FEMINISM AND THE DEATH OF CHIVALRY IN THE MODERN WEST

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

FEMINISM AND THE DEATH OF CHIVALRY IN THE MODERN WEST

Post by Dachshund »

I became a Conservative (a traditional, social Conservative) after reading the political essays and speeches of Edmund Burke, the brilliant 18th-century Anglo-Irish Statesman and political philosopher. Not only was Burke an effective speaker in parliament, as a prose stylist he is rated as one of the great masters of the English language by such such writers as Samuel Taylor Coleride and T.S. Eliot. Today he is universally acknowledged as the founding father of modern conservatism.

Burke is sometimes referred to as "the grave digger" of the Enlightenment for he believed the Enlightenment's faith in abstract, theoretical rationality and logic could never be used to formulate successful political systems as madness. Human beings and human society, Burke rightly claimed, were infinity complex and to expect that our feeble human reason could possibly obtain any genuine knowledge or understanding of the mysterious nature of human behaviour or human society was the height of arrogant and presumptuous stupidity. The French egalitarian philosophers of the Enlightenment, thinkers like Voltaire, Rousseau and Helvetius were some of Burke's main enemies. He laid responsibility for the bloody disaster of the French Revolution in 1789, its barbaric aftermath in the "Reign of Terror" and the ensuing carnage of the Napoleonic wars that ravaged large area of Western Europe at their feet.


A year after the Jacobin communist insurrection that triggered the French Revolution in Paris in 1789, Burke wrote a famous essay entitled "Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790)" wherein he laments: "But the age of chivalry is dead - that of sophisters, economists and calculators, has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished for ever." Burke is referring to the dominance of cold, mechanical logic and theoretical principles of reasoning in the European political domain that, he believed, was a result of the abstract, secular rationalism advocated by the major Enlightenment intellectuals. He referred to Enlightenment rationality as, "...a barbarous philosophy, which is the offspring of cold hearts and muddy understanding, and which is as void of solid wisdom, as it is destitute of taste and elegance..."


The objective of the French Revolution was to violently destroy the existing status quo in the French state, namely the Ancien regime The Ancien regime was the political and social system of the Kingdom of France from around 1500 until 1789 that featured an hereditary monarchy and a feudal system of French nobility. (The three estates of the realm were the the broad orders of social hierarchy used in Christian Europe from the medieval period to early modern times) The administrative and social structures of the Ancien regime were the result of years of state-building, legislative acts, internal conflicts and civil wars, yet they endured.


With respect to the toppling of the Ancien regime by the Jacobin revolutionaries, Burke argued that, "When ancient opinions and rules of life are taken away, the loss cannot possibly be estimated. From that moment we have no compass to govern us, nor can we know distinctly to what port we steer...Nothing is more certain, than that our manners, our civilisation and all the good things which are connected with manners, and with civilization, have,, in this European world of ours, depended for ages on two principles; and were indeed the result of both combined; I mean the spirit of a gentleman and the spirit of religion (i.e; the nobility and the clergy). By destroying the ancient manners and customs of the old regime, France's experiment with the Jacobin revolution, will, Burke predicted, inevitably result in a nation of, "...good, stupid, ferocious, and at the same time, poor and sordid barbarians, destitute of religion, honour, or manly pride, possessing nothing and hoping for nothing hereafter."


It turns out that Burke was right, at least the way I see things. For history clearly demonstrates that not only did the French Revolution quickly precipitate a bloodbath known as the "Reign of Terror" but also, after this, the carnage and devastation of the Napoleonic wars. The French Revolution saw athiestic Enlightenment rationality turn on itself again to become an instrument, not of human enlightenment and liberation, but of tyranny and oppression. But this was just the beginning. In the 19th century, beginning in England, Enlightenment rationality morphed into a scientific rationalism that produced the industrial revolution, the new machines of which, fired a rapacious laissez-faire capitalist economy that was ruthlessly exploitative and generated bitter class divisions in England in particular. Also in the 19th century, Karl Marx used Enlightenment-type reasoning and logic to formulate his theory of "scientific socialism" ( called Marxism "scientific socialism" because Marx claimed his theoretical system was based on the scientific method - which utilises inductive reasoning -, and held it's constituent theories to an objective, empirical standard. Observation was essential to its development and this could result in changes and falsification to elements of the overall theoretical system) In the 20th century Marx's political ideology gave rise to genocidal totalitarian communist regimes in Russia and China (and other nations like Vietnam and Cuba, etc.) that murdered 160,000,000 (conservative estimate) human beings. On top of this, the USSR secretly shipped 153 nuclear warheads (including eight SS-4 strategic ICBM missiles) to the island of Cuba, 90 miles of the Southern (Florida) coastline of the US. To cut a long story short on the 27th of October, 1962, the presence of these Soviet nuclear missiles on Cuba, brought the world within LESS than a hair's breadth of all-out global, thermonuclear war. While today, in the 21st century, the legacy of secular Enlightenment rationality in the West has, amongst other things, morphed into a technological rationality that has led to the creation a of "super-charged", rapacious, techno-corporate capitalism that organises itself itself into giant, anonymous, multinational financial and business cartels which have concentrated vast wealth and power in the hands of an elite, unaccountable, tyrannical minority.


Given the catastrophic history of socialism in the modern era, a history that began during the 18th century Enlightenment with the abstract, rationalist, egalitarian political theories of the "Parisian Metaphysicians" like Voltaire and Helvetius and the French Revolution; then, in the 20th century, gave rise to genocidal, totalitarian communist regimes, the war in Vietnam and the Cuban Missile Crisis (which still keeps me awake some nights on account of the existential distress I experience thinking about what a post-apocalyptic world might have looked like) and so, I find that persons who identify themselves to me as socialists provoke a reflex pang of visceral loathing. I feel compelled to "do a Johnny Rotten" and spit in their faces. But that would be bad mannered behaviour so, as a traditional, social Conservative, I refrain.


