The Withdrawal of Chivalry From All Women

A few years ago I had two woman tell me, "Men are responsible for all that problems in the world." This was in 2010, not 1968, and neither was a man-hating lesbian, just spinsters without husband, home and children, which is why they blamed all her problems on men. And both had easy jobs making over forty grand a year.

I told one, "No, sweetheart, you've got it exactly backwards. Women ruin everything they get involved in, and men have created culture, civilization and technology."

I had engaged in one of those Gedankenexperiments (thought experiments) that many people think Einstein invented (he just popularized the concept in the U.S.) and had come to some, let's say, rather interesting conclusions. Those conclusions left the aforementioned woman speechless. (I had actually expected her to go all female-hysterical on me.)

Let's imagine if all men withdraw all chivalry from all women. Now of course we have to define chivalry. Let's use a really broad definition: everything that men do, wittingly or unwittingly, to protect and support women.

Using that definition, if all chivalry was withdrawn, what would happen?

Women's lives would completely collapse.

Men created civilization. They created culture. They created technology. If they withdrew all those things from women, women would be, to quote Camille Paglia, reduced to living in grass huts. Or, as humorist P.J. O'Rourke wrote, without men, civilization would last until the next oil change.

Carl Jung thought that men were biologically and universally the natural 'culture makers' – more objective, better leaders, more rational, and more independent. He believed that women were biologically and universally the 'relaters,' who were better at caring for others, knowing their feelings and emotions, and valuing relationships. He also said, "Man cannot stand a meaningless life," so you might want to watch happens when meaning, importance and community are taken out of men's lives - because that is what the purpose of feminism is.

Some women, of course, have added to civilization, culture and technology. But they are a handful because they are statistical outliers. Of course, leftists (all of whom are self-deluded mental cases) will say the lack of contribution was due to thousands of years of oppression. (If leftism can be defined in one sentence, it's this: "It's your fault, not mine!")

The reason so few women have added to society is because they overwhelmingly don't have the ability. This is why men dominate (and always have, and always will) in STEM (science, technology, engineering, math). They're also going to dominate in those dirty dangerous jobs like mining, logging and construction. Men (specifically white men) are responsible for creating discovering about 98% of everything in history.

What do women bring to the table? Their wombs. The ability to have children. Decorating the house. And that, ultimately, is why men protect them. No women, no children, no home.

These days, women control their reproduction (thanks to male scientists). They can get divorced and take a man's children and half his income (thanks to laws passed by men). They have access to easy, high-paying jobs because of Affirmative Action (which means "White Men Need Not Apply"). They can get abortions any time they want for any reason. And men allowed them to do these things.

I consider all of those things to be "chivalrous," although it's a perversion of true chivalry. A chivalrous man was originally an armed knight of generally high economic and social status, who was willing to do violence to protect the weak and helpless. And as the poster know as Dalrock wrote, "An act of kindness or deference by such a man to someone weaker or lower in status to him is gracious in nature because of the real and immediate ability he possessed to do otherwise."

Unfortunately the modern perversion of "chivalry" has backfired, and in a big way. Men have actually cut their own throats. And as for women in combat, except for a few (and they will be protected by men) that's not going to happen. What it means in women in the back with easy jobs, and lots of undeserved promotions and raises while men, as always, die or are horribly wounded. Just as they do in dirty, dangerous jobs that women don't want to do.

Many women expect to be treated as a man's equal - except they don't iy. They still want men to be chivalrous. If men on a sinking ship pushed women out of the way, women would be outraged and horrified about all these terrible men shirking their obligations to die for women they don't even know. They would all kinds of articles about how they are entitled to this. They want these men to be gracious, if you define "gracious" as meaning "I could kick your ass but I choose to help you instead." It's gotten to the point where some men are saying, "I owe you nothing."

I am reminded of what is called "The Three Laws of RoMANtics:

1. A manbot may not injure a woman being or, through inaction, allow a woman being to come to harm.

2. A manbot must obey any orders given to it by woman beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A manbot may protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Many years ago I told a woman, "Women want all the advantages of being a man and a woman and none of the responsibilities of either." She said nothing because she had no answer.

I believe women's greatest fear is to be deserted (I don't mean just by a man, but everything men have done for them). And the withdrawal of chivalry is, to them, being deserted. On some level they must know that without the contributions and support of men, they're reduced to poverty and destitution. Their lives would be Solitary, Poor, Nasty, Brutish and Short.

Their lives would be horrible. That's one of the reasons they get so bitter without husband, home and children. They think it's their due, along with easy, high-paying, indoor jobs.

Anything women have gotten involved in (because men let them) they destroy. Men gave them the vote, and they have consistently voted socialist. They dominate in education and now we have little boys stuffed with dangerous psychiatric drugs such as Ritalin because they act like boys and not girls. Bring a squirt-gun to school and you could end up in jail (those cops should be ashamed of themselves).

Instead of gratitude toward men there is bitterness, anger and sometimes hate. These are the fruits of feminism: "As you sow, so you shall reap." These are the logical consequences of leftist/lesbian feminism.

You can't be happy unless you feel gratitude. As Meister Eckhardt wrote, "If the only prayer you ever say in your entire life is thank you, it will be enough."

I had mentioned that without meaning, importance and community in life (Eckhardt's "thank you") you won't have much of a life. Women are not appreciating and saying "thank you" to men anymore and in response men are withdrawing their chivalry from women. Men are returning the resentment and contempt directed at them for the last 40 years.

I'd like to see it taught in school that men created culture and civilization and technology. That might happen someday, but it's not going to be anytime soon, not with "Women's Studies," Human Resources, Education and other worthless classes and degrees.

Ultimately men are responsible for feminism, because of a misguided sense of fair play. Because of a misguided sense of chivalry. In other words, men don't want to be gracious anymore, and instead some want to hurt women.

Chivalry is about protecting. It goes with providing. Both have been taken from men, and in fact thrown in their faces. So why are women shocked that many men are no longer chivalrous? Why should they be? What's in it for them? Is there a return on this "investment"? No, there's not.

A few years ago I saw a woman trying to change a tire with the wrong tools. She would have never gotten that tire off. So I changed it for her.

I will do longer do that. These days, she's on her own. And in one ways than one.