Sunday, February 18, 2007

Chivalry is Dead (or senile at best)

The definition of chivalrous is "marked by gracious courtesy and high-minded consideration especially to women."

There is a sad lacking in today's world of gallant or distinguished gentlemen (though I'll say that most of the men who come here are the exception). I'm tempted to blame the feminazis for that. Well, it's probably not all their fault, but they are probably a big part of it. They insist that they be treated as men, and so then you have all these men who think that all women want to be treated as men. Sorry, that just ain't so.

I am a woman and feminine and happy to be feminine. And I expect to be treated as a feminine woman. I don't mind being 'delicate' or 'fragile'. This isn't to say that I'm weak or incapable. I've been through three pregnancies, labors, deliveries via c-section, and the recoveries of those surgeries. The feminine kind of strength it takes to do that is much greater than whatever exertion it might have taken for the male to plant his seed. Women are not the 'weaker vessel' unless you are comparing something basically trivial like the average muscle strength of men and women.

It's probably easier for men to treat women as men. That takes no consideration or thought about adjusting speech and actions. It's the lazy way out.

One of the worst results of this lack of chivalry is that men assume that a strong, capable, intelligent woman can, or wants to, take care of herself and doesn't want any help with problems, car doors, or whatever. I like help. I don't resent the offer of help. I'm usually not afraid to ask for help. And if you want to know the God's honest truth, I'm pretty disappointed when I'm not offered help when it looks like I might need it. I know I should probably take that as other people having confidence in my ability to handle things on my own. I appreciate that thought, but I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm not a Superwoman who can handle it all without some help and support at times. There is no such thing as a completely independent person- male or female.

Anyway, when a man mistreats a woman it is a sure sign that he is underendowed in many ways. He can't use the excuse that if a woman is 'equal' to him that she should expect to be treated as roughly as he would treat a man. That's not equality. That's meanness. I can't pretend to understand why some men are so hateful, angry, and unmanly that they think it's okay to beat up on a woman.

But it's clear that any man who does abuse a woman, verbally or physically, is too weak and cowardly to beat up on other men. A woman is an easy target. And of course, the bad men will use anything she might do in attempting to defend herself or fight back as some kind of evidence that she has no honor for others to defend. It's just like the old witch tests where they'd throw an accused witch into the river, and if she floated/swam she was a witch and had be burned, but if she drowned, well, then she was a good woman who unfortunately died.

So this brings me to a complaint that I've been very hesitant to make. But I really do want to say it and I will. I'm shocked that practically no 'chivalrous' men who have witnessed my abuse by a nasty and underendowed man have stepped up to intervene. WTF?? If you saw a man abusing one of your female friends in your office, for example, would you just turn away and pretend that it wasn't happening? Would you think, "Oh, she can handle that herself. I don't want to get involved"? Well, I don't know. Maybe you do think that, but if you do then whatever 'superior' male endowments that Nature has given you are being completely wasted.

Think about your mother, your wife, your sister, or your daughter. Would you like it if someone mistreated them? It's inexcusable to me for someone to ignore or dismiss a man attacking, mistreating, abusing, etc., a woman. It's as if it's an endorsement of that behavior.

To disagree with someone and have civil debates is one thing. But to allow someone to relentlessly verbally abuse another is downright plebeian. And it's NOT EVEN LIBERAL.

14 comments:

dhammett said...

Good Morning, Rae Ann -

Not being wise in the ways of the blogosphere, it took some doing for me to see what was going on that caused you to generate this post. I'm truly sorry things went the way they did for you over at the pig's blog.

You probably already know this, but I found that trying to change people's minds is difficult business, especially when their minds are filled with liberal dogma. Not that conservatives aren't guilty of this as well, but my experience is that the very same liberals who claim to espouse openness are some of the most closed-minded, intolerant and vitriolic people around, should you choose to disagree with them.

I appreciate the principle of keeping one's friends close and one's enemies closer. And visiting liberal blogs is one way to do that. But to dare express a conservative viewpoint at a liberal blog and to expect to be treated civilly is, I think, expecting too much. Especially when the blogmaster there has, and uses, the ability to delete posts at his discretion.