To continue. Burke had a serious problem with the egalitarian Enlightenment thinkers (the so-called philosophes) who theorised about society and politics from within their isolated "ivory towers."He argued that they could never hope to successfully theorise about society or politics when they are so remote from genuine human experience. "Hominem non sapiunt" (They know not men) was his criticism. Those who particularly raised his ire were, as I say, the French philosophes of his time. For Burke, a theory of man and his affairs (social, political, domestic etc.) must meet two standards if it is to be valid: "Does it suit his nature in general" ? - "Does it suit his nature as modified by his habits" ? The "Parisian Metaphysicians" (Rousseau, Helvetius, Voltaire and Co.) fail completely to understand man's actions, passions and interests. (for myself some 20th century equivalent would be socialist arseholes like: Marx, Foucault, Rorty and Derrida). For the sake of easy computation man is reduced to an abstraction of matter and number, when, in addition he should at least be viewed under the tried and true Aristotelian categories of : quality; relation; action;passion; place; time; circumstance and condition.


So what then is the true nature of man that is so negligently omitted from the abstract theories of the Parisian philosophes , and without which a science of society or politics is impossible ? I totally agree with Burke that man is an INFINITELY complex creature, and I am also, like he was, acutely sensitive to the vast, unplumbed depths of human motivation. There is no simple or single formula that can account for the behaviour of individuals, for the boundless variety and inconstancy of their actions. I'm a fan of Donald Trump, for example, and I notice that not infrequently he does and says (Tweets) some really crazy stuff. If you were to ask me, or , say, the brightest Harvard University professors of behavioural science or psychology WHY exactly it is that Donald Trump does these crazy things, they would just shrug their shoulders because they wouldn't have the faintest clue. All human actions and behaviours are initiated by mental event like thoughts and emotions, and all of the different kinds of mental events take place in consciousness. We do know for a fact that human consciousness exists, BUT we have absolutely no idea whatsoever as to what consciousness IS, i.e; as to what the nature of human consciousness is. ZERO, ZIP, NOTHING


With regard to human nature, we can conceptualise it as having two constituent forms: primordial human nature and secondary (or conditioned) human nature. The process by which lower animal become men and men learn to live in a sociable manner is a lengthy and and delicately balanced affair which differs with the time, the place, and the people. Peaceful cooperation among men depends on the formation of a second or conditioned nature, a customary or habitual mode of behaviour/conduct that will check the perverse, irrational, anarchistic and violent/destructive tendencies of the primordial nature and produce altruism and conviviality. Imagine you and I meet for a cup of tea and cake at a swanky cafe in the London. We chat to each other over tea in the kind of polite, civil manner that is customary for two middle-class, white European adults who are conversing in public. Here are some snippets from our conversation: "Hello, how are you, A" ?..."Oh, how interesting, I didn't know P was working in Canada now "!...."Has Mrs B recovered from her bout of 'flu"?....How's your pet Dachshund dog getting on"?...."Of Dear, what a palava " !.... "Can't believe Mike passed his driving test on the first attempt!"...."Yes, he's really chuffed"...."Well the old clock on the wall says it time to dash, I'm afraid" ...."Righto then, it been very nice to see you again- take care B"... Best not forget my scarf, I'm feeling a bit of a cold snap - as the Bishop said to the actress"! ...Ha, Ha, you ARE a card, B, you are a card " !... "Bye for now." Both you and I are wearing masks, our conduct is suitably civilised relative to the prevailing social norms that regulate the behaviour of two English adults chatting in a public place (a fashionable cafe in London) But beneath the masks we wear are our primordial human natures and primordial human nature is not rational or controlled or congenial; rather it is irrational, chaotic, antisocial and potentially harmful/lethal. When it happens that there is some serious flaw or deficiency or dysfunction in the process of forming a man's second/conditional nature, such that his primordial human is exposed and unbridled, that man might well be capable of gassing 6,000,000 Jews to death or worse. In sum ,our primordial human nature is not innately rational. We are essentially irrational (emotional) entities, our rational thinking is invariably overwhelmed by: gut instinct; hormonal rushes; "flight or fight" syndrome and deep existential and ontological anxieties. Jung said the same thing. The human psyche, he argued, is a fundamentally irrational entity; it is not driven by rational forces; the concept of human reason/rationality is just a cultural concept. It is an immensely valuable but does not describe our psychology. The great truth about the human nature is that it is oftentimes quite dark and does not conform to a polite, congenial , rational view self in the world. Consider... Even the most superficial consideration of ourselves, those we know personally and those we come into contact with and the world at large reveals that under the thin fabric ( what Burke called "The decent drapery of life"), darker, more primitive forces are in operation. We have to concede that the devil is at least as active as God when we look at at what is going on in the world right now, what has gone on since the dawn of history and what goes on in our souls every day. As we look at the world we see: warfare; corruption; exploitation; pornography; abject poverty; racism; the contravention of basic human rights and dignity; child abuse; rape; murder; tyranny and the list goes on. What do we see when we look at OURSELVES? Although we might be less inclined to admit it, the truth is we see much of the same, just in the personal as opposed to global context.


Burke believed that man's socialising second/conditional nature that held in check the dark, irrational, anarchistic and perverse tendencies of his primordial nature and effected the expression of altruism, good cheer and conviviality consisted of the sentiments instilled by the manners which characterised the social life of wherever it is he is placed by Providence.


