First of all I am not that up to date on the subject being talked about here. I gather the "New Male Code" is supposed to replace the traditional idea of Chivalry that I have advocated. I suppose you want to "Take back Chivalry", create some new form of Chivalry that is more male friendly or something. I haven't read up on the "Take Back Chivalry" thread so I don't know what is being talked about there.

All that being said, I think that whatever "New Male Code" the members here might want to embrace certainly needs to keep women's interests in mind. Women need to be supported in their gender role of caring for children and being good mothers. Women need to be able to feel safe that they will be provided for and protected by the men in their lives. Whatever "New Male Code" that gets developed needs to provide these benefits to women in order to be morally legitimate in my eyes. Chivalry has served this function traditionally, which is why I like Chivalry. If there are going to be improvements made to the Chivalrous concept I would hope that the improvements benefit women and benefit women's ability to care for children. If the idea behind "reforming" Chivalry is simply to benefit men or to reduce the responsibilities that men owe to women and children then I think that is wrong headed.

I am not sure that women should have a "say" in what the "New Male Code" should be. If the code is to be decided by a vote or something it may be reasonable to exclude women from such a vote. My thinking is that since the "New Male Code" constitutes the man's responsibility or the expression of the man's gender role, it therefore represents the man's duty or the man's code of conduct, not the woman's, and so it makes sense that men should decide upon what their own duties as men are.

However, that said, women will have a say in how men should behave in terms of women having the right to exercise their romantic choice. A large part of the purpose of Chivalry is to make men attractive to women, to win women's trust and to win women's hearts. If Chivalry is to be reformed successfully then the reforms cannot harm men's attractiveness or desirability in women's eyes. The "New Chivalry" has to be as good as the old in appealing to women or else the "New Chivalry" won't function well as the men who embrace such a "New Chivalry" will be at a romantic disadvantage compared to the men who stay with the old fashioned version of Chivalry. This will then incentivise men to reject the "New Chivalry" because they don't want to turn women off and the "New Chivalry" idea then won't go anywhere.

You must keep in mind that Chivalry is a romantic behavior first and foremost, so of course Chivalry is meant to appeal to women, so it makes perfect sense therefore that Chivalry is meant to benefit women. "Taking back Chivalry" doesn't make any sense if the purpose of such an endeavor is to make Chivalry more "male friendly". Chivalry is not designed to be "male friendly" in the first place, it is designed to be appealing and desirable to women.

So, I don't know quite what the purpose of creating a "New Male Code" is in the first place. However, if the purpose is to change Chivalry, that will only provide a benefit if the "New Male Code" is more desirable in the eyes of women than the old one. If not men will revert to the old Chivalrous code as it will provide men with greater benefits in the form of making themselves more desirable to women, which is what men really want for themselves anyways.

No ST a male code need not take any women into consideration as it is for men. It is a code of conduct for men to follow and since women do not know how to be men then their input for the most part is as valid as a tree surgeon giving advice to a brain surgeon about a tricky operation.

I myself welcome female input if they are honorable in action as well as in intent. But to say we must take women into consideration is laughable.

And chivalry was not a romantic ideal nor was it designed to attract women. ST you seem to have no concept of chivalry at all.

It was a code of conduct for how to deal with peers in daily life and how one conducted himself in war.

The romantic stuff or "The rules of courtly love" were added later.

But it's intent was to form rules of combat for knights and their lords.

Quote from Seattle Traditionalist 2

First of all I am not that up to date on the subject being talked about here. I gather the "New Male Code" is supposed to replace the traditional idea of Chivalry that I have advocated. I suppose you want to "Take back Chivalry", create some new form of Chivalry that is more male friendly or something. I haven't read up on the "Take Back Chivalry" thread so I don't know what is being talked about there.

All that being said, I think that whatever "New Male Code" the members here might want to embrace certainly needs to keep women's interests in mind. Women need to be supported in their gender role of caring for children and being good mothers. Women need to be able to feel safe that they will be provided for and protected by the men in their lives. Whatever "New Male Code" that gets developed needs to provide these benefits to women in order to be morally legitimate in my eyes. Chivalry has served this function traditionally, which is why I like Chivalry. If there are going to be improvements made to the Chivalrous concept I would hope that the improvements benefit women and benefit women's ability to care for children. If the idea behind "reforming" Chivalry is simply to benefit men or to reduce the responsibilities that men owe to women and children then I think that is wrong headed.

