, far better hidden than are those of men. And, as a young man, I strongly suspect that you simply remain blissfully unaware of this.

But I am sure that one day you will finally learn the truth.

And it will probably be too late.

LOL!

Best wishes,

Harry