There has been a lot of discussion lately about chivalry and about whether it should still be practiced or not. There have also been a lot of comparisons being made with the modern day deference to women or so called "white knight" behaviour and chivalry as it was practiced in the Middle Ages and even before. I just wanted to write a little piece on the differences between the two because it is my contention that the two are unrelated and that modern day chivalry is actually a perversion of the original concept. Modern chivalry is a concept whereby women, can expect preferential treatment in return for absolutely nothing. That is not the way it worked in the middle ages.
Chivalry came to prominence during a time when the continent of Europe was in a state of perpetual war. The word itself, taken from the French for horseman, gives us a clue not only as to where it came from, but also what it was designed to accomplish. The mounted knights of the era were the most fearsome warriors of their age; the elite troops of the middle ages. Chivalry was an attempt to moderate their ‘manly’ behavior and ensure that the toughest men of all would still defer to those weaker than themselves, and would inspire other men to emulate their behaviour.
So chivalry originated in France and spread quickly through the plethora of baronies and kingdoms that were beginning to form the countries we now know as Spain, Germany and Italy. Soon it reached as far west as Ireland, as far east as Kievan Rus, and as far north as Scandinavia. By the end of the twelfth century some form of chivalry had taken hold in every corner of Europe and had also been adopted to a large extent in the Islamic world. There were many attempts by medieval scholars to write down an exact code; a 'ten commandments of chivalry' if you like, but the concept remained vague and transient and varied from place to place.
It must be remembered that chivalry was not just about the treatment
Updated 3rd-January-2014 at 10:48 PM by Lanavor22 (add gaphic)
You will hear feminists wherever you encounter them, bleating naively about fighting to dismantle the patriarchy. To a feminist, the patriarchy is an evil system which oppressed women while at the same time privileged men. They are never able to actually back this up with any real evidence, but then feminism is an ideology. It is not a science. Ideologies are based on repeated chants and slogans. Facts just get in the way. Followers of ideologies are required to bleat like sheep to the beat of the doctrines drums. To question is blasphemy.
The patriarchy was a system which insured the survival and advancement of the species specifically through the protection of women. Though not a concept invented by feminists, it is a history that has been deliberately distorted and misrepresented by every feminist theorist you care to mention. This deliberate re-writing of history was most definitely a feminist attempt to lionize women and demonize men and it has been broadly successful.
So lets for a moment do something which feminists never do. Lets look at the facts. For most of history the people at the very top were men, which make sense in view of the fact that rulers were often required to protect their positions in combat. Before the advent of modern technology men had massive physical advantages. You can’t really blame them for that. Patriarchy did not have the power to influence human biology. The fact that the strongest rose to the top was not the result of some sinister patriarchal conspiracy, any more than the fact that most stone-masons and miners and soldiers were men and still are today. In fact it's fair to say that while most of the tiny minority at the very top were men, the majority of those at the very bottom of the heap were also men.
There were also many absolutist female rulers throughout history and there is no evidence that they were any less patriarchal in their outlook to male ones.
Patriarchy was a
Updated 1st-January-2014 at 03:38 PM by Lanavor22 (Correct spelling error)
I Need Feminism Because.
I was visiting University College Dublin last year to meet a friend of mine. I was waiting for her in the arts building when I noticed a huge display of photographs along the wall of a corridor. On further investigation I discovered that the photos were the result of an event that had recently been held by the college feminist society. Participants were invited to make signs telling why they needed feminism and hold them up to be photographed. Photos from similar events had also been sent in from feminists in other parts of the world.
What puzzled me, apart from the sheer childless pointlessness of the event itself, was the mind-boggling stupidity of the declarations themselves. Feminists once again prove that they have absolutely no sense of reality, truth or even self-respect.
So here is my take on why “I need feminism.”
1) I need feminism because I know that men are pigs, and I hate sexism.
2) I need feminism because it teaches me that what I do with my body is my choice, but not my responsibility.
3) I need feminism because I am chronically insecure and I have no sense of humour.
4) I need feminism because it helps protect me from my crippling prudishness and my morbid fear of human sexuality.
5) I need feminism so that when someone says something nasty to me, I can make silly placards and blubber like a pathetic victim instead of standing up for myself.
6) I need feminism so that I can bury my neurosis in smug conceit, by stereotyping men as evil misogynist brutes.
7) I need feminism to help me convince myself that applying negative, degrading stereotypes to men is not sexist.
8) I need feminism so that I can complain loudly about violence against women while laughing heartily at violence against men.
9) I need feminism so that I can scream “creep” at any
Feminism is built upon the principle of patriarchy theory - the idea that women have been oppressed by men throughout our history and that men have always been "privileged" relative to women. Almost all other feminist doctrine is built upon this foundation. Patriarchy theory itself, is not only a giant historical lie, but it is a lie that has been deliberately concocted and perpetuated by feminists to encourage women to see men as the enemy.
The demonization of men is vitally important to feminism and it is a constant theme that underscores all feminist discourse and literature. Feminism could not survive without it because most modern feminist activism is based on advocating for special status for women, using the justification that women have traditionally been oppressed and that men are basically brutish oppressors by default.
