New Chivalry, embodied by affirmative-action, programs that favor women, VAWA etc.

**bola** · 20th-September-2006

http://www.newswithviews.com/Duke/selwyn29.htm

But that's modern feminism: preach equality, accept favoritism, win with stacked decks, pretend you had no advantage, then rub salt in the wound. And it's tolerated, nay, encouraged, because of the new chivalry.

THE NEW CHIVALRY

by Selwyn Duke
January 8, 2006
NewsWithViews.com

When one hears the word chivalry, thoughts of both the fanciful and practical are evoked. There are the quaint images of a valiant hero rescuing a damsel in distress from train tracks or of a man throwing his coat over a puddle for an enchanting belle (Was this obligatory with leather coats, too?).

In practice, though, the manifestations of chivalry were often far less heroic and far more mundane, as they might involve holding a door or carrying packages for a member of the fairer sex. Of course, there was the maritime standard governing evacuation from a doomed vessel, "women and children first," which, while it might not have held the charm of fairytale salvation, was certainly not lacking in nobility.

But now these images and norms are fading into history. The feminists came along and said that chivalry was condescending, that women were to be viewed as equals in all things and that social codes dictating otherwise were anachronistic. They told boys to treat girls as they would boys, and girls were taught to view a man's sacrificial behavior as a sign of utter contempt. This explains why some men have encountered hear-me-roar types who considered the men's attempt to hold a door for them an affront. Ah, the fruits of feminism: female egos as bloated as they are fragile.

So, the great white knight of chivalry is supposed to be dead, slain by the feminist dragon of androgyny. And although he lives on in the stout hearts of the last hard men (no, not the movie), I must confess, the new, egalitarian norms are not entirely without appeal. Why, I find the idea of a bevy of shrieking feminists going down with the ship to be most attractive..

In light of the above, one might be inclined to eulogize that much maligned knight in shining armor and let him rest in peace. After all, double-standards in the treatment of the sexes are a thing of the past . . . or so they say. You see, while that old chivalry's habitat has been denuded, relegating it to a few pristine bastions of traditionalism, it has not left a void. It has been replaced. Replaced by a new chivalry.

What is the new chivalry? Like the old chivalry, the new version involves social codes and social pressure to enforce them, but also much, much more. The new chivalry has also been written into law; it is embodied by affirmative-action and set-aside programs that favor women, and by legislation such as the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which now serves as a vehicle through which to empower and fund feminist groups. We see the new chivalry in police domestic violence procedures that automatically place the onus on men and in family courts that are biased against them.

Most of all, though, there are the aforementioned social codes. The new chivalry is all around us, only, it has become so much a part of the fabric of the culture that many of us don't even sense it. It's manifested in the commercials that will portray men but never women as buffoons, and in a media and popular culture that use violence against men to evoke laughs while sanctimoniously admonishing against the acceptance of same against women.

We also see it in demeaning jokes, sentiments and symbols (such as the "All Men Are Bastards" kitchen knife block sold online) that are always XY-specific. What is often far less transparent is the constant carrying of water for feminist causes, a practice that runs the gamut from overt advocacy to the most subtle forms of shilling. For instance, so many men who should know better continue to reinforce the fiction that there's a discrimination-caused wage-gap between the sexes that favors men. And lest you wonder why I label this "the new chivalry," be not bemused. For all the incessant blather about equality, despite all the preaching and posturing and perturbation to tradition, I can hear a little voice in the background, whispering, ever so softly, like butterfly wings, "Take it easy on her . . . she's only a girl."

The best way to illustrate how we have been consumed by the new chivalry mentality is with a few of the abundant examples, and the first one that jumps to mind is the Jessica Lynch fraud. As you may remember, Lynch was the female soldier whose truck took a wrong turn in Iraq and found itself under attack by Iraqi fighters. After a stay in an Iraqi hospital, Lynch was rescued by special forces units, but it didn't end there. Initial reports cast Lynch as the heroine, a real-life G.I. Jane who was willing to fight to the death as she suffered a bullet wound and fired her weapon until her ammunition was spent. It was a story that would do Hollywood proud.

The truth will out, however, and when it did it seemed that the tale was more Hollywood than little-soldier-that-could. We learned that Private Lynch had no battle wounds but, rather, blunt force injuries that could have been caused by a fall from her vehicle. Moreover, contrary to reports that portrayed her as having faced down torturers with a stoic bearing, she received special treatment from sympathetic medical personnel who took a shine to her and benefitted from the benevolence of an Iraqi lawyer who risked his life to alert American forces of her captivity.

