Are Gentleman a Dying Breed?

Are Gentleman a Dying Breed?

Are Gentleman a Dying Breed?

Yup, well too bad for ALL the women. Who cares whether they are the type of woman who likes gentlemen or doesn't? This should matter to men because...???

Not my problem. Being a gentleman is of absolutely ZERO advantage to a man - and that's what men of the modern day should be concerned about.

Being a gentleman was part of the "social dance" and it only made sense to treat a woman like a "LADY" when it was assured that she would reciprocate in the social dance by treating you like a gentleman. (That means she treats you with respect and dignity).

There are not enough women to dance to that tune anymore. It's not our job to figure out which ones want the dance, either. If they want to dance, they should do the asking - BY TREATING MEN LIKE GENTLEMEN!

Once again, however, I get offended by stuff like this that right away puts the onus on men. How about the article gets titled "Are Ladies a Dying Breed?"

The very fact that all of these kinds of articles concentrate on men's actions or lack of actions is sly propaganda in the first degree. Everyone knows it takes two to dance - just like everyone knows you look like idiot dancing by yourself.

Yup, well too bad for ALL the women. Who cares whether they are the type of woman who likes gentlemen or doesn't? This should matter to men because...???

Not my problem. Being a gentleman is of absolutely ZERO advantage to a man - and that's what men of the modern day should be concerned about.

Being a gentleman was part of the "social dance" and it only made sense to treat a woman like a "LADY" when it was assured that she would reciprocate in the social dance by treating you like a gentleman. (That means she treats you with respect and dignity).

There are not enough women to dance to that tune anymore. It's not our job to figure out which ones want the dance, either. If they want to dance, they should do the asking - BY TREATING MEN LIKE GENTLEMEN!

Once again, however, I get offended by stuff like this that right away puts the onus on men. How about the article gets titled "Are Ladies a Dying Breed?"

The very fact that all of these kinds of articles concentrate on men's actions or lack of actions is sly propaganda in the first degree. Everyone knows it takes two to dance - just like everyone knows you look like idiot dancing by yourself.

Yup, well too bad for ALL the women. Who cares whether they are the type of woman who likes gentlemen or doesn't? This should matter to men because...???

Not my problem. Being a gentleman is of absolutely ZERO advantage to a man - and that's what men of the modern day should be concerned about.

Being a gentleman was part of the "social dance" and it only made sense to treat a woman like a "LADY" when it was assured that she would reciprocate in the social dance by treating you like a gentleman. (That means she treats you with respect and dignity).

There are not enough women to dance to that tune anymore. It's not our job to figure out which ones want the dance, either. If they want to dance, they should do the asking - BY TREATING MEN LIKE GENTLEMEN!

Once again, however, I get offended by stuff like this that right away puts the onus on men. How about the article gets titled "Are Ladies a Dying Breed?"

The very fact that all of these kinds of articles concentrate on men's actions or lack of actions is sly propaganda in the first degree. Everyone knows it takes two to dance - just like everyone knows you look like idiot dancing by yourself.

The point of inter-personal equality is having the freedom to behave, within the confines of the law, in a manner dictacted by your own lifestyle choices and to not be judged for your behavior on the basis of how it holds up to any standard model. This is how it works for most religions, minorities and women; they are free to be as syncretic as they please, discarding any idealogical or cultural 'lumber and wreckage' they deign troublesome, or that gets in the way of their post-industrial existance.

Everyone, it seems, is free to pick at this salad bar culture without criticism. Indeed to judge a woman on the basis that she wishes to have a career, embrace 'bitch' culture, be a whore, be a mother, be whatever she wants is essentially forbiden as a form of chauvanistic oppresion. Men however are criticized en-masse if their choices (discarding anachronistic codes of behavior) may disadvantage women.

If you have a good feeling when you do something it's probably good, and if you have a bad feeling then it is probably bad; if you work to avoid self-deceit, and can self-critique to analyze your behavior for hypocrasy then you do not need any antiquaited system of behavioral ethics. Furthermore you are immune to manipulation and judgement, the shaming of others who might force you to adopt an idealogy that benefits them.

If every man embraced this attitude, and become self-guided in inter-personal matters, using their natural ability to rationalize and their affinity for logic to align their moral compass women would loose almost all social power over men for women, as a unit, never attempt to change men by appealing to logic, morality or anything else concrete; they appeal to indulgence (seduction) weakness (shaming and guilt) and that's all.

