Chivalry is Dead?

[GrimReaper]

58 minutes ago, Darkpig said:

I find this interesting because many English words do come from a long ways in the past when women didn't have so many rights and that much is understandable. English is also pretty messy as well so it is one that needs reforming anyways. Whether or not these so called "feminists" should have any say I do not know but many feminists are in fact fighting for the safety and well being of women (who knew?). There are many shitheads out there in places of power, such as racists, rapists, and pedophiles. Most of these politicians *looks up percentage of female politicians in the U.S.* Yeah the numbers are pretty small but statistics are their own brand of shit. Point is there is still a ways to go before the streets are safe for women. You probably already knew that.

 

I wonder what other influences are at play with human history? Does the idea of pilgrims turn people on? Is the frustrations of the world pushing people to use history as a poor excuse to make scapegoats of the opposite gender? So many possibilities.

 

Edit: I just realized I am contributing to the thread. Goddamn I must be bored.

Well, if we want to speak statistics, there's a lot of stuff that doesn't get the recognition it deserves, too. For example, domestic violence seems to be split 50/50 between the genders, yet the only thing that ever gets mentioned is female victims. As long as you can't pin the blame exclusively on men, feminism in general seems to be very reluctant to talk about these issues. Which is quite obvious, because it goes against the feminist narrative that men - excuse me, the patriarchy - is to blame for most, if not all societal problems. The same applies to domestic violence among bi- or homosexual couples - nobody ever seems to talk about the prevalence in lesbian couples, for example. Again, there's no man to blame in that so what you get is silence. As for safety, it's a people's concern and not a women's issue. Most victims of violent crimes are male, not female. But as you've already said, statistics are a fickle thing, because the sex or gender, if you prefer, does not tell you much about the circumstances. For example, most violent criminals are male, so the violence that occurs within that particular, harmful part of society is male on male. Not because they're male, but because they're criminals often belonging to warring groups, i.e. gangs and their proclivity to fight for dominance.

 

Identity politics are always dangerous, because even if you belong to, say, a protected class, the tables can turn around, very, very quickly if you don't behave the way these people expect you to behave. You can get your card revoked if you dare say or do something which is associated with the oppressors instead of the oppressed (for example, black police officers get called 'race traitors' and other nice things).

 

If you're asking why there's not many females in places of power, that's because places of power usually require you to be working 24/7. Most people don't like that, because most people prefer to have some time for themselves every now and then. There's also the stress associated with being a public figure, which most people couldn't handle because there's eyes on your every move. This isn't meant to defend politicians, CEOs etc., though, they're mostly pieces of shit. But they're pieces of shit working in a field that's merciless competition. Which is probably why you need to be a piece of shit in the first place else you'll get replaced by someone without a conscience really quick.

[Mr. Otaku]

30 minutes ago, KoolHndLuke said:

They turned society against us. We're either blundering idiots, warmongers/murderers, pedophiles, or rapist. Not sure how it happened

One word. incentive. Because if you look at history, it's not just now that men are so disposable, men have always been disposable. Men were sent to war and die in them. Even now, in a hostage situation it's the women and children that are of top priority. But the difference is, men in the past not only willingly made those sacrifices, they actually took pride in it because they used to get a sense of fulfilment. That because their sacrifice was rewarded with respect. The men that did come back from war, they were greeted by people. Yes it wasn't perfect back then, lots of societal problems and problems for women existed but at least men weren't blatantly vilified and demonised like this.

 

Men had incentive back then, they weren't constantly told that they are the problem, or they are the spawn of evil or any of that crap. Women didn't use the system to destroy men on large. Feminism once desired women to have more reach and more opportunities, but that desire turned into greed for more power and control, hence it's driving men away. Desire can turn to greed if left unchecked. Today women have more rights than men, undeserving rights, unearned rights, nonsensical rights. A dysfunctional system. At some point the feminists were supposed to say "Okay, we have what we desired, we're satisfied, we're not gonna step over anyone" but instead of that, they kept going and now we have "reverse inequality" which is just inequality (not sure why some people call it reverse inequality lol)

[Daedric_Cat]

49 minutes ago, KoolHndLuke said:

Yeah, hearing this more and more. A guy I met yesterday was telling me about his job. He makes decent money for this area and has investments in real estate. 30 years old, tall, fairly good looking. We got around to talking about women and he said straight up "Don't need the added expense, the headaches, or to get fucked outta what I have worked hard for." "Nope. No girlfriend. Don't need them or want them." I was a bit shocked to hear him say what I had been thinking for a very long time.