I am not sure that women should have a "say" in what the "New Male Code" should be. If the code is to be decided by a vote or something it may be reasonable to exclude women from such a vote. My thinking is that since the "New Male Code" constitutes the man's responsibility or the expression of the man's gender role, it therefore represents the man's duty or the man's code of conduct, not the woman's, and so it makes sense that men should decide upon what their own duties as men are.

However, that said, women will have a say in how men should behave in terms of women having the right to exercise their romantic choice. A large part of the purpose of Chivalry is to make men attractive to women, to win women's trust and to win women's hearts. If Chivalry is to be reformed successfully then the reforms cannot harm men's attractiveness or desirability in women's eyes. The "New Chivalry" has to be as good as the old in appealing to women or else the "New Chivalry" won't function well as the men who embrace such a "New Chivalry" will be at a romantic disadvantage compared to the men who stay with the old fashioned version of Chivalry. This will then incentivise men to reject the "New Chivalry" because they don't want to turn women off and the "New Chivalry" idea then won't go anywhere.

You must keep in mind that Chivalry is a romantic behavior first and foremost, so of course Chivalry is meant to appeal to women, so it makes perfect sense therefore that Chivalry is meant to benefit women. "Taking back Chivalry" doesn't make any sense if the purpose of such an endeavor is to make Chivalry more "male friendly". Chivalry is not designed to be "male friendly" in the first place, it is designed to be appealing and desirable to women.

So, I don't know quite what the purpose of creating a "New Male Code" is in the first place. However, if the purpose is to change Chivalry, that will only provide a benefit if the "New Male Code" is more desirable in the eyes of women than the old one. If not men will revert to the old Chivalrous code as it will provide men with greater benefits in the form of making themselves more desirable to women, which is what men really want for themselves anyways.

Men who live their lives and base themselves around making themselves desirable are not attractive to women. They are losers like you who come on sites like this and write humongous rants about how men should serve women. Ironically when men stop caring about what women want, women start caring about what men want.

Quote from chevalier

No ST a male code need not take any women into consideration as it is for men. It is a code of conduct for men to follow and since women do not know how to be men then their input for the most part is as valid as a tree surgeon giving advice to a brain surgeon about a tricky operation.

Chevalier, perhaps I am not getting what this business about a "male code", or "New Male Code" as the title of this thread dubs it is supposed to be about. Does this "male code" idea have anything to do with Chivalry? I thought the goal of the discussion was to make Chivalry more male friendly or something.

When I think of the idea of a "male code" it sounds to me like the goal is to create a code of conduct, a list of ethical rules that direct how men should treat other people. Maybe the "male code" is supposed to tell men how best to behave as men, to define what "manliness" is. If the "male code" is simply to instruct men how to treat other men, then I can see how you can then claim that women have nothing to do with it. However, if the "male code" is supposed to tell men how to treat women, or what men's family responsibilites are, then it seems like women's needs should very much be considered in the creation of such a code.

Chivalry, as I define Chivalry, is basically a code of conduct of how men should treat women, and yes, primarily has a romantic purpose in mind. I thought the point of creating a "New Male Code" was to use the newly created male code to supplant or replace Chivalry, which most of the men on this forum seem to want to get rid of.

Is the "male code" that you seek to create only intended to tell men how to treat other men, or will it's application also include direction as to how men should treat women? If it is the former, then I can see how women's needs or input need not be involved. If it is the latter though, I don't see how you can exclude women ethically or practically from consideration.

Quote from Seattle Traditionalist 2

Chevalier, perhaps I am not getting what this business about a "male code", or "New Male Code" as the title of this thread dubs it is supposed to be about. Does this "male code" idea have anything to do with Chivalry? I thought the goal of the discussion was to make Chivalry more male friendly or something.

When I think of the idea of a "male code" it sounds to me like the goal is to create a code of conduct, a list of ethical rules that direct how men should treat other people. Maybe the "male code" is supposed to tell men how best to behave as men, to define what "manliness" is. If the "male code" is simply to instruct men how to treat other men, then I can see how you can then claim that women have nothing to do with it. However, if the "male code" is supposed to tell men how to treat women, or what men's family responsibilites are, then it seems like women's needs should very much be considered in the creation of such a code.