I mentioned earlier the great importance Burke placed on manners, and, given the meaning of the term - as he used it in 1790 - is quite different from what it connotes today, I will try to make it clear what Burke understood the word to mean.By (good) manners, Burke meant not just raising one's hat to a passing Lady or table etiquette or not farting in church, but the complete webs of prejudices, opinions and habits that are determined by: family life; education; occupation; religion; and examples that are deemed worthy of emulation. Manners, therefore, because they moulded the second/conditional nature of man, are to a great extent responsible for human behaviour, including whether men can live with their fellows in a harmonious and cooperative fashion, in short, for moral life.


Burke firmly believed that good manners arose from chivalry and Christianity, in his words from "The spirit of the gentleman and the spirit of religion." These he says have been the the main civilising and humanising force in England and Western Europe since the middle ages. Good manner of this type provide, he says, most lives with: "form and colour"; "beautify"; "soften" and liberalise human relations.


The original "Christian gentleman" Burke speaks of was, of course, the medieval Knight of yore, and Chivalric ethics still formed the basis of gentlemanly conduct in the West right up to the 1950's. The Song of Roland written between 1098 and 1100 includes a description of a Knight's Code of Chivalry which provides an excellent insight into the qualities and virtues a Knight was bound to display at all times in his conduct.



KNIGHT''S CODE OF CHIVALRY ("cf: "Song of Roland")



* To fear God and maintain His Church

* To serve the liege lord in valour and faith

* To protect the weak and defenceless

* To give succour to widows and orphans

* To refrain from the wanton giving of offence

* To live by honour and for glory

* To despise pecuniary reward

* To fight for the welfare of all

*To obey those placed in authority

* To guard the honour of fellow knights

* To eschew unfairness, meanness and deceit

* To keep faith

*At all times to speak the truth

*To persevere to the end in any enterprise begun

* To respect the honour of women

* Never to refuse a challenge from an equal

* Never to turn back on the foe


As mentioned earlier, Burke identified good manners with those of the (chivalrous) Christian gentleman. Where else, he asked, but in a society ruled by a wise and virtuous "natural aristocracy" will such manners become the bond of all society? "Love of glory", "Love of country" are, he says the two most noble passion, they typified the great aristocrats that he so admired. High spirit, a sense of honour, humanitarianism, self-control, moderation, courage and fortitude, generosity, prudence, vigilance, foresight, circumspection, sound judgement, are all the marks of the mannerly person in the best sense. Burke did not believe in democracy and argued that in a hierarchical society, ruled by such men, their conduct would find reflection in the behaviour of the masses. A well-ordered civil society is one which will have numerous great men to lead it, men who will, Burke believed, by their excellent examples determine the style of conduct as a whole. Wise and virtuous men are, he believed the guideposts and landmarks of the state. The social principle of friendship therefore depends upon good manners,



Codes of Chivalry for Knights (like the above) first came into existence around the time that the Crusades began (in 1095) and were largely developed by Catholic Church whose influence in Western Europe was rising at the time. Before this, during the so-called medieval "Dark Ages", Western Europe was very much a Hobbesian realm, a world of tremendous violence and brutality, warfare and continuous social upheaval. In that era, each vassal (Lord, Baron) or civil authority had their own knights. The Knights were basically "hired muscle"; they had their own horses, armour and weapons and were the human equivalent of heavy tanks. Their job was to defend or attack in order to sustain what could be had. The Knights, were excellent horsemen and were trained in the arts of war; clad in their armour and chain-mail, armed to the teeth, were professional killers and very much a force to be reckoned with. Combat in the middle ages was a violent , grisly affair and before the notion of chivalry was introduced, Knights were, in turn: brutal; merciless; ruthless; sword-swinging, limb-cleaving, blood-drenched warriors. In the era of the "Dark Ages", Knights were commanded by warlords, and, for victory in battle, they were rewarded with land, or with licence to plunder the villages they had fought in, looting, raping and burning as they went.


The introduction of the first Codes of Chivalry for Knights, represented an effort by the Church to temper and restrain some of the extremely violent, aggressive and antisocial behaviours of Knights, that had, for a number of reasons, become a cause of concern for the clergy at the time. In addition to the rules of combat set down in the new Codes of Chivalry, a Knight would now be obliged to pledge an oath to uphold the kind of civilised values and virtues set down, for example, in the "Song of Roland's" Chivalric Code, such as: charity; justice; honour; courtesy; mercy; devoutness (God-fearing), loyalty and respect for women and such like. So, did binding Knights to these Christian Codes of chivalry ultimately succeed in civilising them? Some historians say "No", that given their access to arms, protective armour and horses the Knights remained a hostile,violent and lawless group of barbarians, little more than "privileged thugs" who continued to murder, rape and pillage with impunity at home when they were not away fighting in major battles like the Crusades. Others disagree. I would say that the truth is somewhere in between, namely, there were certainly some - a significant proportion of - Knights in medieval Western Europe and England who took their vows to chivalrous conduct seriously and endeavoured to embody the moral ideals in the Chivalric Code.