 

I agree with you about the system being to blame for some of this at least. When an accusation from a woman (or a child for that matter) is enough to destroy a man's reputation and life, it's little wonder that more and more of us are feeling a bit confused, angry and ultimately cheated. They turned society against us. We're either blundering idiots, warmongers/murderers, pedophiles, or rapist. Not sure how it happened, but you're right. Judged guilty until proven innocent.

 

So how do we fix it?

Getting rid of the emotion and perception based political correctness so it will no longer pollute the law or how public life is conducted.

 

An example is that black woman who came to a doughnut shop after closing time and went in anyways. She was told that they were closed- it was ten minutes after closing time. Granted that there was a line already, but the people running the shop had been trying to close the store for ten minutes. One Hispanic guy was witness to the fact that the clerks were already stating that it was time to close, they would just take care of a limited number of customers that were there already and close.

 

But that didn't matter. What mattered was this black woman's perception of racism. She was sure that the clerks had decided to close the shop upon seeing her.

 

The owners of the doughnut shop fired the two workers to appease the demands of the black community. It didn't matter that it was not the intentions of the workers to be racist to the black woman. They were accused of being insensitive.

 

So, now, if you are in retail, or serve the public, you will have to take extra measures to give black people special treatment. White person turns up late? Turn them away. Black person? Oh, how can I help you? just to preserve your job.

 

For that reason I will not work retail or anything public. Or be an apartment manager, because you can't tell a black man to not put his socked feet into the pool without being smeared across social media.

 

This is the same reason men are avoiding women, on the job or in personal life. While there are decent women who will not abuse what is essentially power, like MrOtaku says, there is no way to tell if the person you are dealing with will be reasonable, or emotional.

 

Getting the law back to fact based, and education of why the legal system has to be objective and work with what is relevant today, not someone's feelings about history, or perception of "power structures." And the same with everyday life in society.

 

It must be understood that today's teachings of systemic racism and sexism is against innocent until proven guilty which is fundamental to the States, and I am sure to many other countries.

[Daedric_Cat]

35 minutes ago, Mr.Otaku said:

At some point the feminists were supposed to say "Okay, we have what we desired, we're satisfied, we're not gonna step over anyone" but instead of that, they kept going and now we have "reverse inequality" which is just inequality (not sure why some people call it reverse inequality lol)

It's part of the nature of the human animal, to clutch onto power and demand more until they have it all, because they feel on a primitive level that they will die if they do not. Many of the groups out there today are functioning at this level. 

 

Political figures deliberately play on this. Remember how Kamala Harris kept hammering on perception when trying to interrogate that ICE agent? Far right wing groups do the same.

[Jazzman]

For me, (often just virtual) gender phobia is just another unwelcome manifestation of acute social deterioration in phobias and the inevitably collapse of a paranoid society at the end of the day it announces.

 

Our problem is - we miss the real forest for the Potemkin trees. That's why we're quite easily to be controlled for distracted by others that throw the sand of hate in our eyes so that we overlook what they are actually doing. When their shit finally hits the fan they'll leave us behind w/o much fuss, heading to new pastures like biblical locusts.

 

Bad luck, citizens.

[Mr. Otaku]

5 minutes ago, Daedric_Cat said:

It's part of the nature of the human animal, to clutch onto power and demand more until they have it all, because they feel on a primitive level that they will die if they do not. Many of the groups out there today are functioning at this level. 

 

Political figures deliberately play on this.

Exactly. It is in human nature to always push and push, and if left unchecked the push will start becoming harmful to others. We humans, despite all the technological development are still bound by our primitive instincts. Politics is profitable, and it can feed greed quite well and the more greed consumed, the stronger it gets. It's like eating and eating but the more you eat the hungrier you become. After all, it has always been easy to point and blame than to look inwards and evaluate.