Chivalry, as I define Chivalry, is basically a code of conduct of how men should treat women, and yes, primarily has a romantic purpose in mind. I thought the point of creating a "New Male Code" was to use the newly created male code to supplant or replace Chivalry, which most of the men on this forum seem to want to get rid of.

Is the "male code" that you seek to create only intended to tell men how to treat other men, or will it's application also include direction as to how men should treat women? If it is the former, then I can see how women's needs or input need not be involved. If it is the latter though, I don't see how you can exclude women ethically or practically from consideration.

The same way women have excluded men for thousands of years.

Do you ever get tired of writing these long rants that sound stupid and make you look like a wimp made to serve women.

Are you religious? How can you support chivalry when the bible says the woman are men's helpmates not vice versa?

Quote from chevalier

No ST a male code need not take any women into consideration as it is for men. It is a code of conduct for men to follow and since women do not know how to be men then their input for the most part is as valid as a tree surgeon giving advice to a brain surgeon about a tricky operation.

I myself welcome female input if they are honorable in action as well as in intent. But to say we must take women into consideration is laughable.

I hesitate to put my two cents worth into this thread because I really feel like any code a man chooses to live by is just that: his personal choice. I don't think it should be up to any woman to decide or influence how a man chooses to express the concept of his manhood. It's not for me to define "what makes a man." I think men should decide that for themselves . I'll go further: I don't think men should impose the "what makes a real man" rules on other men. Again, I think this is a matter of individual choice. Men influence one another through their actions and words, and yes, women also have an influence on men (whether they are trying to do exactly that or not)...but whether one chooses to be influenced in such ways is, and should be, up to the individual. An individual holds the ultimate veto power on influences coming from the outside. They can choose to accept, deny, incorporate, or not, what they want to. (I do realize, however, that this is far more easily said than done.) Further, regardless of one's choice of personal code, there will, undoubtedly always be someone out there who will be more than happy to rip it apart (criticize it). This person(s) could be female, could be male...it could even be yourself. I think it's a good idea to take in the viewpoints of others (to consider them), but it's also (in my opinion) important to realize that no matter what you end up deciding, you're not going to be able to please everyone. And what matters more than everyone else's ultimate approval is whether or not your actions and behaviors are in line with your beliefs...because if they aren't, it's you who will suffer the most for it. We all need to an occasional challenge to our belief systems or viewpoints...it's how we grow, spiritually, intellectually, and psychologically. But we don't really benefit from being the recipients of continuous and brutal psychological or emotional warfare.

It's been my observation that men are extremely critical (sometimes to the point of ruthlessness) toward themselves, and toward each other, in their own personal journeys in defining what, for them, it means to be a "man." I'm not too sure what to make of that. I just know it's difficult to watch and hard to understand. But I admit, this is probably one of those areas that's hard for me to comprehend fully because I am not male.

I tend to agree with Percy that there are certain codes of conduct that really know no gender boundaries. I agree that morality, authenticity and integrity are things both men and women can (and should) strive for. Whether one chooses to agree with that, is really up to the person. Beyond that, if there's to be a code that is exclusive to one gender, and that gender is male, I don't feel (as a woman) it's my place to say what belongs (or does not belong) in that code. I can empathize (to a point) about what it's like to be male, but as a woman, to be honest, there are things about being male that I just do not (and could not) know because I have not experienced it directly.

Quote from musicman.2

Men who live their lives and base themselves around making themselves desirable are not attractive to women. They are losers like you who come on sites like this and write humongous rants about how men should serve women. Ironically when men stop caring about what women want, women start caring about what men want.

Musicman, where do you get the idea that men who seek to be desirable and attractive to women are not attractive to women. That seems like a strange belief for you to hold. Maybe what you are thinking is that men who seek to please women are showing signs of being weak and are therefore unattractive to women.

I would agree with you that a weak man is unattractive to women. However, seeking to play the provider and protector role in a woman's life is not a sign of being weak. To the contrary, it is a sign of being strong, because only a strong man will be capable of providing to a woman the protection and financial support that she deserves. Women are attracted to strength and repelled by weakness. You seem to be confusing generosity of spirit and a desire to benefit women's lives with weakness.

I am supposing you are thinking that a weak man will do whatever a woman wants, always try to please the woman, offer the woman this bribe and that bribe to try to keep the woman from leaving him. Well, I will agree with you that a weak man may well behave that way, and if a man's "generous" behavior is simply the man giving in or doing whatever the woman says, I can indeed see how that would turn a woman off.

