Percy, I actually did give my response a lot of thought before I wrote it, and during. I'm sorry I responded at all, however. My instinct told me to keep quiet, and I wrote a response anyway. My mistake.

Timocrat, the emotive parts of my being want to tell you exactly where to stick it.

Perhaps I'll get back to you later with a more "rational" response.

Or perhaps not.

Ok let me clarify something to see if it will end the bickering on this thread.

My last post was not to say that women should not benefit from the actions of a practitioner of the code.

What I was trying to say is that in the writing of this new code it should be written by men because it is men who will be learning it and practicing it.

So any constraints on behavior need to be placed their by men as we know the reasonings of why we do things they way we do. If we have a lot of female input then we will end up with a lot of "but why" and "but ifs" from the women.

Now in my opinion the code should be about how we treat people. How we conduct ourselves with moral choices and yes how we conduct ourselves in combat.

It was not to say that women should be ignored but to say that no we should not get into treating men one way and women anther as much as it can be avoided.

Percy, ST, of course people should take into consideration how their beliefs and conduct effects others. I am not saying that men (or women) should be entirely self-centered and operate as if none of what they do has an impact on anyone else. Nor am I saying that morality is just what you make of it. I think we all have a pretty good sense of what is right and wrong (does anyone here disagree with the Ten Commandments?) Seems to me like those commandments are the highest code I can think of to live by. That's my belief. It's personal.

We can't force others to accept our beliefs.

No one is forcing anyone to live by the standards of the code we will set. The code is for us to live by. Others will accept it or reject it based on how we make an example of it. I don't know why this simple discussion has led to such an extreme that someone would think we would force our beliefs on others.

I mean come on. If the points being made against it are that it should be about individuality then we would have what we already have. Millions of people looking out only for number 1. Themselves. And as we have seen individuality isn't all it is cracked up to be.

Instead I think we need a code for men so we stick together and work in union to a common set of goals that benefit everyone. The code is voluntary not forced on any one. I am so tired of this liberal double talk.

This was something that could have done good but instead it is getting bogged down with over emotional bull and things being read into it that were never said. People are finding problems with this that never exsisted in the first place.

You people do what you want I will cling to my own code and hope that others will follow by the example that I set.

Quote: "You people do what you want I will cling to my own code and hope that others will follow by the example that I set." Chevalier

That makes perfect sense to me.

Quote from TERA

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.

Thank you Tera for your supportive statements. I will elaborate further on some of the points you made. Some of this is reminding me of what I said in the good 'ole "Chivalry is NOT dead" thread. Yes, good memories those were.

First of all, absolutely, I believe that men owe duties to women. And yes, I definitely expect reciprocity from the woman that I am giving my support and protection to. Now to some extent, to an important extent, this reciprocity comes simply in the form of the emotional benefits from being loved and admired and yes, having sex with, a woman that I love. These benefits may be poo pooed by some, claiming that it takes no or very little effort on a woman's part simply to be emotionally giving and to have sex, but regardless of how much effort this takes on the woman's behalf, still, it is something that I value very much and is indeed an important part of the reward that I receive for playing the "provider and protector" role.

Now, in truth, I do not think that a woman's love should be treated as something trivial, something that takes no effort, something that involves no investment on her end. A woman's love is something to be cherished and greatly appreciated if you as a man are lucky enough to receive it. Loving another human being in a romantic sense involves vulnerability and is emotionally intense and will expose someone to danger if the person they are loving exhibits bad relationship behaviors. In these ways, a woman is indeed making an investment when she expresses love for a man, either through sex or through other types of affectionate behavior.

Another part of the reciprocity that I expect from a woman is indeed her caretaking behavior for my children. Being a good father is part of my identity as a man, and providing for my children a good mother is certainly an important part of the benefits that I seek to give my children. The time and attention and love that my wife gives to my children is definitely a part of how she repays me for the support and protection that I give to her.

In my mind, the "work" that my wife does to be a good mother is something that directly benefits me, it is something that she is doing on my behalf, it is something that makes me a better man, in a crude sense, it is what I am "paying" her for if I am financially supporting her. I am "buying", for my chidren, a happy home with a stay at home mother to give my children the best care and the best start in life they can receive. Of course this is reciprocity for me being the "provider and protector" of my wife, of course this counts as a fair "reimbursement" for the investment I put into her.