[Daedric_Cat]

7 minutes ago, Mr.Otaku said:

Exactly. It is in human nature to always push and push, and if left unchecked the push will start becoming harmful to others. We humans, despite all the technological development are still bound by our primitive instincts. Politics is profitable, and it can feed greed quite well and the more greed consumed, the stronger it gets. It's like eating and eating but the more you eat the hungrier you become. After all, it has always been easy to point and blame than to look inwards and evaluate.

Greed. 

 

Bingo!!!!!

[wokking56]

Wow that escalated quickly! While chivalry is not completely dead it is on the critical list. I see that both sides have made valid points but they both have serious misconceptions as well. It's the age old "one bad apple" scenario, sure some men only do nice things expecting a "reward" but not all of them and surely some women will falsely accuse men of wrong doings yet again not all of them. So a handful of a**hole dude have screwed it up for all that rest and the same can be said for women. Making today's problem the fact that you can't know which one is which.

 

Like it or not people men and women are wired differently; we think different, we feel differently about things and we sure as hell behave different. For all our supposed civilization and advancement we still act like that scared little hominid cowering in a cave. Hiding or acquiescing when we can and lashing out in fear and anger when needed.

 

Way back in my day if I asked the same girl out more than once after being turned down I was persistent, now I would be a creeper. Hell if I ask her out just once I may be sexually harassing her.

[AKM]

12 hours ago, Daedric_Cat said:

You're 5'4" 105 pounds? Sorry, dear, your dreams of becoming a firefighter is not more important than the safety of the civilian populace.

Back when I was a firefighter, I had the mother of one of the guys complain to me about the only female on the department.  Paraphrase "I want fire MEN... yada yada, etc."  I came rather close to putting her in her place.  What she didn't know is that, as Charles Lindberg said about one's ability to fly, one's ability to be a firefighter is not, absolutely, tied to the shape of ones genitalia.

This woman was a better firefighter than a good 3/4 of the guys on the department, if not more, myself included.  It made me beyond angry to hear this incredibly shallow and completely ignorant woman make such a statement about someone else's ability to do a job - that she herself had never done, and would likely never do - but, since her son was on the department, it gave her all the say in the world to disparage that woman...?  Yeah, no.  Granted, she was no 5'4" 105 pounds, of course.  There are physical limits to that job.

[Darkpig]

 

12 hours ago, GrimReaper said:

Well, if we want to speak statistics, there's a lot of stuff that doesn't get the recognition it deserves, too. For example, domestic violence seems to be split 50/50 between the genders, yet the only thing that ever gets mentioned is female victims. As long as you can't pin the blame exclusively on men, feminism in general seems to be very reluctant to talk about these issues. Which is quite obvious, because it goes against the feminist narrative that men - excuse me, the patriarchy - is to blame for most, if not all societal problems. The same applies to domestic violence among bi- or homosexual couples - nobody ever seems to talk about the prevalence in lesbian couples, for example. Again, there's no man to blame in that so what you get is silence. As for safety, it's a people's concern and not a women's issue. Most victims of violent crimes are male, not female. But as you've already said, statistics are a fickle thing, because the sex or gender, if you prefer, does not tell you much about the circumstances. For example, most violent criminals are male, so the violence that occurs within that particular, harmful part of society is male on male. Not because they're male, but because they're criminals often belonging to warring groups, i.e. gangs and their proclivity to fight for dominance.

 

Identity politics are always dangerous, because even if you belong to, say, a protected class, the tables can turn around, very, very quickly if you don't behave the way these people expect you to behave. You can get your card revoked if you dare say or do something which is associated with the oppressors instead of the oppressed (for example, black police officers get called 'race traitors' and other nice things).

 

If you're asking why there's not many females in places of power, that's because places of power usually require you to be working 24/7. Most people don't like that, because most people prefer to have some time for themselves every now and then. There's also the stress associated with being a public figure, which most people couldn't handle because there's eyes on your every move. This isn't meant to defend politicians, CEOs etc., though, they're mostly pieces of shit. But they're pieces of shit working in a field that's merciless competition. Which is probably why you need to be a piece of shit in the first place else you'll get replaced by someone without a conscience really quick.

