|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the context of being assertive, self-respect and respect for the rights of others, courtesy only reinforces individual rights and responsibilities. Aggressive behavior, which is associated with the female and feminist culture (at least in North America), seeks to use unethical means to obtain unethical ends, the unjust accumulation of political, economic, social, legal, and cultural power and rights. Chivalry (a form of assertive behavior not a form of subservient behavior towards females as is the case in North American culture) grew out the aristocratic traditions experienced in war that were successful in promulgating peace and preventing unnecessary war. My experience as a Vietnam combat soldier is that chivalry does (towards males and females), in fact, placate the enemy and reduces his incentive to fight and promotes peace.
The last thing that North American women, in general, appreciate is "Chivalrous" behavior which is a threat to their idea of males being subservient to them for the aforementioned
reasons. (In fact, subservient feminist males often demonstrate aggressive behavior) Given the above,I suggest that males remain "Chivalrous" (not subservient towards females) and assertive towards both men and women but recognize that the female and feminist culture, in general, is aggressive and organize collectively to counter the same or face the social, economic,culture, political, and legal consequences (as other cultures, nations, have faced even to the extend of slavery) for failure to do the same. The other logical choice for Chivalrous and assertive males, which is the best choice in my opinion, is emigration from the USA. The most common emigrant from the USA is an "educated male."
C.V. Compton Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think courtesy is something needed by all individuals in a society.
I haven't read the piece yet but my gut feeling tells me its another article aimed at women to make women even more suspicious of men.
Thereby dividing men and women even further because you opened the door for her.
I'll have to see what its about to make a full opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 26, @10:50PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I won't slam a door in a woman's face, at the grociery store, if I am going out ahead of her, or anything like that. But, ladies, most of you have two arms of your own, so you can open your own damned door.
There, since I don't open doors for women that proves I don't hold sexist views of them.
Oh, wait..., since I DON'T open doors for them that would prove I was hostile towards them, therefore hold sexist views of them.
...Huh...?!?
Well, that proves it once and for all. When it comes to feminism, Men can do no right.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Modern Chivalry, or as I like to call it, One-Sided Chivalry, is bogus and utter bullshit.
I'll agree to behave and act like a gentleman towards any woman - provided she agrees to behave and act like a lady to me.
People tend to forget that chivalry was a two way street, and those who were outside the bounds of chivalrous behavior could claim no protections. This not only incuded common people, but outlaws, whores, oathbreakers, and so on.
Extend chivalry to those unworthy of it, and you cheapen the cpourtesy you extend towards people who are worthy of it. There is no payoff for "right" behavior. You get that treatment anyway.
See how it works?
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's worth pointing out that the sample used in this study is college aged children. Most of whom are dependent on mommy and daddy and probably 18 or 19 years old. The findings may well be an accurate assessment of the sample tested but I would argue forcefully that this sample is far from representative of the general public. To make any kind of global claim is pretty foolish.
It seems like typical feminist research designed to alienate men from women and women from men. Harmonious with their anti-family stance.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"It seems like typical feminist research designed to alienate men from women and women from men. Harmonious with their anti-family stance. "
Ya, you got it. I figured as much and I haven't even read it yet. Classic. Odd thing is, they will be preaching this to those 19 year olds who don't know any better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 26, @08:07PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
This study is just the usual feminist misandry and vaginal monologue. Hey girls, let's get together and talk about the way men should behave!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 26, @10:55PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, AU.
Isn't it interesting that these fembots think that they know more about being men than men do?
The thing is, these gyno-doofeses don't even know how to be WOMEN!
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like I always say to women who want me to be subservient, "Chivalry is just a hair a way from chauvinism." When you think about it it really is. It's both subservience and chauvinistic (which really I'll define here as resentment, women see men's resentment and dub it "chauvinism"). First, it's subservience on a symbolic level. Joe and Sally date. Joe opens the door, pulls out the chair, etc. etc. After dating for a while, and out together on an evening when Joe really tire, hard day at the office, and he just doesn't feel like quick stepping it one step ahead of her to get the door to the restaurant, in fact he's a couple steps behind her and when she gets to the door what does she invariably do? She stands there and waits for him to open it. If he puts up a fuss, "For God sakes, you can open a door!" "I know honey but I want YOU to." Ultimately he must give in or the two will have a bad night and there is guaranteed to be NO nookie for him at the end of the night. The seemingly totally insignificant situation is really very significant. This is her way of testing him to see how he reacts when the two are in a stalemate and there's no reason for him to give in other than because she wants him to. Who has the power? She sees his giving in as a way of saying, "Honey, down the road when we have a disagreement and it reaches a stalemate, neither of us can give the other a reason to sway the other, I will eventually be the one to give in (so I don't have to sleep on the couch for the rest of my life) - But she doesn't hear or care about this last part in parenthesis. Chivalrous acts are just a way of her assuring herself that when the two reach a stalemate in the future HE will be the one who gives in.
Bill Kuhl (I'll be back later)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, chivalry is subservience like I said in so many words above. Also when women give me that chivalry bit I sometimes tell them that if we carry out this relationship into a marriage then I will expect her to stay home, eat bon-bons and have dinner ready for me. It's beyond simple. I open the door, etc. cause that's the traditional male role THEREFORE, if I got to play the traditional male role, "you have to play the traditional female role."
The other side of chivalry is a little more profound. I have believed for a long time that, speaking for myself now but have seen the same in lots and lots of men, I really do dislike women but not at all in the way the feminist say it. Let me clarify. This disliking of women isn't really a misogyny or anything like that it's simply the resentment I feel at being forced into a position in life where I'm EXPECTED to protect some group of strangers (chivalry) simply because I got born with a certain genitalia or I'm not considered "a man" or I'm at least punished with sexual rejection. I'm seen as less of a man, as undesirable. Over the years this resentment has built without my knowing it and has come out in some unhealthy ways, but again not in any of the ways rad feminists describe (rape, domestic violence, etc...). The resentment has hurt me a lot more than it has ever hurt any woman. I've developed a lot of awareness over the years about this and the resentment has evolved into a disgust with anyone, male or female, who perpetuates rigid, traditional gender roles, especially the most damaging parts of gender roles (ie. coming down on men for expressions of sadness, fear or encouraging a woman to work in a more traditionally feminine career simply cause she's a woman). So any forcing people into, encouraging of, traditional gender roles (which is what chivalry really is, just being assigned some task cause you got certain genitalia) is just going to someday evolve into those people developing a resentment which, when it comes out over years and years of festering, looks like chauvinism in its harshest form ("Well if I'm expected to protect her all the time, essentially forced into the position of bodyguard just cause of the way I was born, shouldn't Ihave the right to slap her around a little?"). Chivalry, chauvinism they're essentially the same in my book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