Just as significantly, the nine men in her company had been shot in the head - execution style. This indicates that they were either trying to protect the women in the company - as suggested by military advocate Elaine Donnelly - or that her captors showed her a type of mercy that her male comrades-in-arms would never see. A little old-fashioned chivalry here, perhaps?

Regardless, the truth didn't matter to the military source that fobbed the fictional story off on the public. Why, this served to legitimize the idea of having women in combat, and you can't let the facts get in the way of enabling such a noble feminist cause. That's the new chivalry for you.

Such exaggeration of women's exploits and facilitation of feminist causes is not the exception but the norm nowadays, and it extends from matters of life-and-death to the downright frivolous. As for the latter, such was the case involving a girl golfer named Jenny Suh.

The story started in 1998 when the Virginia High School League (VHSL) decided to let girls play in the Boys' State Golf Championship. The goal in affording this opportunity was to encourage more girls to play golf, something that must be absolutely necessary for personal happiness and fulfillment. What was the problem? Well, the chivalric school officials decided to allow the girls to play from tees that made the course twenty-percent shorter for them, a difference that amounted to about sixty yards per hole.

This is where Suh, the best female high school golfer in the state, entered the picture. After competing in the tournament a few times, she finally won it in 2002, causing a firestorm of controversy. Many of the boys complained (How dare they!) that if girls want to play in the same event, they should play by the same rules. I guess those boys hadn't learned THE rules yet.

After this brouhaha the VHSL mandated that girls who wished to play in the boys' event must play from the same tees, although it was just a wee bit too late for the second-place competitor, who finished one stroke behind and was denied his chance to win the title.

Moreover, a couple of curious contradictions were left unexplained. For one, how is it just to allow girls entry based on an equality argument but then cast equality to the winds during the competition? Then, if it's wrong to discriminate based on sex, why were the shorter hitting girls given this handicap but not the shorter hitting boys (some boys who compete in such events are younger and less developed)?

Not that any of this matters to feminists, among whom I will count Miss Suh. She responded to the boys' righteous indignation not with ladylike graciousness, but with in-your-face comments such as, "I won it and there's nothing they can do about it" and "I would have beaten most of them anyway." Interestingly, though, despite this show of bravado, Suh also stated that she doesn't ". . . believe the girls should play from the same tees as the boys."

Ah, she has learned her lessons well. No surprise, though, given her influences. After her "victory," her principal went to her classroom and proclaimed her to be the "best" golfer in the state. But that's modern feminism: preach equality, accept favoritism, win with stacked decks, pretend you had no advantage, then rub salt in the wound. And it's tolerated, nay, encouraged, because of the new chivalry.

Not that you have to plumb the depths of obscure athletic contests to find the exercise of this newly minted virtue. Just last year we had Danica Patrick, the much-touted female racecar driver who was turned into a feminist icon during the Indianapolis 500. Her exploits on the track were portrayed as a victory for women and girls by the media, which quite conveniently omitted a sobering detail. You see, it seems that Miss Patrick lost control of her car and spun out during the race, knocking two other drivers out of it. Not that this is unusual; it's a common rookie mistake. What is unusual, however, is for a driver to make such an error, finish fourth, and then receive infinitely more exposure than the winner, Dan Wheldon, who has the distinction of being the first Briton to win the race since 1966. But, hey, she's only a girl, and the media is most chivalric.

One major difference between the two chivalries is that the new one is far less discrminatory, in that a woman doesn't actually have to still be alive to benefit from it. In fact, owing to chivalrous revisionist history, heroic men of bygone days are now being de-emphasized, often in favor of women of limited or even dubious accomplishment. And this is obvious if you read many modern textbooks.

For instance, a famous 1896 picture of co-Nobel Prize winners Pierre and Marie Curie was presented in the textbook SciencePlus: Technology and Society. That is, in a manner of speaking. Taking a leaf out of Joseph Stalin's book, they cut down the picture so as to eliminate Pierre Curie. In the textbook Creating America (A better title would be Creating History), the authors identify "ten representative American heroes." But while neither Thomas Jefferson nor Benjamin Franklin was among them, the list does include: Abigail Adams, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Ida B. Wells, Queen Liliuokalani and, get a load of this, Zitkala-Sa (don't ask). Yet another book had five pages about Marilyn Monroe but only five lines about George Washington, who, I seem to vaguely remember, might have done something noteworthy at one time. But, hey, who needs good history when you've got the new chivalry?