WOMEN, KNIGHTS, CHIVALRY AND COURTLY LOVE


The medieval Knight was a professional soldier ( a cavalier) and more often than not he would be either at war protecting the king's (or his Lord/Baron's) assets, or garrisoned at a castle protecting something of value to the realm. When the turmoil of the early Crusades had diminished and Knights began to spend less of their time on the battlefield, women increasingly provided the focus for their attention. A state of relative military calm, coupled with the rise of the Troubadours in France in the 12th century. The Troubadours were poets who sang of the virtues of Chivalry, and they dictated that feminine graces were no longer to be overlooked. This gave rise to a special type of loving relationship between Knights and married noblewomen (who were typically of higher social rank) called Courtly Love. Courtly Love was aristocratic, and its proper milieu was the royal palace or court. Knights were almost always of noble birth ( although there were some rare exceptions) and therefore legitimate noblemen/members of the feudal aristocracy, though generally speaking they were regarded as lower aristocracy or weaker nobility ( just as feudal society in general was strictly structured hierarchically in castes/class; the aristocracy, likewise, had its own vertical structure of lower and higher gradations of rank).


So, what exactly was Courtly Love? In the most general sense, Courtly Love was a refined and sophisticated, idealised mode of loving that took place between a brave, combative, medieval Knight and a married noblewoman who was a paragon of feminine beauty. It was in the quest for the noble lady as a chimeric (i.e; impossible to obtain) object of desire, rather than the result, that the notion of courtly subjectivity was developed and refined. The essence of Courtly Love was in a the Knight's view of the lady as worthy of the utmost respect and the most faithful service. The knight's lady was the centre and fulcrum of Courtly Love. She was expected to be: chaste; charming; honourable; educated; eloquent; kind and merciful, and bravery alone was not required for her, moreover, she was passive, not expected to love except after long wooing, and then it was not her love she granted but only her pity or mercy.


Courtly Love was kept a strict secret between the Knight and his Lady. Despite the fact the lady was the married wife of another man (her Lord), the relationship was celebrated as a source of higher morality, despite the prevailing religious and social sanction of the times. The Knight lover was, in accordance with the rules of Courtly Love, initially required to suffer long months of silence before declaring his love to his beautiful Lady. In "Allegory of Love" (1936), C.S. Lewis wrote as follows of Courtly Love...


"...the lover is always abject. Obedience to his lady's slightest wish, however whimsical, and silent acquiescence to her rebukes, however unjust. There is a service of love modelled on the service which a feudal vassal owes to his lord. The lover is the lady's man."


Thus, in Courtly Love, the Knight becomes his lady's vassal (subject) and must prove his devotion and fidelity to her by noble service. The duty of the Knight lover is to submit to the wishes of his Lady. His love for his beloved inspires him to ever greater deeds, that is, In Courtly Love, constancy and devotion to the service of his lady, ennobled the passionate Knight and empowered his prowess in tournaments (like jousting contest) and in battles. In Mallory's Arthurian legends (1485), time after time, he shows King Arthur's Knights of the Round Table fighting in the name of the rose and for her sake alone. Courtly Love is what kept the chivalrous Knight errand on the paths of pious armed violence
.

According to tradition, a noblewoman's, suitor in Courtly Love - the chivalrous Knight - was her fearsome standard bearer in war. Courtly love was was said to be the catalyst of prowess, and we see this in the famous tale of Sir Lancelot's legendary love for King Arthur's wife Queen Guinevere. Lancelot's love for his lady is the spur that impels him him in his quest for honour in the accomplishment of unparalled feats of arms. Lancelot's love for his Queen was the driving motivation that produced his magnificent performances in battle. Feats of fearless courage and skill that both his friends and enemies proclaimed made him the greatest living Knight. As he reflects on his military record at the end of his romance with Guinevere, Sir Lancelot confesses that...

"...all my great deeds of arms...I did them the most part for the Queen's sake, and for her sake would I do battle were it right or wrong, and never did I battle all only for God's sake, but to win worship and to cause me to be better believed."



Lancelot constantly serves all (gentle) women in distress, yet he serves best when he defends the colours of the Queen of his heart.


As the Lady's home evolved, it became the centre of social interaction, promoting the civilising arts of music, poetry, painting and sculpture. To please his Lady, the Knight would labour to master these arts as intensely as he laboured to master the arts of warfare. Writing poetry, sing love song, and playing musical instruments became as important as his skills with the sword, lance and bow.


Through Courtly Love, the Lady became, in effect, the intellectual custodian of Knightly virtues and moral values, promoting the ideals of chivalry: prowess; justice; loyalty; defence; courage; courtesy; humility; dignity; faith (in the Code); compassion; generosity, duty and so on. BUT, the Lady was first and foremost a woman and as such she was the the keeper of the hearth flame that provided a safe, nurturing environment for her family. She was the teacher of her children and Lady of her Lord. The Lady had the courage to do those daily tasks that while they were not glamorous, were also vital to the well-being of her family, and she did them graciously. She was an example to her family and the keeper of peace. She was generous to others, while also being generous to herself. She kept her word no matter the difficulty in fulfilling the vow, and she stood fast in her beliefs. She selflessly served her Lord and her family and those she believed worthy.


THE DEATH OF CHIVALRY IN THE MODERN WEST AND WHO IS TO BLAME


Whenever I hear the word "feminist" I feel a sharp visceral pang of mixed incredulity and anger. I curse democracy as the slip-shod system of government that unleashed it and wish that I had been born in an ideal, 18th - century, neo-feudal, England governed by Burkean Conservatives. Whenever I reflect upon the gender feminist movement and its orchestrators in the liberal academy in the 20th and 21st centuries my simply mind boggles; it boggles because I cannot fathom the magnitude and extent of the stupidity of a political ideology that is grounded on the primary premise that men and women are equal in the sense of being the same. Even children and my own pet dachshund have enough nous to know that this is clearly not true. And to sincerely argue that it is, is, in my opinion concrete evidence of bone fide madness. I mean, If I were to say to a modern Western psychiatrist in a consultation who purpose was assessing my state of mind, that a rock is the same as a snowball, and that I sincerely believed this, he would very likely diagnose some form of psychosis or severe delusory disorder and have me sectioned off into the local booby-hatch for the duration.