I agree that media loves the shitballs target of popular vote. But what about female politicians? Why would women refuse the shitty job of politicians as opposed to men? You'd think that more women would take positions of power with all the feminist media going around. If feminists are crying fowl to female politicians then the feminists that are crying out are in fact the enemies of feminists. I get that politics like media hate logic but there must be something more.

Spoiler

Yeah fuck this shit!

[FauxFurry]

You know what can usher in a new age of Chivalry? Robots.

Shiny White Nights with true mettle as strong as the metal that they are composed of and Diesel Driven Damsels with hearts of platinum (or catalytic converters with a platinum core. Whatever.) serving whatever human or corporation can afford to purchase and maintain them like royalty. 

 

Robots can solve all of modern and future Life's problems...including Life itself.

[Daedric_Cat]

1 hour ago, AKM said:

Back when I was a firefighter, I had the mother of one of the guys complain to me about the only female on the department.  Paraphrase "I want fire MEN... yada yada, etc."  I came rather close to putting her in her place.  What she didn't know is that, as Charles Lindberg said about one's ability to fly, one's ability to be a firefighter is not, absolutely, tied to the shape of ones genitalia.

This woman was a better firefighter than a good 3/4 of the guys on the department, if not more, myself included.  It made me beyond angry to hear this incredibly shallow and completely ignorant woman make such a statement about someone else's ability to do a job - that she herself had never done, and would likely never do - but, since her son was on the department, it gave her all the say in the world to disparage that woman...?  Yeah, no.  Granted, she was no 5'4" 105 pounds, of course.  There are physical limits to that job.

Yes, it should be merit and qualification based, regardless of who the person is. I was in the military myself. I've heard people say stupid shit about women, so i get you on that. The source of the stupid comments are the men themselves, they complain to their wives or their mothers, and these misguided women parrot the stuff. I've dealt with a lot of shitty attitudes from the military wives. But guess who is piling the sandbags on the beach in the face of an oncoming hurricane while they are safely at home preparing for the hurricane?  Or will save their asses from a fire in your case?

 

What I hear is happening is that the standards are lowered for women. and that is not a good thing. Opportunity? Yes. Outcome should not be guaranteed. The needs of the fire fighters and the community they serve come first. I do know for a fact that the Army Rangers have lowered standards for women. That cannot be good. The standards are set for the demanding tasks of these special forces. Fortunately there are women senior Marine officers who are fighting against the lowering of standards for women in Marine combat roles. I wish more women would be like that.

 

I wonder if that 5'4" 105# woman ever stopped and realized that a 5'4" 105# man is very unlikely to meet the qualifications, too, instead of feeling like she was discriminated against.

[GrimReaper]

1 hour ago, Darkpig said:

 

I agree that media loves the shitballs target of popular vote. But what about female politicians? Why would women refuse the shitty job of politicians as opposed to men? You'd think that more women would take positions of power with all the feminist media going around. If feminists are crying fowl to female politicians then the feminists that are crying out are in fact the enemies of feminists. I get that politics like media hate logic but there must be something more.

  Reveal hidden contents

Yeah fuck this shit!

There's several reasons for that, in my opinion. First, it's how boys and girls are raised differently and have different expectations from their parents and society. A boy transitions to a man by a rite of passage, so to speak, that's why manchild is a popular insult towards males, but 'womanchild' doesn't exist. In the past, these rites were usually something like kill a lion with a spear or something, today it's mostly just moving out of your parent's home and acquiring wealth. For women, the transition from girl to woman is happens naturally over time. As soon as sexual maturity and a certain age is reached, girls are considered women, no additional feats needed.

 

Second, certain personality traits are more common in males and some are more common in females. Which, for example, means that the most competetive people are mostly men because men on average are more competetive than women. That's a pretty big deal when it comes to position of power, because those require a certain amount of ruthlessness and competition, which means people on the extreme end of that spectrum will form the bulk of the people that sit at the top.