The truth is that the new chivalry is so all-encompassing that capturing its magnitude would require quite a tome indeed. I haven't even touched on feminist-inspired junk research, which I wrote about in my piece, "She's Blinding Me With Science: When Science and Feminism Become Bedfellows." But now for the million gold-Sacagawea-dollar question: does it really matter?

The problem with the new chivalry is illuminated by the reason it has been embraced by the left. A group's characteristic qualities give you an indication as to what place it has in the world. For instance, we know that a bird's domain is the air and a fish's is the water because we understand the qualities of birds and fish. Moreover, social-engineers are intensely aware of the fact that your conception of a group's characteristic qualities will shape your grasp of its place, for good or for ill. If we were blind to the differences between birds and fish, for example, we would have a lot more trouble understanding why they should have different places.

And this is the purpose of the new chivalry. The left has endeavored to destroy traditional views of men and women, fatherhood and motherhood for decades now. To that end its minions have tried to convince people that the sexes are identical in natural inclination and capacity. They have indoctrinated little girls with the idea that fulfillment lies in doing what men do, and to "liberate" them from the guide rails of traditional precepts they have trotted feminist "heroines" before them. But these individuals aren't truly great women like Mother Theresa and her Sisters of Mercy but, rather, are valkyries, masculinized figures who are occasionally authentic, often exaggerated, and sometimes imaginary. We have traded the mother for the myth.

This may be why so many nowadays are confused about their identity, with men not knowing how to be men and women rebelling against femininity and domesticity. It is why so many feel like a fish out of water.

If the metaphor for chivalry was the knight in shining armor, that of the new chivalry is the hen-pecked capon of a Western man. He does his chivalric duty obediently, as he throws his coat over the puddle of scrutiny and escorts mediocre women from Humble Avenue to Exaltation Lane.

Ominously, we may soon pay a terrible price for the embrace of this destructive obsession. There are some men who have intimated that they would be disposed to vote for Hillary Clinton for president because "It's time to elect a woman," an imperative that ranks right up there with getting Zitkala-Sa into history books. Well, that certainly would bring self-sacrifice to a new level. But it's a mighty high price to pay for the new chivalry.

© 2006 Selwyn Duke - All Rights Reserved

**Marx** · 21st-September-2006

That certainly is a wonderful read... loved it!

**Fred X** · 21st-September-2006

I emailed him with the following:

Hi Selwyn

I have read some of your articles, and find them most enjoyable

I'm a men's rights writer, and can be found at http://fredxblog.blogspot.com

I, and many other men's rights activists, visit the increasingly popular http://antimisandry.com forum, and you would be a most welcome asset indeed

Anyway, take care

Fred

I hope he pops over, as the more men's writers that join us- the better

I urge all members here that, whenever you come across men's writers online, to send them an email inviting them to forums such as this

We are an ever expanding chain, and the more links we add to it, the greater chance we have at reaching joe public

Remember: we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by adopting such methods

**Marx** · 21st-September-2006

Thanks for the plug, Fred X!
I have also emailed him at the same time as having posted my comment above, but didn't plug - however, my signature is always present

**Major Tom** · 21st-September-2006

Great find bola!
That article was really good.

**Cowhead418** · 23rd-September-2006

Great article! One of the problems with the new chivalry is that some men are in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't." According to feminism, if a man is chivalrous to a woman, he is an evil oppressive patriach who thinks that women are inferior. However, if a man is not chivalrous to a woman, he is an evil oppressive patriach who obviously hates women.

Also, I've noticed that the men who are chivalrous rarely receive thanks. I was at this cross country camp over the summer, and they didn't have enough buses to fit everybody so we had to travel with several people standing up. There were several guys who gave up their seats so the girls wouldn't have to stand up, and I noticed that these girls never said thank you or even looked at the guys - like it was expected behavior. I've heard guys say that they've seen men at bars who buy drinks for women only to be dumped at the end of the night for the 'bad boys.' It is a no-win situation.

**Fred X** · 23rd-September-2006

Cowhead wrote:

Also, I've noticed that the men who are chivalrous rarely receive thanks. I was at this cross country camp over the summer, and they didn't have enough buses to fit everybody so we had to travel with several people standing up. There were several guys who gave up their seats so the girls wouldn't have to stand up, and I noticed that these girls never said thank you or even looked at the guys - like it was expected behavior. I've heard guys say that they've seen men at bars who buy drinks for women only to be dumped at the end of the night for the 'bad boys.' It is a no-win situation.

Yes- a common occurence, and one that I have seen many times before

I was walking with a friend once who held the door open for this young woman, and she didn't say thanks or anything

I asked him why the hell he bothers?