To be complete in this idea of what forms of reciprocity a woman can offer to me in exchange for the financial support and protective role I play in her life, there are forms of reciprocity that I do accept as being valuable other than the stay at home mother role. The idea of the man supporting the woman so that the woman can better take care of the children is certainly the most typical way and the most common way that a woman can give back to a man, but there are also other kinds of nurturing and caretaking behaviors that a woman can offer to people who may not be children but who are still in need of guidance and support in their lives as troubled or dysfunctional adults. Women can play valuable and important roles in their lives in addition to being mothers, but in the romantic context, it is the woman's role as mother that most clearly establishes her right to be taken care of by a man.

To be even more complete on this subject, a woman may not only provide for her own children, but a woman can also play an important motherly role for her siblings children or in a more modern context for her neighbors' children or maybe her friends' children. It is not only the nuclear family context that a woman can play a nurturing motherly role in, but also a woman can have value in an extended family context or in a kind of psuedo extended family context, such as cartaking for the neighbors' kids that might hover around someone's house. I also see these forms of caring for children as something valuable and important that I want to be a part of and that I would view as being a part of a woman's reciprocity to me, that I would admire and appreciate in my wife, that I would see as being behavior that would make a woman more desirable to marry.

So, do I make myself vulnerable for holding onto the belief that men owe duties to women, that I therefore owe a duty to whoever I may marry in the future? Of course! However, holding on to such values also makes me a better man, a more honorable man, and, dare I say, more attractive to women. It is how men should be, it is how men should act, it is the man's role in creating a healthy society, so I really don't see how I have any justification for refusing to take on my responsibilities as a man whether taking on such responsibilities endangers me or not.

If I seek to protect myself as a man by refusing patriarchal responsibilities towards women and children, maybe I will be protecting myself in certain ways, but then I will be simply endangering women and children instead. That is not an ethical way for a man to behave. That is not the kind of man I see myself to be. Therefore, I will embrace the duties and responsibilities that I as a man am bound to honor.

However, I do not see my embracing responsibilities towards women as being a burden or even something that endangers me. To me it is simply a part of life. If there is danger, so be it, one of my responsibilities as a man after all is to overcome danger and do what is right regardless of the consequences to myself. However, of all the duties that a man is bound to uphold, the duty to provide for and protect women is the sweetest duty of them all.

All that being said, you guys seem to be forgetting something. I actually get to choose my wife! The number one way I protect myself is to choose a woman whom I think will perform her functions as a wife well. I am not going to be marrying somebody who is irresponsible, who will take me for a ride, who will waste the investment of time and money and love that I put into her. Also, even after I am married, there are still things I can do as a man to protect myself and to try to make sure that my wife is behaving as the good woman I want her to be. Especially if I take on the provider and protector role I will be able to exert influence on my wife's behavior to guarantee, or at least maximize the probability, that she will remain a good wife to me. I don't think the danger to me in taking on the protective role as a man is really as great as many of the posters here make it out to be.

If I refuse to take on my provider and protector role then I have failed in my romantic life even before it has started. Remember, if you try to create a good marriage you will surely have a better shot at experiencing a good marriage than if you never try to create a good marriage in the first place.

The approach to self-protection that I will take is that I will focus on trying to find a woman that I see as being admirable or heroic. I will seek a woman that I admire, that I view as being heroic in some way, and in this way I will feel safe marrying her, I will have a sense of trust that she will do the right thing and that she will make good decisions in her life. If a woman is heroic, and I feel as her husband that I am supporting her and empowering her and encouraging her in the heroic journey, then I feel like I am a part of her heroism, that her heroism reflects positively on me, and that I can then feel proud that I am married to her, and I will feel that whatever love and support and protection that I offer to her is being put to good use.

That is my strategy that I will use to overcome the cultural problems and the endemic feminism that harms the attractiveness of so many women in modern America. If a woman is heroic, the various sins that she may still carry with her or be afflicted by can be overlooked, can be forgiven, can be overcome. No woman is perfect, but some women are heroic! I don't need a woman to be perfect, if she is heroic, then that is good enough for me.

It would make sense to you. Because to you the individual is more important than everyone else.

To me an idividual is far less important than everyone else. And it is far more noble to put others before myself and that is what I hoped this code would be but through your interference yet again it may become something else.

Instead of seeing what this could become and the good it could have done by having men set a good example for others you chose to inject problems that did not exist before your influence. You seem to have a need to deflate the hopes of others and criticise every chance you get.

I am done onthis thread it once again has become a Tera fest instead of a serious discussion on how to make things better.

Quote from chevalier

It would make sense to you. Because to you the individual is more important than everyone else.

To me an idividual is far less important than everyone else. And it is far more noble to put others before myself and that is what I hoped this code would be but through your interference yet again it may become something else.