 

Third, just like with the STEM Gender Paradox, feminism encourages and praises women for being women, for the most part. Turns out if you want people to work hard, you need to put them under pressure. Handing out participation awards has the opposite effect. In cultures where women are seen as a problematic necessity at best instead of being the better humans per default, women took the STEM fields by storm. Funny that, right?

 

As far as I am concerned, I don't think this has much to do with nature. If it would, the statistics would be more or less the same across the world, but they're not. I'm not advocating for social engineering one way or the other, just give everyone equal opportunities and be done with it. If a woman wants to be a firefighter, CEO or politician, great. But don't imply sexism at every corner just because some 50/50 quotas aren't met.

[KoolHndLuke]

Acting chivalrous is the embodiment of class and nobility. "Class and Nobility"- when I write of such ideals, surely people will groan and imagine some powder-puffed, arrogant, self-righteous and thoroughly spoiled aristocrat from a bygone era. But......Class, I speak of not in the sense of one's position in the social hierarchy or in royalty, but in the sense that one acts with grace and conscientiousness towards friends and enemies alike without regard to status. Nobility, I speak of not in the sense of belonging inherently to a royal lineage or aristocracy, but in the sense that one is inherently honest, accountable for their actions, and honorable in their pledges.

 

But, something happens when you fucking want something or someone. "The grass is always greener" to quote an old saying. It means that no matter how things are going in your life- you always want more or what you perceive as better. Me- with all my supposed adherence to this code of morals- am a fucking hypocrite! Some strange twist of fate sent my sexy neighbor to my house tonight with her telling me that she and her husband have split. I did some work on her lawn for her and she told me while trimming her trees and stuff. She offered to have a few drinks with me and I happily invited her over to my house. I want her- I don't care about honor or nobility. It's a quaint little notion until it collides with passion. Under the crushing weight of desire, ideals like honor and nobility don't stand a fucking chance! Chivalry is dead or dying? Who fuckin' cares! I'm gonna so get laid tonight! 

 

[Darkpig]

2 hours ago, GrimReaper said:

There's several reasons for that, in my opinion. First, it's how boys and girls are raised differently and have different expectations from their parents and society. A boy transitions to a man by a rite of passage, so to speak, that's why manchild is a popular insult towards males, but 'womanchild' doesn't exist. In the past, these rites were usually something like kill a lion with a spear or something, today it's mostly just moving out of your parent's home and acquiring wealth. For women, the transition from girl to woman is happens naturally over time. As soon as sexual maturity and a certain age is reached, girls are considered women, no additional feats needed.

 

Second, certain personality traits are more common in males and some are more common in females. Which, for example, means that the most competetive people are mostly men because men on average are more competetive than women. That's a pretty big deal when it comes to position of power, because those require a certain amount of ruthlessness and competition, which means people on the extreme end of that spectrum will form the bulk of the people that sit at the top.

 

Third, just like with the STEM Gender Paradox, feminism encourages and praises women for being women, for the most part. Turns out if you want people to work hard, you need to put them under pressure. Handing out participation awards has the opposite effect. In cultures where women are seen as a problematic necessity at best instead of being the better humans per default, women took the STEM fields by storm. Funny that, right?

 

As far as I am concerned, I don't think this has much to do with nature. If it would, the statistics would be more or less the same across the world, but they're not. I'm not advocating for social engineering one way or the other, just give everyone equal opportunities and be done with it. If a woman wants to be a firefighter, CEO or politician, great. But don't imply sexism at every corner just because some 50/50 quotas aren't met.

At least you admit it is an opinion rather than claiming the earth is flat. Parents are the spawn of Satan that much is known. I do have a few questions regarding what you just said. So who decides when a boy becomes a man? Is it women, men, some politician somewhere?

 

If men are fooling themselves into thinking that money makes the man then that sounds like a man problem. If women are doing it then men must set the record straight because women aren't doing it and why would they? If politicians are doing it then people should hit them where it hurts, in their pockets.

 

This is the 21st fucking century! People need to act like it.

 

If women don't look to get into positions of power nothing will change. If men and women don't step up to the plate to inform the people people will remain ignorant.

 

Again this is just my thoughts based on what information I'm given on the thread. I tend to ignore the silly bickering of tribalism. Why am I here again?