However, that is not what I am talking about or advocating in my posts. What I am saying is that men owe duties and responsibilities to women to provide for women an environment where the woman will feel secure and best be able to care for the man's children. It takes strength on the man's part to be able to provide for the woman the kind of environment that the woman deserves and that the woman wants. A man who can communicate to a woman that he is man enough to provide for her and protect her will indeed hold a special place in the woman's heart and be very attractive in the woman's eyes.

Being protective towards women is an attribute of strength and desirability, not a sign of weakness or a signal to the woman that you are a wimp.

Quote from Seattle Traditionalist 2

Musicman, where do you get the idea that men who seek to be desirable and attractive to women are not attractive to women. That seems like a strange belief for you to hold. Maybe what you are thinking is that men who seek to please women are showing signs of being weak and are therefore unattractive to women.

I would agree with you that a weak man is unattractive to women. However, seeking to play the provider and protector role in a woman's life is not a sign of being weak. To the contrary, it is a sign of being strong, because only a strong man will be capable of providing to a woman the protection and financial support that she deserves. Women are attracted to strength and repelled by weakness. You seem to be confusing generosity of spirit and a desire to benefit women's lives with weakness.

I am supposing you are thinking that a weak man will do whatever a woman wants, always try to please the woman, offer the woman this bribe and that bribe to try to keep the woman from leaving him. Well, I will agree with you that a weak man may well behave that way, and if a man's "generous" behavior is simply the man giving in or doing whatever the woman says, I can indeed see how that would turn a woman off.

However, that is not what I am talking about or advocating in my posts. What I am saying is that men owe duties and responsibilities to women to provide for women an environment where the woman will feel secure and best be able to care for the man's children. It takes strength on the man's part to be able to provide for the woman the kind of environment that the woman deserves and that the woman wants. A man who can communicate to a woman that he is man enough to provide for her and protect her will indeed hold a special place in the woman's heart and be very attractive in the woman's eyes.

Being protective towards women is an attribute of strength and desirability, not a sign of weakness or a signal to the woman that you are a wimp.

If there's an 'owing' of responsibility or duty to a woman, then a woman should have an 'owing of responsibility or duty' to a man. I think the problem with what you appear to be advocating is that it sounds like (though this may or may not be your intent) that men owe something to women and women owe nothing in return.

Quote from Seattle Traditionalist 2

Musicman, where do you get the idea that men who seek to be desirable and attractive to women are not attractive to women. That seems like a strange belief for you to hold. Maybe what you are thinking is that men who seek to please women are showing signs of being weak and are therefore unattractive to women.

I would agree with you that a weak man is unattractive to women. However, seeking to play the provider and protector role in a woman's life is not a sign of being weak. To the contrary, it is a sign of being strong, because only a strong man will be capable of providing to a woman the protection and financial support that she deserves. Women are attracted to strength and repelled by weakness. You seem to be confusing generosity of spirit and a desire to benefit women's lives with weakness.

I am supposing you are thinking that a weak man will do whatever a woman wants, always try to please the woman, offer the woman this bribe and that bribe to try to keep the woman from leaving him. Well, I will agree with you that a weak man may well behave that way, and if a man's "generous" behavior is simply the man giving in or doing whatever the woman says, I can indeed see how that would turn a woman off.

However, that is not what I am talking about or advocating in my posts. What I am saying is that men owe duties and responsibilities to women to provide for women an environment where the woman will feel secure and best be able to care for the man's children. It takes strength on the man's part to be able to provide for the woman the kind of environment that the woman deserves and that the woman wants. A man who can communicate to a woman that he is man enough to provide for her and protect her will indeed hold a special place in the woman's heart and be very attractive in the woman's eyes.

Being protective towards women is an attribute of strength and desirability, not a sign of weakness or a signal to the woman that you are a wimp.

You're hopeless. I'll respond with a longer response when I have the time t.

But you are what most women want but not attracted to.

You maybe be strong but you have a weak character. you are weak willed. Read if men have all the power why do women make all the rules. women want strong guys with weak wills like you so they can leech off their strength.

Quote from musicman.2

You're hopeless. I'll respond with a longer response when I have the time t.

But you are what most women want but not attracted to.

You maybe be strong but you have a weak character. you are weak willed. Read if men have all the power why do women make all the rules. women want strong guys with weak wills like you so they can leech off their strength.