In the modern day, Chivalry is not a code of ethics practised between moral equals in a socially equitable situation with defined roles, but a draconian set of laws applicable to ALL women, regardless of their behavior, bondage to all men, and it supplicates men to predation on a social and emmotional level. But for many men it is comfortable, it provides an 'old world' system of ethics and these seem good, so guilt and shame are avoided and one feels good feelings, but without this the desire to feel satisfaction on a moral level would need to come from self-discipline and analysis, or another less inequitable arrangement.

Of course women don't want men to give it up.

The point of inter-personal equality is having the freedom to behave, within the confines of the law, in a manner dictacted by your own lifestyle choices and to not be judged for your behavior on the basis of how it holds up to any standard model. This is how it works for most religions, minorities and women; they are free to be as syncretic as they please, discarding any idealogical or cultural 'lumber and wreckage' they deign troublesome, or that gets in the way of their post-industrial existance.

Everyone, it seems, is free to pick at this salad bar culture without criticism. Indeed to judge a woman on the basis that she wishes to have a career, embrace 'bitch' culture, be a whore, be a mother, be whatever she wants is essentially forbiden as a form of chauvanistic oppresion. Men however are criticized en-masse if their choices (discarding anachronistic codes of behavior) may disadvantage women.

If you have a good feeling when you do something it's probably good, and if you have a bad feeling then it is probably bad; if you work to avoid self-deceit, and can self-critique to analyze your behavior for hypocrasy then you do not need any antiquaited system of behavioral ethics. Furthermore you are immune to manipulation and judgement, the shaming of others who might force you to adopt an idealogy that benefits them.

If every man embraced this attitude, and become self-guided in inter-personal matters, using their natural ability to rationalize and their affinity for logic to align their moral compass women would loose almost all social power over men for women, as a unit, never attempt to change men by appealing to logic, morality or anything else concrete; they appeal to indulgence (seduction) weakness (shaming and guilt) and that's all.

In the modern day, Chivalry is not a code of ethics practised between moral equals in a socially equitable situation with defined roles, but a draconian set of laws applicable to ALL women, regardless of their behavior, bondage to all men, and it supplicates men to predation on a social and emmotional level. But for many men it is comfortable, it provides an 'old world' system of ethics and these seem good, so guilt and shame are avoided and one feels good feelings, but without this the desire to feel satisfaction on a moral level would need to come from self-discipline and analysis, or another less inequitable arrangement.

Of course women don't want men to give it up.

The point of inter-personal equality is having the freedom to behave, within the confines of the law, in a manner dictacted by your own lifestyle choices and to not be judged for your behavior on the basis of how it holds up to any standard model. This is how it works for most religions, minorities and women; they are free to be as syncretic as they please, discarding any idealogical or cultural 'lumber and wreckage' they deign troublesome, or that gets in the way of their post-industrial existance.

Everyone, it seems, is free to pick at this salad bar culture without criticism. Indeed to judge a woman on the basis that she wishes to have a career, embrace 'bitch' culture, be a whore, be a mother, be whatever she wants is essentially forbiden as a form of chauvanistic oppresion. Men however are criticized en-masse if their choices (discarding anachronistic codes of behavior) may disadvantage women.

If you have a good feeling when you do something it's probably good, and if you have a bad feeling then it is probably bad; if you work to avoid self-deceit, and can self-critique to analyze your behavior for hypocrasy then you do not need any antiquaited system of behavioral ethics. Furthermore you are immune to manipulation and judgement, the shaming of others who might force you to adopt an idealogy that benefits them.

If every man embraced this attitude, and become self-guided in inter-personal matters, using their natural ability to rationalize and their affinity for logic to align their moral compass women would loose almost all social power over men for women, as a unit, never attempt to change men by appealing to logic, morality or anything else concrete; they appeal to indulgence (seduction) weakness (shaming and guilt) and that's all.

In the modern day, Chivalry is not a code of ethics practised between moral equals in a socially equitable situation with defined roles, but a draconian set of laws applicable to ALL women, regardless of their behavior, bondage to all men, and it supplicates men to predation on a social and emmotional level. But for many men it is comfortable, it provides an 'old world' system of ethics and these seem good, so guilt and shame are avoided and one feels good feelings, but without this the desire to feel satisfaction on a moral level would need to come from self-discipline and analysis, or another less inequitable arrangement.

Of course women don't want men to give it up.