Just when you that the feminist movement couldn't possibly come up with anything more idiotic than it has already done to date, sure enough, it does.
Here is the latest piece of paranoid feminist nonsense; it was published by professor Judith A. Hall and colleague in a journal called "Sex Roles" (2015) 72: 252-261. and is essentially a crazy attack on male chivalry.


Professor Hall's study concluded that if you are a woman who likes to have your chair pulled our, a door opened for you by a date or your meal paid for, you are in fact being subtly seduced by a patriarchy bent on keeping you in your place by chaining you with warm smiles and pleasantries. Hall calls this behaviour "benevolent sexism" and says (quote)...

"Benevolent sexism is like a wolf in sheep's clothing that perpetuates support for gender inequality at an interpersonal level...These supposed gestures of good faith may entice women to accept the status quo in society because sexism literally looks welcoming, appealing and harmless...Benevolent sexism is a CHIVALROUS and subjectively positive view of women. Women are portrayed as pure and warm, yet helpless and incompetent beings who require cherished protection from men. Benevolent sexism asserts more power through paternalistic affection rather than dominance, and these affectionate behaviours may be insidious because they are not necessarily negative on the surface...Benevolent sexism is attractive ideologically for women because they may find it difficult to resist the allure of sexism in such a form. After all, sexist men may hold women in high regards and are willing to sacrifice themselves to protect and save women. This may lead women to be more complacent with the status quo of gender inequality as it is presented in a manner that will not incite defiance. However, benevolent sexist men perceive women as the weaker gender at the same time. By incentivising women with benevolence and affection, men can assert their power in society without too much, resistance."



Most feminists now believe that showing special honour to a woman demeans her abilities and competency. They believe that when a man wishes to help a woman, she cannot help herself. While this may be true of some men, what is the alternative to opened doors and a kind tone ? What happens to a society that ridicules the virtues of gentlemanliness and chivalry and teaches men that it is wrong to view women as needing protection ?


The #MeeToo movement and men like Harry Weinstein are the aberrant children of feminist philosophy. Feminism encourages women to be independent , "sexually liberated" creatures and then strips them of the societal norms that should protect them. Is it any wonder that depraved men have become more emboldened in their proclivities ?

By denying the differences between men and women, and by ridiculing the manly virtues of gentlemanliness and chivalry and the feminine virtues of modesty and prudence, feminism has dissolved the civilisational restraints on the male libido. The boorish behaviour that pervades Western society today would have been unthinkable in the past, when a traditional understanding of sexual propriety prevailed.


The two great well-spring of Western civilisation were the (spiritual) cities of Athens (reason) and Jerusalem (Christianity). With this in mind let's look at what the Bible has to say on the issue of feminism and chivalry...


While modern feminism seems to claim that men and women are equal and the same, the Bible states that God created men and women to be different (Genesis 1:27; Matthew 19:4). It also states that that God designed women as the "weaker vessel", one that the men in their lives should honour. Because of this intentional design, men should: willing open doors for women; offer them their jacket when they are cold; generally defend and protect them from harm and show them respect and honour. The idea that women require no special treatment is diametrically opposed to what the Bible teaches. Consider also the following...


* God gave man a greater capacity for physical strength than He did for women. He also gave them a tougher mental and emotional temperament than women, whom He calls the "weaker vessel" (Peter 3:7).


*That is not to say that woman is or should be weak. God exalts strength in women (e.g. Proverbs 31:17), however He designed her capacity for physical strength to be less, and for her to express her strength differently. In giving half the population greater strength physical, mental and emotional toughness, God intended us to build a sense of unselfish responsibility to PROTECT, PROVIDE and DEFEND the other half. This law is plainly evident in nature itself.


* I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to SUPPORT THE WEAK." wrote the Apostle Paul, "and to remember the words of Lord Jesus, how He said, It is more blessed to give than to receive." (Acts 20:35) "God wants us to use that strength to benefit others. He gave it to us to build a Godly mindset: support, care for and protect those who are weaker - including women, the "weaker vessel."


Kindest Regards


Dachshund
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: FEMINISM AND THE DEATH OF CHIVALRY IN THE MODERN WEST

Post by -1- »

Dachshund wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:15 am I became a Conservative
No way!
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: FEMINISM AND THE DEATH OF CHIVALRY IN THE MODERN WEST

Post by Arising_uk »

Dachshund wrote:...
By denying the differences between men and women, and by ridiculing the manly virtues of gentlemanliness and chivalry and the feminine virtues of modesty and prudence, feminism has dissolved the civilisational restraints on the male libido. The boorish behaviour that pervades Western society today would have been unthinkable in the past, when a traditional understanding of sexual propriety prevailed.
...
:lol: Tell that to all those bastards they fathered on the women serfs and whilst you're at it tell the serfs about all this 'chivalry' as they saw scant sign of it.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: FEMINISM AND THE DEATH OF CHIVALRY IN THE MODERN WEST

Post by -1- »

Chivalry was about control. "You are a weak woman, let me do that for you," said the chivalrious gentleman when the fair maiden was about to be grabbed and kidnapped by a fire-breathing serpent with seven heads (or the equivalent in real terms.)

Because the maidens deferred almost all control of life to Chivalrs, the women had a boring life, and sometimes (most times) they were subjugated to the whims and fancies of the controllers of life choices and actions, to whims and fancies of the Chivalrs.