Musicman,

This is exactly the sort of ruthlessness (that men sometimes put each other through) that I spoke of in my response to Chevalier's post.

There are women in this world who might agree with ST's point of view ..and maybe some men might agree as well. He seems to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that he believes men have duties toward women, but that women should show reciprocity by performing duties toward the children they share between them. If this works for him, or for someone else, so be it. You seem to be saying that you think he could be the target of someone with bad intent- someone who might take advantage of his belief system. That, is very true. It's a risk we all take when we choose to make ourselves vulnerable in a relationship. Some behaviors and beliefs may make us more vulnerable than others, and it does appear on the surface that ST's beliefs may make him particularly vulnerable to harm...but without taking any risks at all, there is no room for gain, either.

People can (and sometimes do) put up walls around themselves to protect themselves from harm, but if the walls become too high, or are completely inmpenetrable, the walls that protect us also shut out what is deeply desired in a relationship: intimacy, trust, companionship, growth.

And sometimes the best, most profound (but often hardest) lessons learned are those we learn from trial and error.

Quote from TERA

I hesitate to put my two cents worth into this thread because I really feel like any code a man chooses to live by is just that: his personal choice. I don't think it should be up to any woman to decide or influence how a man chooses to express the concept of his manhood. It's not for me to define "what defines a man." I think men should decide that for themselves .

First of all, I feel myself at a bit of a disadvantage participating in this thread. I have read what is going on in this thread, but I don't know what has been said in the "Taking Back Chivalry" thread, and I am operating under the assumption that this thread is a take off or a derivative of that thread. That the purpose of creating a "New Male Code" is to "Take Back Chivalry". Therefore, I am assuming that the "New Male Code" is meant to replace or get rid of Chivalry, and if that is so, then the "New Male Code" will have to replace the functions that Chivalry serves if it is to be successful.

So, Tera, I think we are talking about a group effort here to create a new code to live by to replace Chivalry with. If that is the case, we are not talking about individual men making their own individual choices in regards to what it means to be a man. We are talking about trying to come to a consensus about how men should treat women, and then the specific topic of this thread is whether women should have a "say" in developing such a consensus.

In other words, we are talking about the development of a community wide standard of ethics in regards to how men should treat women, not about what an individual man defines manliness to be.

I'll play devil's advocate with you here, Tera. You say that "I really feel like any code a man chooses to live by is just that: his personal choice. I don't think it should be up to any woman to decide or influence how a man chooses to express the concept of his manhood"

What if a man "chooses" to "express the concept of his manhood" by hitting his wife if she gives him lip or burns his dinner that she cooked for him. Perhaps his vision of "manhood" is that his wife obey him and do her chores properly, just like a good woman should.

If that is the "code" that is his "personal choice", are you really going to tell me that no woman has the right to "influence" a man not to behave that way, since after all, it is his choice to define what manhood means to him, you as a woman should have nothing to say about it.

You see, Tera, this is the problem with worshipping "personal choice" and the idea that everyone has the right to define for themselves what is moral and what is not moral. Our actions and our "choices" affect the lives of other people. It is not ethical to refuse to take into account how your actions will affect other people. If the "New Male Code" that is being talked about here is indeed supposed to be a replacement for Chivalry, like I think is the case, then most definitely the needs of women need to be considered in creating what this "New Male Code" is supposed to be about.

Assuming that the "New Male Code" is indeed intended to replace the "old male code" of Chivalry, then the romantic element also has to be factored into the equation. Women have to romantically approve of whatever the "New Male Code" consists of or it won't work as it will disadvantage men in their romantic pursuit of women and therefore be rejected by men as being harmful to them.

As far as I know, the "New Male Code" has nothing to do with individual choice at all, except on the issue of whether indivdual men choose to adopt the "New Male Code" as something they subscribe to or not.

As a parting shot, Tera, you say that "It's not for me to define 'what defines a man'. I think men should decide that for themselves." This is a bit of a curious statment coming from you, as a woman. The concept of what is manly, or "what defines a man", as you put it, seems to be very tied up with what is attractive to women. In a sense, what you as a woman think of as being "manly", or sexually attractive to you, defines what "manliness" means. It makes no sense for a man to seek to be "manly" if "manliness" wins him no points with the opposite sex. The entire purpose of being "manly" is to get the women.