Instead of seeing what this could become and the good it could have done by having men set a good example for others you chose to inject problems that did not exist before your influence. You seem to have a need to deflate the hopes of others and criticise every chance you get.


I am done onthis thread it once again has become a Tera fest instead of a serious discussion on how to make things better.

To be honest Chevalier, and Timocrat, my original post on this thread was not so much different from what others said before me...and yet, the two of you personally attack me and leave others' similar opinions untouched. Why is that?

Quote from Seattle Traditionalist 2

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.

Look at how this dumbass worships Tera. [--] I guess ST's code of conduct involves worship women and stalking them online.

No one asked men how we feel about women's conduct. No man approved paying for all dates. Women's insights might matter but not their approval.


ST we know you are a woman. Stop lying to us.

Admin note: Mild edit to remove private content

First of all, absolutely, I believe that men owe duties to women.

Exclusionary.

What you believe, of course, is your business, but 'Duty' to a 'class' of people who for no cause or choice of their own are simply born with a particular gender?

Down that road you go, and is life satisfactory?

Is it not sufficient to determine 'duties' at all and any despite their gender? Or even to none?

Find a better, more inclusive 'Duty' or one to something more transcendant than simple gender.

Who does the Grail serve.

Quote from Seattle Traditionalist 2

Thank you Tera for your supportive statements. I will elaborate further on some of the points you made. Some of this is reminding me of what I said in the good 'ole "Chivalry is NOT dead" thread. Yes, good memories those were.

First of all, absolutely, I believe that men owe duties to women. And yes, I definitely expect reciprocity from the woman that I am giving my support and protection to. Now to some extent, to an important extent, this reciprocity comes simply in the form of the emotional benefits from being loved and admired and yes, having sex with, a woman that I love. These benefits may be poo pooed by some, claiming that it takes no or very little effort on a woman's part simply to be emotionally giving and to have sex, but regardless of how much effort this takes on the woman's behalf, still, it is something that I value very much and is indeed an important part of the reward that I receive for playing the "provider and protector" role.

Now, in truth, I do not think that a woman's love should be treated as something trivial, something that takes no effort, something that involves no investment on her end. A woman's love is something to be cherished and greatly appreciated if you as a man are lucky enough to receive it. Loving another human being in a romantic sense involves vulnerability and is emotionally intense and will expose someone to danger if the person they are loving exhibits bad relationship behaviors. In these ways, a woman is indeed making an investment when she expresses love for a man, either through sex or through other types of affectionate behavior.

Another part of the reciprocity that I expect from a woman is indeed her caretaking behavior for my children. Being a good father is part of my identity as a man, and providing for my children a good mother is certainly an important part of the benefits that I seek to give my children. The time and attention and love that my wife gives to my children is definitely a part of how she repays me for the support and protection that I give to her.

In my mind, the "work" that my wife does to be a good mother is something that directly benefits me, it is something that she is doing on my behalf, it is something that makes me a better man, in a crude sense, it is what I am "paying" her for if I am financially supporting her. I am "buying", for my chidren, a happy home with a stay at home mother to give my children the best care and the best start in life they can receive. Of course this is reciprocity for me being the "provider and protector" of my wife, of course this counts as a fair "reimbursement" for the investment I put into her.

To be complete in this idea of what forms of reciprocity a woman can offer to me in exchange for the financial support and protective role I play in her life, there are forms of reciprocity that I do accept as being valuable other than the stay at home mother role. The idea of the man supporting the woman so that the woman can better take care of the children is certainly the most typical way and the most common way that a woman can give back to a man, but there are also other kinds of nurturing and caretaking behaviors that a woman can offer to people who may not be children but who are still in need of guidance and support in their lives as troubled or dysfunctional adults. Women can play valuable and important roles in their lives in addition to being mothers, but in the romantic context, it is the woman's role as mother that most clearly establishes her right to be taken care of by a man.

To be even more complete on this subject, a woman may not only provide for her own children, but a woman can also play an important motherly role for her siblings children or in a more modern context for her neighbors' children or maybe her friends' children. It is not only the nuclear family context that a woman can play a nurturing motherly role in, but also a woman can have value in an extended family context or in a kind of psuedo extended family context, such as cartaking for the neighbors' kids that might hover around someone's house. I also see these forms of caring for children as something valuable and important that I want to be a part of and that I would view as being a part of a woman's reciprocity to me, that I would admire and appreciate in my wife, that I would see as being behavior that would make a woman more desirable to marry.