The feminist movement moved some of the controls of the Chivalrs over to the women.

This means that men no longer have to hold doors and pick up after their women when they walk down the street together. This also means that more women have more control on events of their own lives, and on events affecting the lives of their men (who are no longer Chivalrs), and of the people in their families and societies.

So while women now decide not only what to have for dinner, but also which company to outsource the telephone helpline to, the men have the chance to cook dinner, dust around the house, and knit elbow warmers for their grandchildren.

Clearly, or not clearly, this has changed social structure, and other than global warming and an alarming rate of advance toward global overpopulation, things are for the better now.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: FEMINISM AND THE DEATH OF CHIVALRY IN THE MODERN WEST

Post by -1- »

Arising_uk wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:23 pm
Dachshund wrote:...
By denying the differences between men and women, and by ridiculing the manly virtues of gentlemanliness and chivalry and the feminine virtues of modesty and prudence, feminism has dissolved the civilisational restraints on the male libido. The boorish behaviour that pervades Western society today would have been unthinkable in the past, when a traditional understanding of sexual propriety prevailed.
...
:lol: Tell that to all those bastards they fathered on the women serfs and whilst you're at it tell the serfs about all this 'chivalry' as they saw scant sign of it.
With all due respect to unwanted sex, which I don't condone, and most people don't, the boorish Chivalrs did not have to force themselves on the serfs' women... it was an honour to be got pregnant by the lord.

The pervasive democratic sentiment of equality and of the denial of forerights did not exist for most of history. A lot, and I mean a lot, of serfs did accept unquestioningly the superiority of their lords, whether that existed or not in real terms other than political... and they accepted the right of the landlord to have free access to the women on the land of the lord.

It is abhorrable now to think this way, but hey, this is now, and that was then.
Dubious
Posts: 2507
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: FEMINISM AND THE DEATH OF CHIVALRY IN THE MODERN WEST

Post by Dubious »

Chivalry was a good mythic motive but never an actual one. If it pertained to any group it was the upper classes.
Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: FEMINISM AND THE DEATH OF CHIVALRY IN THE MODERN WEST

Post by Dachshund »

-1- wrote: Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:45 am Chivalry was about control. "You are a weak woman, let me do that for you," said the chivalrious gentleman when the fair maiden was about to be grabbed and kidnapped by a fire-breathing serpent with seven heads (or the equivalent in real terms.)

Because the maidens deferred almost all control of life to Chivalrs, the women had a boring life, and sometimes (most times) they were subjugated to the whims and fancies of the controllers of life choices and actions, to whims and fancies of the Chivalrs.

The feminist movement moved some of the controls of the Chivalrs over to the women.

This means that men no longer have to hold doors and pick up after their women when they walk down the street together. This also means that more women have more control on events of their own lives, and on events affecting the lives of their men (who are no longer Chivalrs), and of the people in their families and societies.

So while women now decide not only what to have for dinner, but also which company to outsource the telephone helpline to, the men have the chance to cook dinner, dust around the house, and knit elbow warmers for their grandchildren.

Clearly, or not clearly, this has changed social structure, and other than global warming and an alarming rate of advance toward global overpopulation, things are for the better now.


Dear -1-,


Yes, that's right, -1-; if a modern-day Knight saw you being harassed by a violent, 6 ' 6 '', 220 kg thug as you walked home one evening from the cinema, he would race to your defence. Being courageous, strong and skilled in the masculine arts of combat he would "slay" your tormentor. Why ? Because women are not as strong physically as men; and in such a scenario, you ARE a weak woman, and you DO need the help of a honourable man to protect you ( unless the prospect of being dragged off, kidnapped, tormented and eaten by the "fire-breathing dragon" is something that would not concern for you !)


With regard to the feminist movement in the West that began in the US in the early 1960's, I do not think it has succeeded in generating anything but strife and destruction. There are two reasons for this:


(1) From its beginnings in the early 1960's, and throughout the next 60 years to date, it is gender feminism =as opposed to its saner counterpart, equity feminism, - has continued to characterise the modern feminist theory and is still the prevailing ideology in the academy. Gender feminists ardently argue that psychological differences between men and women have little or nothing to do with evolution, but instead are largely socially constructed. Their argument however is untenable as hard evidence from research in evolutionary psychology now provides overwhelming evidence that psychological sex differences are evolved. And that is the end of that - the debate is over. The claim that the difference between the male and female mind are predominantly due to "nurture" as opposed to "nature" is 100% FALSE. Having said this, my point is that If a political ideology - and that is what the gender feminism movement is - is constructed on a primary premise that is false - one that radically contracts a scientifically proven fact about human nature an - it will fail; and if ever it musters any real political clout (which it did) it has a tremendous capacity to inflict serious damage on society (which it has done).


(2) The second reason that gender feminism, which is inherently radical, generated so much discord and misery in Western society is that it flouted the Conservative wisdom that where political movements aim to produce sudden and profound reforms of the existing status quo, they are courting disaster. The core traditional institutions (educational, legal, political), social norms (manners and mores), customs, moral values, religion, etc. of the existing status quo in the West in the 1950's had evolved over a 1000 years and this status quo embodied the distilled wisdom of countless prior generations.The institutions and customs of the status quo had stood the test of time (which is basically a trial-and-error process) generation after generation, and on account of this were likely to be best adapted to help us address eternal human challenges and meet enduring human needs and thus be genuinely progressive. They are likely to possess more knowledge than we can readily perceive and than any collection of intellectuals and technical experts however capable can have.A great deal of society's wisdom is contained in the structure of its traditional institutions and customs - and so they convey not merely knowledge but sagacity.