I have debunked patriarchy theory on many occasions in debating with feminists. It's not difficult to do. I asked one British feminist who claimed women in the early 1900's in Britain were oppressed, if she really though those women would have preferred to work in the mines or fight in the trenches. Her response - Silence. I asked her if she realized that whilst women did not have the vote in the UK of the 1900's nor did many men, and furthermore that women did not have the vote because they avoided all of the responsibilities that went hand in hand with the vote.. Her response - Silence. I asked her if she realized that the franchise in the UK in the 1900's was linked to both property rights and citizenship responsibilities such as conscription. Her response - Silence. I asked her if she realized that most working class women in the UK opposed the suffragettes because they realised that equality with men would have been deeply hurtful to them. Her response - Silence. I asked her if she really thought that Emiline Pankhurst would ever have tolerated equality. Her response - Silence. I pointed out that while
Updated 28th-December-2013 at 02:09 AM by Lanavor22 (To correct a mistake)
I finally bit the bullet and logged on to Everyday Sexism. It is a website set up to allow women to post their stories of the horrific misogyny and sexism which supposedly pervades our societies. The site is being lauded all over the other online feminist echo-chambers as "brave" "revealing" and "visionary". Mostly it's just one after another poster whining about some guy saying something she didn't like or complaining because a man looked at her boobs. I was thinking about instances from my own life which I could post on the site that would compare with some of the entries I read.
I was sitting on the grass reading on the campus of the college where I work last summer. A young guy walked over to me. He noticed the book I was reading was Russian and asked me where I was from. I told him.
"Russian girls are the most beautiful in the world." he said.
"Ha ha." I replied and I suppose you say that when you meet a Spanish or Polish girl?"
"Well obviously not," he laughed, "but I'm lying when I talk to them."
"You speak English well" he continued. "Are you part Irish?"
"No, I'm 100% Russian."
"So you don't have any Irish in you at all?"
"No" I smiled, knowing the punch-line already.
"Would you like some?" the guy said.
It was a silly conversation that we both knew was going nowhere. Nobody was threatened or offended or violated or any of the things feminists want us to be. It was harmless banter. I didn't take any offence because - well - because I'm a grown up.
In our cafeteria a few days later, I was sitting with two female colleagues. There was a radio on in the background broadcasting a talk-show in which callers to the show were invited to join in a rather morbid discussion about death, and where they would like to be buried when they died. The show was hosted by a male presenter and a female presenter called Nuala Finlay. One caller phoned in, and when the male presenter asked him where
Some informative quotes;
Of these, mothers are identified as the perpetrator of neglect or abuse in 73% of cases...
Quote from Micheal Woods / University of Western Sydney The data is not surprising – it is in line with international findings regarding perpetrators of child abuse. And the figures do undermine the myth that fathers are the major risk for their children’s well-being. Articles About Men » Dads not the Demons in Child Abuse
Fiona the Feminist was angry. She had just been on the phone to some relatives. The woman who was minding her six year old niece had suddenly given notice that she would have to leave for a few weeks. She was returning to her native Poland due to a family emergency. The child's mother, had passed away years before and the father, Fiona's stupid misogynist brother, had been lying in hospital, deep in a coma since an accident at work six months previously. There was no other option. Fiona would have to stay in her brother's house for a few weeks over the Christmas period to mind the child. It was completely unfair of course. Why couldn't one of her male relatives mind the brat? Fiona reminded herself that she lived in a patriarchal society and that women were always expected to take responsibility for everything. The worst part was that the cottage belonging to Fiona's brother was situated high in the Wicklow Mountains outside Dublin. It was in the countryside. Fiona hated the countryside. Everyone knew that the forests of the Wicklow mountains were teeming with misogynistic predators. In the countryside, thought Fiona, no one would hear you scream. Fiona began calling her friends. Fiona would need to find someone to drive her because she didn't have a car. Fiona hated cars. Cars, Fiona knew were often used to facilitate the rape of women. Cars were used to drive women to dark secluded places where men were waiting to rape them; dark secluded places in the countryside! Fiona the Feminist was in better spirits after having called her friends. Her sisters in arms had not let her down. Both Fanny the Feminist and Freda the Feminist had agreed not only to accompany her to the Wicklow mountains, but to stay with her for the duration. They were so brave, especially Freda, who had overheard an inappropriate joke only a few months previously and was still feeling quite traumatized despite endless hours of counseling. With her two brave
Updated 16th-December-2013 at 11:35 PM by Lanavor22
Feel the hate, let it soak deep into your pores... Make sure annotations are on. You f**king shctum!! Hate the music? Or think it's too loud? Try this version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYRC7...ature=youtu.be Protests at University of Toronto: Drs Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young: http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rig...gent-tungsten/ Dr Warren Farrell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0
The "great poster tear-down extravaganza", Vancouver http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Jz63_lGuSE&feature=plcp On the word "Feminazi": "Totalitarian attitudes First, since I gather this has touched a nerve in some quarters, I shall deal with the terms "feminazi" and "femistasi". As a general principle, I oppose the use of any kind of name-calling. But sometimes an apparently rude term is doing more than being rude: it is conveying a meaningful point in shorthand form. For the record, I am categorically NOT suggesting that the people I have applied these terms to are, in fact, Nazis or Stasi members, or would ever have sympathized with either of them. There are many of us who are proud to be called Grammarnazis and who know perfectly well that no aspersions are being cast on our intentions towards either Jews or Poland. It might be considered distasteful that the suffix -nazi has come to be used simply to mean "extremist" or "obsessive", but nevertheless, it has come to be so used, and The Sisterhood of the Oppressed cannot legitimately chalk it up as yet another example of their alleged victimization. Hysterical, bullying overreaction to dissent? Attempting to make it so unpleasant for anyone who dares to oppose them that others are deterred from trying it? Utter conviction that their own ideology is absolutely right and just, and
Updated 15th-December-2013 at 11:33 PM by Marx
antimisandry.com is a voluntary-sector organisation supported mainly by member reader donations.
If you wish to reduce the advertisements, sign up and log on as a registered member.