Don't worry about what those knuckle-draggers said. Shake the dust from your robes and move on. Or, in the words of Mick Jagger,

"But if you just put your hand in mine
We're gonna leave all the trouble behind

Keep on walking - Dont look back!"

http://www.keno.org/stones_lyrics/dont_look_back.htm

Have a great day.

Rae Ann said...

Hi dh!

Thanks, and that is a perfect, timely song! ;-) I know I should just stop trying over there, but I guess I'm kind of driven to try to enlighten even if it means getting some abuse. Viktor Frankl said something like this:

"That which gives light must endure burning."

I really hate that he deleted one (actually, two) of my comments. I thought it was very funny. ;-)

Basically, I was playing the scary hillbilly role that I had been given. I brought up the movie "Deliverance" and the part about making the obnoxious city boys "squeal like pigs." Weeeee! LOL

Of course, I'd never want to actually touch some nasty liberal's ass, much less penetrate it with anything, but the imagery was absolutely perfect for the situation. Oh well, as you said, they only censor that which offends them but not what offends me, or any other conservatives.

That SE Healey/Anal-yzer jerk was taunting me and doing the equivalent of calling a black person a n*gger. They might not see it that way, but that's the price they pay when they invoke political correctness. It has to apply to everyone, not just their chosen groups.

And one of my deleted comments asked SE Healey, apparently an graduate astrophysics student at Stanford who calls himself "Analyzer" (I know this because of the statcounter information from when he left an abusive comment on my global warming post) if he planned to add to his post graduate resume that he likes to pick on female hillbillies from Tennessee. I assured him that any future employers would be very impressed with that display of intellect and choice of battles. ;-)

rafa said...

Dear Rae Ann

Liberals seem to love Spinoza, the philosopher. Here's what he wrote once

"Love is a joy, accompanied by the idea of an external cause. Hate is a sadness, accompanied by the idea of an external cause"

Not all sadness can be removed of course but I tend to agree with dhammett. If some external causes can be avoided then we can prevent all this hate around us.

BTW, you, or any other woman, can expect from me the highest chivalry. And I'm proud of it.

:-)

Have a nice Monday

Rae Ann said...

Hi Rafa! Thanks for your wisdom and kindness. I was worried that I had scared you away recently.

Have a good evening,

Anonymous said...

Rae Ann,



One deletion was actually a blunder - I haven't quite mastered Haloscan comments. I also asked A to behave and he promised to do so.

FWIW

CIP

Rae Ann said...

cip, thanks, I guess.

Anonymous said...

Rae Ann - though I do not agree with most of your political views, if chance allows I would certainly open a door for you!

Rae Ann said...

Anonymous,

Thanks! And your statement is the epitome of chivalry. Very nice! :-)

Anonymous said...

Ah - I forgot to sign it...the chivalrous post was from me, changcho.

Anonymous said...

Chivalry is silly. It's part of an antiquated culture. It is better to treat everyone equally. If you want to be chivalrous, there should be a good reason, the simple fact that someone is a woman is not a good reason to be chivalrous. I am chivalrous only to old people, because I think they've earned the right. And I think they generally need and deserve the physical assistance that usually counts as chivalry. So do handicapped people. Perfectly able-bodied women don't deserve this as much as "differently-abled" people do.

Rae Ann said...

Anonymous, you certainly have a right to your opinion, but I'm not sure I'd like to encounter you somewhere because your attitude tells me that you are basically a selfish person who really doesn't have much concern for other people. Only being chivalrous to "old people" or "disabled people" is just another form of discrimination based on some random trait.

Did you miss the definition of "chivalrous"? A careful reader would understand that it isn't only in regards to women. However, would you not open a door for a pregnant woman or a woman whose arms are occupied with children? My point here is that we all should make an extra effort to have consideration for others regardless of who they are. I often open doors for men, not just old men. Usually, the first one to the door should open it and hold it for others who are entering. If this is some "antiquated" way of being then I'll stay in the past, thank you.

But mostly, this post was about men who use "equality" as an excuse to beat up on women, either verbally or physically. And that's just despicable no matter what.

Anonymous said...

"However, would you not open a door for a pregnant woman or a woman whose arms are occupied with children?"