Take the Christian institution of marriage for instance. Despite the tremendous social upheaval that have taken place in Western Europe over the past millennium, despite the near constant eruption of bloody wars, despite all the myriad vicissitudes of history that it encountered, the Christian institution of marriage had endured throughout the entirety of Western civilisation to date. And for this reason alone it is valuable and worthy of respect. It has clearly rendered good service to Western society for a very long, long time.


Despite all of this, in the 1960's and 1970's, American of gender feminists launched an insane, all-out assault on traditional marriage. That is, they vowed to destroy one of the oldest and most important institutions of the existing status quo - to decimate one of the most time-tested and benevolent pillars of orderly, civilised society in the West. An institution that was, in short, clearly legitimised by the (moral) Natural Law. The key gender feminists who plotted and orchestrated the attack against marriage were a group of madwomen including: Kate Millett; Germain Greer; Marylyn French; Jessie Barnard; Shulasmith Firestone and Andrea Dworkin. When I say these women are mentally ill, I now have the scientific evidence to prove it I do not know exactly what kind of psychiatric disorder/s afflict German Greer or someone like like Andrea Dworkin, a foul-mouthed, revolting, lesbian misandrist - who believes that (quote) ("marriage as institution developed from rape as a practice" and "All men are rapists."), but anyone who sincerely believes - as these women fervently do - that the psychological differences between the sexes are are entirely due to the influence of external, environmental, social factors , and go so far as to write detailed "textbooks" in support the thesis, is crazy as bat-shit. Seriously.


To continue. With regard to the comments you have posted in your reply to my OP, men, as I say, are not equal ( i.e; the same) as women. For a start, men are physically more powerful, mechanically speaking, than women; they have bigger muscles and their muscle have greater tensile strength. Generally they are more prone to aggression. They are quicker to take action. They're more likely to take risks. They have a higher sex drive (libido). They are less empathetic. And the list goes on. (If you want to personally experience what it feels like to be a man , you can get a reasonably accurate idea by administering robust daily doses of a prescription testosterone solution to yourself via intramuscular injection over the course of a few weeks !) None of these attributes is negative in and off itself, but they do have the potential to harm women. If he were so inclined, the average man could easily overpower and harm the average woman. Right? So what does this show ? What it shows is that men don't want to hurt women. (Before anyone objects, yes, I am fully aware that there are a small percentage of adult males at large in Western societies who are afflicted with serious psychiatric disorders like psychopathy, dangerous psychoses like paranoid schizophrenia, active substance abuse, in particular, addiction to potent psycho-stimulants like methamphetamine, malignant narcissism, violent paraphilias like sexual sadism, antisocial personality disorder, etc; who are driven by their illness to hurt women through violent (and perhaps homicidal) assault, torture, rape and such like. The insane behaviours of such men, however, are, as I say, not representative of the way the majority of normal, healthy white European male adults in Western society conduct themselves).


Men don't want to hurt women, but they need some way of showing women that they are safe with them. Chivalry is a way for men to show women that we will not be using our: superior strength/power; aggression; and over-heated libidos against them. Men know that women are perfectly capable of opening doors, that they are perfectly capable of putting their own coats on.Modern men also know that women are capable of paying for things and capable of walking to places unescorted. Men are not that stupid that they think doors are too hard for women to open, or coats too tricky for them to put on by themselves. Nor are they so idiotic to think that women are unable to pay for a meal at a restaurant. Men do not do these things because they think women are are so weak, incompetent and helpless that they cannot do them for themselves. They do these things to show the woman the kind of man that they are.


When a man ( a Conservative, chivalrous gentleman like my good self, for instance) opens the door for a woman, or holds out a woman's coat so that she can slip her arms inside the sleeves, he's showing that he'll be gentle with them. When a man offers to walk a woman home, or walks on the street side of the sidewalk, he's showing her that he'll use his superior strength to protect her, NOT to harm her. When he offers to pay for dinner or helps to fix her car when it wont start or brings random gifts ( a bouquet of flowers :) ) out of the blue, he's showing the woman that she is valuable to him and worth slowing down for. Chivalrous men - gentlemen -use these gestures and many other of a similar type to signal that they respect women. Sure, there are many different ways to signal respect, but these little gesture are perfectly calibrated to convey that the masculine attributes that could be potentially dangerous for a woman will not be. They are an ideal means of infusing potentially threatening masculine traits with gentleness. Opening doors and pulling out chairs for women are symbolic displays of classic male characteristics like strength and protectiveness, render caring and benevolent.


The feminist movement devastated the institution by using its political influence in the early 1970's to in the US to pass national "No Fault" divorce legislation. Liberated from the "prisons" of their tyrannical marriages and dull domestic lives, women were now free to act as independent , autonomous, free individual agents who could enter the workforce and earn their own money. The only problem was the workplaces they subsequently enter were brutal, inhuman neo-liberal stress factories that increasingly afflicted them with a broad range of serious, debilitating mental health disorders. I'll fill you in on how feminism was co-opted by the capitalist patriarchy, and how it all back-fired on them BIG TIME in a separate post if you are interested. It's a tragic, though instructive, tale.


Finally, on a related note, I have one important question for you "Lady -1-". That is, can you tell me why is it that women have breasts and men do not? (The correct answer, BTW, is that they do not exist for men to - Ahem - have fun playing with !)