Now, I exaggerate a bit in saying this, I admit. I would say that being "manly", or, dare I use the phrase, being a "real man", does have a moral meaning and a moral purpose beyond simply winning the hearts of women. However, I will assert that manliness is most importantly about winning the hearts of women. As such, you Tera, as a woman, have a hell of a lot to say on the subject of what exactly "manliness" is about, whether you feel comfortable possessing that power or not.

Any 'code' that is purely about 'me' or cast in terms soley of my gender, is not worth as much as it could be.

I will die; sooner in my case, than later.

'Men' are modest part of the totality of humanity.

In devising any 'code' one has to ask, Who does the Grail serve?

What is its purpose?

Any 'code' will exist in a milliex that includes people temporally 'outside' parts of that code; people such as children to whom the 'code' will be passed on and those who have an intimate stake in those children - ie: mothers. These are people who we are devoted to in Love, not simply bystanders. It also includes, by essence, those who are affected as 'recipients' of the effects of that code, who apprehend no such immediate personal sentiment or sensitivity, ie: general society.

We have all seen the impact of disregarding the effects of a 'code' on others, just by looking at Feminism and its utterly selfish strictures upon women disguised as 'freedom' to do as they wish without regard for male sensibilities or the damage it does to the female psyche or to children's lives or to the society in which we all live.

In developing a code for men, we must not fall into that narcissistic trap.

Feminism is a code designed by utterly selfish women. Their code completely disregards men. Men are not permitted even to 'inform' a feminist perspective.

Are we to make that same 'error'?

Criminals have 'codes of conduct' that insulate them from society. They are reactionary in nature. We must not emulate them. No aspect of a criminal's code considers transcendants, just as we notice all too often with Feminism.

The old Chivalry code paid too much regard to some elements and insufficient to others. It tried in part, however, to encompass transcendant aspects, which we, in developing a new one, must START with.

These transcendants are not gender related. They encompas Truth and honesty; we must start with being honest with ourselves and recognise that 'oneself' is but a small part of a whole and not a dominating part.

That said, and its generalisability acknowledged, it is aimed at guiding the conduct of men's behaviour both externally and internally. We must START with the internal for the reasons I mentioned in the immediate personal context. We are temporary. We die. And it is the development of the internal individual that engages with the world and leaves his trace that is of prime importance. Individually we have little time.

Hence my emphasis on transcendants. Truth, Honesty, Integrity (in its two fold aspects - Integrating the self, and dealing realistically with the reality of the world of others), Authenticity of person, Morality ( as a set of tools for navigating through life).

Simply 'covering your arse' against feminism is not a good reason.

No ST a male code need not take any women into consideration as it is for men. It is a code of conduct for men to follow and since women do not know how to be men then their input for the most part is as valid as a tree surgeon giving advice to a brain surgeon about a tricky operation.

I myself welcome female input if they are honorable in action as well as in intent. But to say we must take women into consideration is laughable.And chivalry was not a romantic ideal nor was it designed to attract women. ST you seem to have no concept of chivalry at all.

It was a code of conduct for how to deal with peers in daily life and how one conducted himself in war. The romantic stuff or "The rules of courtly love" were added later. But it's intent was to form rules of combat for knights and their lords. -Chevalier

Thank goodness you are here Chevalier to set them straight on the history. The difference between your chivalry and ST's chivalry is like night and day.

Tera you say you don't know if you should add you 2 cents, and then dump a ton of BS. Is lying that easy for you? Using individualism as in "its a man choice" is deconstructionist crap. When a father teaches a boy he can't say, "Do what you want" and not suffer to his dying days. You don't do that with your own kids, so why play "the part" yet again. You are such a witch.

Boys turn into what they will be as men very early in life. Boys must have fathers setting the standard in a boys life and NOT let them do as they want. "Idle hands are the devils workshop." They would play computer games, eat junk food, sleep with tramps and take the low road as there would be no rules then. I now have another reason why you are such a mess.

Music Man ST acts the part of the fool when she/he knows perfectly well what is going on, and is trying to ignore all the information we have here and other spots that she has read. It is her agenda to say, "Bow to the woman goddess and call it chivalry." This is the perfect example of why Chevalier & Dad Savage have such a hard time getting other men to go near the idea of chivalry again. If Chevalier wasn't here we would have to go over this all again for another year. This is what I was after at the beginning of this thread, as we have to go over the same ground with men who don't take note of the long list of debates that have already covered this ground many a time. Tera and ST are like vultures waiting to cause divisions.