Rae Ann, I would definitely open a door for a pregnant woman. I would open the door for somone who had their arms occupied, WHETHER MAN OR WOMAN. If, by chivalry, you mean simply being nice to EVERYONE (men or women), then we are definitely not talking about the same thing. But if, by chivalry, you mean being nice to just women, specifically because they're women, then we're on the same page. That is what I'm arguing against. I'm not arguing against being nice to everyone. The definition of chivalry I found in the dictionary is:

"The qualities idealized by knighthood, such as bravery, courtesy, honor, and gallantry toward women."

I am all for courtesy, honor and gallantry. But the part of that sentence that pisses me the hell off is the "women" part. My own version of chivalry would change the "women" part to "everyone". And that's the definition I go by and live by.

-----------------------------------

"Anonymous, you certainly have a right to your opinion, but I'm not sure I'd like to encounter you somewhere because your attitude tells me that you are basically a selfish person who really doesn't have much concern for other people."

I am not a selfish person. I only give help to people who need it. There's nothing selfish about restricting your assistance solely to people who, according to your judgement, deserve it. For example, say I'm on a train, I'm sitting down and all other seats are available. A perfectly able-bodied woman (not pregnant, handicapped, old, frail-looking, anorexic or just generally looking tired) gets on the train and has nowhere to sit ? Do I give up my seat ? No. I wouldn't give up my seat for a perfectly able-bodied man, so why give it up for a perfectly able-bodied woman ? A perfectly able-bodied man is no different from a perfectly able-bodied woman, they are both able-bodied in my opinion and, thus, not deserving of my help. Now an old, weak or handicapped person would get my seat in a heartbeat because I feel they need the help. If I do choose to give up my seat to a perfectly able-bodied woman, then I SHOULD be willing to give up my seat to ANY able-bodied person, whether man or woman. If I'm in this state of mind, I should, in principle, give up my seat to the first able-bodied person (man or woman) who comes along, not just the first woman.

It's so funny that you're complaining about people being selfish. We live in a selfish world. We live in a culture that promotes selfishness. Isn't that the essence of capitalism and the antithesis of communism ? As a conservative yourself, most of the views you hold on various issues are based on selfishness and the belief that your happiness and safety come before that of others. I have read your arguments in support of the war on Iraq and if that's not based on selfishness and concern only for yourself, I don't know what is. Of course, I'm not saying it's wrong, just saying you shouldn't complain about other people being selfish.

Rae Ann said...

Anonymous, first of all, I really appreciate non-anonymous comments because I believe if someone has something to say then they shouldn't be afraid to "own" it.

Second, I'm not so sure that you can truly defend your statement that my views on Iraq or whatever are "selfish." Is it "selfish" to hope for a better life for the Iraqi people?

And you've revealed a strong bias by equating conservatism/capitalism with selfishness. Your understanding of capitalism and conservatism is very sorely lacking if you believe that. Have you ever owned your own business? You might know better if you had. Of course, businesses exist to make a profit, but in the process of making a living most businesses also provide more benefit than what they keep and also they sustain a very high risk of losing everything in order to provide services, goods, etc. I wouldn't consider that "selfish."

Communism, on the other hand, is all about selfishness because everyone wants everyone else to be exactly like them and they get very jealous if someone has more.

You said: "I am not a selfish person. I only give help to people who need it. There's nothing selfish about restricting your assistance solely to people who, according to your judgement, deserve it."

It most certainly IS selfish to dole out help based solely on YOUR judgments about people. And you can't always tell if someone is ill or "able-bodied" just by looking at them. You're being very selfish to assume that your judgments are always correct.

I think you're very basically confused here. You need to read more about the issue of equality in my post called "Pork Roast." I very clearly spell out what equality is and isn't.

Back to chivalry. It is sad that men have been brainwashed by the feminazis into thinking that it is wrong to treat women differently than other men. It's insane, actually, because on the one hand you can't tell dirty jokes at work in front of a woman, but on the other you can't open the door for her either. If a woman can open her own doors then I think she can also handle hearing a man tell a dirty joke. See, I'm not the one with contradictory views.

Anyway, thanks for your comments.

Rae Ann said...

Actually, Anonymous, you just might be right. I think I'm just a quaint social dinosaur, or fossil even. A dying breed. Or something like that. ;-)

Like the intro to the movie Gone With the Wind:

"There was a land of Cavaliers and Cotton Fields called the Old South. Here in this pretty world Gallantry took its last bow."