I remain as ever, Madam, your humble and obedient servant


Sir Dachshund du Lac: Knight of the Realm, Slayer of Fire-Breathing Dragons, Scourge of the Black Knight and devoted Courtly Lover of a Noble Lady Faire (can't tell you her name, its a secret)
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: FEMINISM AND THE DEATH OF CHIVALRY IN THE MODERN WEST

Post by -1- »

Dear Sir Knight Dachshund in Shining White Armour,

I beseech thee to express thyself more succinctly. No human being in mine esteem be capable of traveling the golden pilgrimage through thine wit of words.


Words, words, words... the less the more.
Belinda
Posts: 4067
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: FEMINISM AND THE DEATH OF CHIVALRY IN THE MODERN WEST

Post by Belinda »

Both sexes may be chivalrous. There is a woman with sore knees who is the carer of her demented husband.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: FEMINISM AND THE DEATH OF CHIVALRY IN THE MODERN WEST

Post by -1- »

Belinda wrote: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:48 am Both sexes may be chivalrous. There is a woman with sore knees who is the carer of her demented husband.
Absolutely.

Transgenders, too, so much as the Eunuch standing next to you in the food court.
Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: FEMINISM AND THE DEATH OF CHIVALRY IN THE MODERN WEST

Post by Dachshund »

-1- wrote: Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:17 am

Words, words, words... the less the more.

I , Sir Dachshund, of the Kennel Round, dedicate to thee the world's smallest Poem:


WORLD'S SMALLEST POEM


Me,
We


The End
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: FEMINISM AND THE DEATH OF CHIVALRY IN THE MODERN WEST

Post by Arising_uk »

Dachshund wrote:... With regard to the feminist movement in the West that began in the US in the early 1960's, I do not think it has succeeded in generating anything but strife and destruction. There are two reasons for this: ...
One really, Yank women really, really disliked Yank men and I can't blame them.
Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: FEMINISM AND THE DEATH OF CHIVALRY IN THE MODERN WEST

Post by Dachshund »

Arising_uk wrote: Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:56 am
Dachshund wrote:... With regard to the feminist movement in the West that began in the US in the early 1960's, I do not think it has succeeded in generating anything but strife and destruction. There are two reasons for this: ...
One really, Yank women really, really disliked Yank men and I can't blame them.
Same for English feminists, but, being English, they don't like to make a fuss staging loud demonstrations and public bra-burning protests. So ,when Lord Snooty is feeling frisky, they just "Lie back and think of England." :D


Later, Tosspot


Dachshund
Belinda
Posts: 4067
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: FEMINISM AND THE DEATH OF CHIVALRY IN THE MODERN WEST

Post by Belinda »

Dachshund, an individual might be encouraged in his religious quest to make the code of chivalry his way to his God. A religious pilgrimage can be marred by sterile interpretations like yours as the nature of personal religious pilgrimages to be dangerous and risky. You might ask yourself "who does the Grail serve?".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/h ... y_01.shtml

Like that old questing knight of the story as invented by Chretien de Troyes, moderns can see the mysterious grail as an icon which is not fixed but is carried by an inexperienced girl. The quest for the grail was not easy and it is not easy.
Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: FEMINISM AND THE DEATH OF CHIVALRY IN THE MODERN WEST

Post by Dachshund »

Belinda wrote: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:48 am Both sexes may be chivalrous. There is a woman with sore knees who is the carer of her demented husband.
Dear Belinda,


I think that Chivalry boils down to three key virtues or, if you like, character traits: MERCY; CHARITY and HUMILITY. Mercy means being conscious of your advantages, and treating others gently. Charity means selfless giving; giving to others without expecting anything in return. (And) humility means accepting your mistakes, and recognising that those who do not have your advantages are not your inferiors.

It's fair to say that the conduct of the woman in your example is chivalrous, in particular, it is very charitable. Charity is a word derived from caritas, the latin term for love. More precisely ,"caritas" connotes a selfless/ unselfish love. In the Bible, St John famously wrote; "Deus est Caritas" meaning "God is Love". God' lavishes his selfless love (caritas) on man every moment of every day. (The ancient Greeks used the term apage to describe the selfless love the Romans called "caritas, perhaps you're familiar with the word "agape (Pronounced: A-GAP -EE).

As it happens, I know of a similar case, only it is an elderly man who, without fail, visits his wife (who has advanced Altzheimer's syndrome) at her nursing home and talks to her, or just sits with her every day for 5-6 hours. His wife does not really know who he is any more (on account of memory loss from the Altzheimers). I find it very touching - quixotic heroism always makes me "mist up." It's why I'm still a sucker for the old 60's Broadway hits like "The Man of La Mancha" and "Camelot" (esp where Robert Goulet is starring).

So, yes, both sexes are capable of chivalrous behaviour. And in spite of what feminists (most of whom are socialists, like you Belinda :x tsk...tsk...tsk) have drummed into your head. Chivalry does NOT AT ALL imply that women are weak and powerless creatures. Rather, chivalry, is, ironically, an admission by men of womens' moral superiority. Chivalry is a humble acknowledgement of YOUR power over US. Do you understand ?

Kindest Regards,

Sir Dachshund du Lac (Knight hound of the Round Kennel).

PS: I have this suspicion , Belinda, that you like to believe Jesus of Nazareth was some kind of "socialist revolutionary"? But let me tell you, socialism and Christianity are two very different "balls of wax". One is an insane, self destructive, human political ideology, premised on atheism and inspired by hubris; the other is a form of Divine "Conservatism" :D that demands: reverence; subservience; surrender and obedience before one absolute, omnipotent authority - God the Father Almighty. In any case, Jesus Himself said He was not interested at all in playing at human politics, he made this perfectly clear when He taught a group of Jews who were squabbling about the tax they had to pay to Rome: "Render unto Caesar, what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's."
Post Reply