Well princess guess who is really to blame for chivalries demise. That would be you. Chivalry is not dead it is just in its death throws. Not because of some secret meeting and memo that went out to all men in the united states, the postage alone on that would be a killer. Chivalries death rattle is because women keep stabbing it in the heart repeatedly by taking offense at the very things they claim men do not do enough of.

A prime example of a perceived crime against femininity is holding the door open for a women. While this practice was universally accepted as a courtesy before the current wave of misandristic feminism, it is now an offence worthy of public humiliation. For example I myself the loveable White Male Oppressor has stopped holding the door open for any woman who is below the age of social security because there have been several times where I would be walking and a woman would be behind me so I would do as I was taught growing up and hold the door open for her and receive a sometimes banshee level scolding of “I do not need a damn man to hold the door for me” or “Jesus when are we ever going to be treated like equals.” So congratulations you have succeeded. You have successfully trained one more man that to be courteous is to be a misogynist.

The current generation is being taught by the children of the feminist hay day of hippie bra burnings and male degradation. These mothers never taught their sons chivalrous courtesies and gave their daughters a victim complex masked as a superiority complex. This has been done to the point that if a man tries to be nice he should be kicked in the balls. Why because women have been indoctrinated to believe that the only possible reason a man would be polite is because he wants to have sex with you. So now the current generation of boys and girls are being taught not to trust each other because of the mindset that they just want to use you. The last 50 years of this crap has just been leading to a gender war the likes of which Valerie Solanas could not have imagined. One where parents no longer teach their children respect for the other gender fostering mistrust and outright hostility.

Some of the biggest perpetrators and purveyors of this are groups like the National Organization of Women who do a excellent job of portraying women as absolute victims of a perceived phallocracy and pump millions of dollars a year into getting destructive misandristic legislation passed. Is there anyone left that is so naive to think that these groups do this out of the kindness of their hearts or a love of women? Sadly yes but the truth is these groups have millions of reasons in the bank why they need to push this idea and lead the sheepets in to victim hood.

The only way that these groups can keep the coffers overflowing is to teach women that they are victims of men. They need to push the idea that men do nothing as a courtesy and that there is always an ulterior motive laying just below the zipper. The point is if you want to be treated like a lady then act like one. Stop believing the rhetoric from these activist groups. Stop berating a man for holding the door open for you and above all else if you want men to be chivalrous it is incumbent on you to teach your children to be so. You have already destroyed chivalry in your children and if you truly want that changed you will have to teach your adult children how to be chivalrous and ensure your grand children are taught the same. Until you are willing to do that you better get a nose guard because that door is going to hit you in the face more and more often.

Until Next Time: Courage

Share The Oppression

One such argument is made by Male-Feminist Professor Hugo Schwyzer, where, in his article, “How the mens rights activists get feminism wrong”, he asserts that men are the sole cause of the “anger” men’s rights advocates show. Professor Schwyzer starts speaking about a dark time in his life when he was getting sober with the help of a twelve step program and a phrase that really struck a cord with him. The passage from the twelve step book says that “addicts are the architects of their own adversity“. And while this is absolutely true when it comes to Drug and Alcohol addiction, making the leap to men’s rights seems a bit harder to swallow.

He states in his article regarding men’s rights advocates that  “These men feel victimized, they feel exploited, they feel ignored, they feel impotent. And those feelings are powerful. I don’t think these boys and men who turn to the men’s rights movement are lying about their pain. The problem is that they’ve completely misunderstood two things.” In the interest of time and to avoid the “To Long Didn’t Read” Phenomenon of the internet I will only address the first point of the good professor’s article, but I do recommend the article as a good point for my argument. The first thing that he is referencing are as he calls it “the straitjacket of traditional American manhood. Men are suffering because their emotional, psychological, intellectual, and sexual potential is stunted by their own efforts to live up to an impossible masculine ideal.“  He references what are termed here the “Guy Rules” and points to Deborah David and Robert Brannon’s 1976 book on men, The Forty-Nine Percent Majority, which in short says those rules are: Big boys don’t cry. No sissy stuff. Be a “sturdy oak.” “Be a big wheel.” “Give ’em hell.”

I must say this is a very accurate interpretation of these so called “Guy Rules”. We are taught from the cradle to toughen up, be the rock of support and be ambitious. But are these things really bad? Is this really the reason that men’s rights groups feel that men have been disenfranchised and emasculated? I think it is more of a cop-out explanation than a viable reason. I say this because from the time that life diverged from asexual reproduction to a time when two distinct genders came on to the scene the overwhelming majority of all species not just humans have one major trait in common. It is the male that must secure the shelter hunt the food and protect the family or herd. And it is only humans that consider this a bad thing.

We must remember from the beginnings of what has been termed second wave feminism these protective traits in the male gender of our species have been vilified and countless millions of dollars have been pushed into education, advertising, media and legislation to teach and support the false idea that men are nothing more than violent dumb creatures that want to do nothing more than rape, kill and watch sports.

I will not be quoting Valory Solanas or Andrea Dwarken like many would at this point because equating either of those two with a realistic version of Feminism would be like equating Scooby Doo with an accurate description of canine behavior. The question here is do the television shows that we watch and the movies that are produced really show men as women beating, child raping sycophants? If all you watch is Lifetime, Dr. Phil or Law and Order : SVU then you would answer a resounding yes. But if you watch regular television shows on the major networks and cable from ABC to the Disney Channel that argument falls apart.

Men are marginalized as existing in a dim witted near simian states on sitcoms and have been for the last 30+ years. For example Everybody Loves Raymond where an apparently gifted sportswriter is semi-literate and can not for the life of him understand the simplest situations of the family dynamic. Or Home Improvement. The story of Tim Taylor who whilst having absolutely no clue what is going on or for that matter how to change a light bulb without electrocuting himself somehow has a hit home improvement show. In both of these cases their wives are constantly belittling their lack of mental prowess and these along with a whole host of others I could mention portraying men as mental and emotional midgets. My question is how is this emasculation and dumbing down of men and their instincts not a cause for concern?

I find it hard to understand that anybody who even has a rudimentary knowledge of the activities of the second wave feminist movement could possibly think that they are misunderstood, they repeatedly make their intentions and motives very clear that their movement is purely a women centric greatest of equals ideology.  The feminist movement of today has little to nothing to do with the women’s movement of the early 20th century when the complaints were legitimate. In today’s world feminism has nothing to do with the legitimacy of women’s original complaints but the inherent injustice of their proposed solutions. And in all reality the men’s rights movement purely exists as a counter weight to the well funded and extremist elements of the women’s movement. I think it is pretty well understood.

Until Next Time: Courage

Share The Oppression