He said, 'it's the manly thing to do- and besides, she was pretty'

I rolled my eyes and explained to him that the best thing to do was actively not open a door for a woman

And if they are attractive- then especially so

Because:

a) it will only inflate their already bloated ego

and b) women need to learn that they are entitled to nothing

One time I went through a door and let it close behind me- and this stupid bitch shouted as she bumped into it

She stupidly assumed that I would hold it open

So I turned and told her that I owed her jack-shit, and that she should f u c k ing get the door herself if she was that bothered

A few people were watching this, and she walked off telling me how sexist I was

LOL

I just flicked my middle finger up and said 'that'll teach you to not expect shit in the future'

LOL

Ahhh... the good old times...

Disaffected · 23rd-September-2006

I've been wondering lately whether there are any good, logical arguments left for marriage, or even for co-habiting with a female.

The cost:benefit ratio seems to be entirely against taking the risk.

For starters, marriage is the only "contract" that can be revoked by either party just because they are currently unhappy, bored, or inconvenienced.

That's what "no-fault" divorce means. Bail on the marriage contract, with no repercussions. (And 70% of divorces are filed by women, just because -- Reason No. 1 -- "my needs are not being fulfilled.")

Second, a man gains nothing by marrying and risks much. If he is so foolish as to make babies with his soon-to-be-ex, then he's on the hook for 18 years of extortion, er ... child support.

He will lose at least 50% of his current assets, and, under new British law, possibly half of his future earnings.

Thirdly, there's the whole feminist legal apparatus that's the "silent witness" to your marriage vows. You know, the 911 she can dial at any time and have you evicted from the house you've paid for? Ruin your professional reputation? Deny you access to your children?

Unless you are severely vagina-addicted, what is the percentage in having a "relationship" with a predator?

Perhaps I have missed the "upside?" The "benefits?"

Any romantic accountants hereabouts who can contradict my argument?

**bola** · 23rd-September-2006

Quote from Disaffected

Any romantic accountants hereabouts who can contradict my argument?

I feel pretty much the same about marriage as you, but I believe that most men feel happier when they are married. They will be at the mercy of their wives, but as long as their wives are friendly (and many of them are), there's no problem. I think a lot of men don't even think about what could go wrong, until it's too late.

**rastus** · 23rd-September-2006

Quote from Fred X

I rolled my eyes and explained to him that the best thing to do was actively not open a door for a woman

In the early days of this current wave of radical feminism, I was often rebuked by women for holding the door for a woman. So I stopped showing them such courtesies. I figured that if that's what they wanted, then who am I to argue, and it saves me from demeaning myself for their benefit. That also (especially) includes offering one my seat, though I make an exception for seniors aged 65 and up, as they aren't infected with the virus to nearly the same degree. I studiously avoid showing women any favoritism whatsoever on the very theory they proposed early on, then abandoned as they sought special privilege. One reaps what one sows.

I've also given up helping them in any way in the workplace unless specifically assigned to do so, and then only to the extent necessary. What soured me that way was an incident in my first job out of college. A woman who'd been hired at the same time I was worked in an associated department. She had a demonstration scheduled for a customer at 11:00 AM, and the technician in the lab was assembling the demo rig for her. The problem was that the wrong part had been delivered for a critical component in the demo, and he couldn't reach her to ask her what to do. He'd been trying for over an hour, with no luck.

I'd come into the lab to check on a couple of projects of my own, and in desperation the technician asked me if I could advise him whether there was any way to make the part he had work for the demo, now only an hour away. I took a look and suggested a simple change that would make the part he had function identically to the one he was supposed to have. He tried it and it worked. I left, congratulating myself on my team spirit and frankly expecting a thank you from the woman whose demonstration I'd saved.

Imagine my shock the next morning when I was confronted by a very angry woman who was ranting at me about how unethical it was for me to "review another engineer's work without his permission", as quoted from the state's handbook for professional engineers. She was clearly irate that I'd helped her, despite the fact that it had saved her presentation, and despite the fact that the technician had continued to attempt without success to reach her to get approval for the change I'd suggested, right up to when she showed up with customer in tow. She even threatened to file a formal complaint with the HR department over it. I was so flabbergasted that I could barely speak, but the lesson was well learned. That was 35 years ago, and I've scrupulously avoided giving unsolicited help to a female co-worker ever since, not unless specificially directed and approved in advance by my supervisor.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

**myce** · 24th-September-2006

Quote from Fred X

One time I went through a door and let it close behind me- and this stupid bitch shouted as she bumped into it

She stupidly assumed that I would hold it open

So I turned and told her that I owed her jack-shit, and that she should f u c k ing get the door herself if she was that bothered

A few people were watching this, and she walked off telling me how sexist I was

LOL

I just flicked my middle finger up and said 'that'll teach you to not expect shit in the future'

LOL

OMG, that is sooo rude. When passing through a door I always check over my shoulder to see if someone is behind me. If an able-bodied adult hit me with the door I'd be bitching too.