[KoolHndLuke]

Note to self. Fuck more, speak less. Chivalry will take care of itself. 

[Jazzman]

4 hours ago, KoolHndLuke said:

Note to self. Fuck more, speak less. Chivalry will take care of itself. 

... God willing.

 

What I see tho' are townspeople like the one in the famous Matrix sequence that culminates into the woman-in-the-red-dress vs the multitude of Agents Smith, the many Me's in everyone:

Busy human ants in auto mode on the move that don't want to get distracted by anything from their predefined path in the streets, or else! All their life they have looked away…to the future, to the horizon on the screen of their iPhone. Never their mind on where they were. Hmm? Wanna unplug 'em? Good look with that...

[GrimReaper]

18 hours ago, Darkpig said:

At least you admit it is an opinion rather than claiming the earth is flat. Parents are the spawn of Satan that much is known. I do have a few questions regarding what you just said. So who decides when a boy becomes a man? Is it women, men, some politician somewhere?

 

If men are fooling themselves into thinking that money makes the man then that sounds like a man problem. If women are doing it then men must set the record straight because women aren't doing it and why would they? If politicians are doing it then people should hit them where it hurts, in their pockets.

 

This is the 21st fucking century! People need to act like it.

 

If women don't look to get into positions of power nothing will change. If men and women don't step up to the plate to inform the people people will remain ignorant.

 

Again this is just my thoughts based on what information I'm given on the thread. I tend to ignore the silly bickering of tribalism. Why am I here again?

Who decides when a boy becomes a man? Culture, tradition, society. It's not one single person sitting somewhere deciding who is what. Money is just status, power and security. If you go back some time, those things were substituted by trophies like pelts, bones and tusks. It's simply a sign you have what it takes to thrive in whatever the current society is.

 

Positions of power aren't very much of a man or woman problem, they're a power problem. Absolute authority doesn't exist and thus you're always depending on the structures that hold up these positions of power, that's why a 'nice' CEO wouldn't get very far because shareholders would rather support a ruthless CEO that brings in the money. Your genitalia don't really matter that much, it's your personality, or rather lack thereof, that counts. And, of course, the willpower and intelligence that's needed to reach the absolute top, which is something not many people have. I honestly doubt anything would change if we had more female CEOs or politicians. These systems make sure that YOU conform to THEM, not the other way around.

[Darkpig]

31 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

Who decides when a boy becomes a man? Culture, tradition, society. It's not one single person sitting somewhere deciding who is what. Money is just status, power and security. If you go back some time, those things were substituted by trophies like pelts, bones and tusks. It's simply a sign you have what it takes to thrive in whatever the current society is.

 

Positions of power aren't very much of a man or woman problem, they're a power problem. Absolute authority doesn't exist and thus you're always depending on the structures that hold up these positions of power, that's why a 'nice' CEO wouldn't get very far because shareholders would rather support a ruthless CEO that brings in the money. Your genitalia don't really matter that much, it's your personality, or rather lack thereof, that counts. And, of course, the willpower and intelligence that's needed to reach the absolute top, which is something not many people have. I honestly doubt anything would change if we had more female CEOs or politicians. These systems make sure that YOU conform to THEM, not the other way around.

Culture, tradition and society are values that can and will be broken. Well not quite society, that will be a pain in the neck for a long time. But the first two are very much malleable. Sometimes the hurdle can be hard or downright deadly to overcome but such is fragile existence of humans. Megacorporations would like to make you think that you can't compete because the lack of competition is good for them and to a degree they're right, you may lose in this competitive market but if one business does reach the top, if one movement does get through the whole economy must play by different rules and even megacorperations must bow to these rules. Oh what a fun society we live in.

[AKM]

Dr. Peterson, on marriage, and, again, one of the major reasons I believe chivalry to be dead.  Frankly, while his statement makes very good sense, the fact that you can, today, get out of marriage on a whim means that it does not, at all, anymore, hold the kind of "this is it, for the rest of our lives" mentality that he states here.  Marriage has lost its potency, , to include chivilric actions, so why go through the effort to get it in the first place?

 

Spoiler