So, do I make myself vulnerable for holding onto the belief that men owe duties to women, that I therefore owe a duty to whoever I may marry in the future? Of course! However, holding on to such values also makes me a better man, a more honorable man, and, dare I say, more attractive to women. It is how men should be, it is how men should act, it is the man's role in creating a healthy society, so I really don't see how I have any justification for refusing to take on my responsibilities as a man whether taking on such responsibilities endangers me or not.

If I seek to protect myself as a man by refusing patriarchal responsibilities towards women and children, maybe I will be protecting myself in certain ways, but then I will be simply endangering women and children instead. That is not an ethical way for a man to behave. That is not the kind of man I see myself to be. Therefore, I will embrace the duties and responsibilities that I as a man am bound to honor.

However, I do not see my embracing responsibilities towards women as being a burden or even something that endangers me. To me it is simply a part of life. If there is danger, so be it, one of my responsibilities as a man after all is to overcome danger and do what is right regardless of the consequences to myself. However, of all the duties that a man is bound to uphold, the duty to provide for and protect women is the sweetest duty of them all.

All that being said, you guys seem to be forgetting something. I actually get to choose my wife! The number one way I protect myself is to choose a woman whom I think will perform her functions as a wife well. I am not going to be marrying somebody who is irresponsible, who will take me for a ride, who will waste the investment of time and money and love that I put into her. Also, even after I am married, there are still things I can do as a man to protect myself and to try to make sure that my wife is behaving as the good woman I want her to be. Especially if I take on the provider and protector role I will be able to exert influence on my wife's behavior to guarantee, or at least maximize the probability, that she will remain a good wife to me. I don't think the danger to me in taking on the protective role as a man is really as great as many of the posters here make it out to be.

If I refuse to take on my provider and protector role then I have failed in my romantic life even before it has started. Remember, if you try to create a good marriage you will surely have a better shot at experiencing a good marriage than if you never try to create a good marriage in the first place.

The approach to self-protection that I will take is that I will focus on trying to find a woman that I see as being admirable or heroic. I will seek a woman that I admire, that I view as being heroic in some way, and in this way I will feel safe marrying her, I will have a sense of trust that she will do the right thing and that she will make good decisions in her life. If a woman is heroic, and I feel as her husband that I am supporting her and empowering her and encouraging her in the heroic journey, then I feel like I am a part of her heroism, that her heroism reflects positively on me, and that I can then feel proud that I am married to her, and I will feel that whatever love and support and protection that I offer to her is being put to good use.

That is my strategy that I will use to overcome the cultural problems and the endemic feminism that harms the attractiveness of so many women in modern America. If a woman is heroic, the various sins that she may still carry with her or be afflicted by can be overlooked, can be forgiven, can be overcome. No woman is perfect, but some women are heroic! I don't need a woman to be perfect, if she is heroic, then that is good enough for me.

Do you EVER write concise responses?

This is a bunch of crap you wrote. No man wants to provide unless he enjoys pain.

Your a doormat. pretty much most men who provide are. male gold diggers get more respect.

I'm sorry I posted any thoughts here. I've been accused of "spewing venom" which is untrue. My original post had no "venom" in it whatsoever. None. I admit being called a witch and a liar lit a bit of a flame and I reacted to it with an emotive response. That was venom.

Chevalier, you don't have to quit this discussion because of me.

I'm not going to post anything else on this thread.

Tera I am not trying to silence you. I am trying to get you to understand that many men here are fired up about this idea and you seem to find problems where none previously exsisted.

It would be like me giving you tickets to take your kids to Disneyland then pointing out problems with Disneyland that are not true.

It is a real kick in the nards to be fired up about something good then hearing about problems that are fictional.

Fell free to speak but please don't ruin this for us with non issues.

Now in my opinion the code should be about how we treat people. How we conduct ourselves with moral choices and yes how we conduct ourselves in combat.-Chevalier

Sounds solid. I guess the next step should be to see if those concerned with this issue think a code should be both friendly to religious and non-religious people alike? I obviously think it should.

I think the atheists should try to be like the following one, click below:

http://www.mrausa.net/showthread.php?t=695

While in return those who are involved, and are religious, should try to give a little more support to any points they make, outside of quoting the bible in isolation and saying, "We need no more proof than it is here in the bible and therefore I win the argument."

We need to avoid both extremes of making "God" or "No God" the point of this debate and digressing this code to its destruction.
That is if we want to get this done and then have both wings sell it to their respected flocks. I know of both honorable athiests and religious people, and we must avoid choosing sides on this ground.

Other constructive opinions on this?

(Outside of the victims peanut gallery and the bow to the goddess department.)