Quote from rastus

In the early days of this current wave of radical feminism, I was often rebuked by women for holding the door for a woman.....

And she is a bitch too. Dumb bitch. What a fun word.

**selkie** · 24th-September-2006

I just don't understand how holding a door open for another person is put under the heading of chivalry. I just always thought it was good manners. I hold the door for men, women, young and old. And if someone holds the door for me, I always say thank-you.

But that's modern feminism: preach equality, accept favoritism, win with stacked decks, pretend you had no advantage, then rub salt in the wound. And it's tolerated, nay, encouraged, because of the new chivalry.

How true. I wonder how many of those womyn who are always complaining 'how come men arn't more chivalrous?' actually know the real history behind the word.

**Tyrael** · 24th-September-2006

Don't treat women in any special way. Unless she is special for you and you are special for her.
Women are supposed to be equals. This means that they shouldn't get any preferential treatment whatsoever.

In for example Japan men don't hold the door open for women or let them enter first just because they're women. They have to do that themselves.

**Marx** · 24th-September-2006

When I was very young, I recall going through Woolworths' my my Nan & Mom. The one in our home town had a back entrance as well as a front, and we were going through the back as that's where the main car-park was.
I was ahead of mom and nan, and went through a door that had just been opened. I was directly behind the woman who was passing through and had she checked, she would have seen me. (she had checked, I recall smiling at her as she looked down at me)
The door swung back so I threw my hands out to keep it open and save my face being smacked. My index finger got caught in the hinge of the door and crushed. Naturally, I screamed out very loudly and the woman who had let the door shut on me looked back, rolled her eyes and continued walking off without a word of apology or such.
My mom was livid. She called her an ignorant bitch (my mom never used to swear except on the rarest of occasion) and a lousy specimin of a human. My mom and nan had to push the door to get my finger out, by luck it wasn't broken - just severely bruised (the old doors were very heavy, with weights to cause the pull for auto shutting).
I don't know whether that woman was a feminist who felt holding a door for a child (5 or 6yrs) was insulting to me, or just an ignorant cow with entitlement issues, but either way - I've never before or since met anyone so cold as to let a door slam in a child's face. And yes, she was the 'business woman' type, judging by the dress code as my memory serves.
I won't hold doors open for women. I hold doors for people regardless and I find the majority of gratitude comes from men, sorry if my perception is misogynist - but it IS what I have seen in the world around me. Many women seem to think a man holding a door is either insulting OR expected. Credit due, the vast majority of women will give gratitude, but there is a minority as described above, whereas with men, it's virtually all men will give gratitude if a door is held open.

What a deep thread this has become - all because of a door being held or not!

**Fred X** · 24th-September-2006

Myce wrote:

OMG, that is sooo rude. When passing through a door I always check over my shoulder to see if someone is behind me. If an able-bodied adult hit me with the door I'd be bitching too.

I'm passed caring

Besides, she was a good 2 feet away and should have looked where she was going

It didn't actually slam her, it just closed as she reached it

She was pissed off that I didn't hold the door open

That's why I had the argument with her, as, to be blunt: I'm not here to look out for no f u c k ing woman- they are protected enough as it is

It's about time these self-entitled bitches were made aware that they have to look out for themselves, and stop expecting men to

Further- when I once was waiting to get off a train, this woman was standing there, with her luggage and talking on her mobile

Anyway, she said, 'Oh don't worry, I've 2 strong men to help me unload when we arrive' looking at me, and another man, in his forties who was also standing by the exit

He just looked down at his shoes, whilst I shook my head and said 'not likely'

Anyway, we got off and she maoned, 'I thought you'd at least help'

I walked off and scoffed, 'do it yourself- I'm not a live-in butler'

And as I did, this older man said, 'I'll help if those two won't'

And he carried her things off the train for her, whilst she just stood around looking like the damsel in un-distress lol

In any case- I just think men should make a point of highlighting double standards, and to start making women do things for themselves for a change

After all- it's women, in my experience, who have this entitlement syndrome about them

I've never encountered men who expect to be treated with kid-gloves all the time

Some women are fine, and I respect them

But I refuse to pander to those vain, self-centered women who parade around thinking they're a cut above the rest