Tag Archives: Chivalry

Commentary

Christian men, be selective when giving attention to women

16 Comments

Here is a thought-provoking post from agnostic libertarian economist Captain Capitalism.

Excerpt:

Of the many lies men will be told from the ages of 12 to…umm….death, one of the more misleading ones (that can trip you up for years unless you learn the deceit behind it) is,

“I don’t do X for you!  I do it for myself!”

“X” being

dressing up
make up
working out
lingerie
etc. etc.

[…][T]he reason this lie is so tricky is because when a woman says this, it is a half-truth.

While she is NOT dressing up for you, she IS dressing up for somebody else.  And that somebody else certainly is NOT her (at least in a direct sense).

Again, we revisit the realm where economics and sexuality meet.  Women are (primarily) driven by attention.  Attention from who?  Attention from anybody.

Oh, go ahead and threaten me with your Adria Richard’s hallow threats, I’m sorry dearies, I have nothing left to lose.  Besides, this is a fact and is truth.  And if you don’t like that…well, then maybe you really don’t like being treated as an equal and perhaps like every other guy I could continue lying to your face to spare your precious little feelings.  But I’m sorry, I’m not a sexist.  I believe in the equality of the sexes so you’ll APPRECIATE me treating you as a GENUINE equal and never daring to lie to you as that would be degrading.

Anyway, women crave attention.  And the primary way (before social media) they can get that is by simply dressing the part.  This is why in large part you can be at a bar/club, see a group of girls LITERALLY dressed as ladies of the evening, approach them and get your butt shot down.  They REALLY weren’t dressing that way for you, just as they technically weren’t dressing that way for themselves.  They were merely dressing that way to get your attention and the attention of others.  And should a supreme specimen of man (professional athlete, celebrity, obvious rich man) approach them, that is also why they dressed that way or went to the gym.

In other words, don’t be a fool on either end of this half-lie, half truth.  She really isn’t doing it for you.  And, yes, in a roundabout way she is doing it for herself.  But she is ultimately doing it to garner the attention of other people, both men and women.

So this caused me to think a little, because it echoes what Dina explained to me just a few months back, and Mariangela verified it as well. (My knowledge of women is mostly theoretical, so some of these obvious things have escaped me). Anyway, they basically agreed with the Captain’s assessment, that many of the things that women do are to get attention. This is fine. The point of this post is not to pick on women, but to warn men. And so here’s the warning for Christian men.

Christian Men: Like everything in life, God asserts sovereignty over your choices with women. One of those choices is who you pay attention to, and why. Whenever you pay attention to a woman, you are in some way validating her choices, beliefs and lifestyle. Therefore, you need to be careful to choose women who deserve attention for the right reasons. You need to pass on women who show a lot of skin to people they hardly know. You need to pass on women who are known to use sex to get attention from men easily, without having to listen to his values. You need to pass on women who won’t read things that men care about, like apologetics, economics, etc.

Whenever I get distracted by a woman who is trying to get attention from me without wanting to listen or be led by me, I ask myself questions about her and her motives.

I ask:

  • Has this women ever borrowed a lecture or a debate form me?
  • Has this woman ever read a book that I asked her to read?
  • Does this woman let me talk if I bring up religion or politics?
  • Is this woman pro-life, and pro-marriage?
  • Is this woman grieved by big government socialism?
  • Is this woman pro-child, and anti-feminism?

And so on. Now if you are a woman reading this, you might think “why do you have to do that? Obviously they haven’t, so why pay attention to them? I’ve done all that good stuff, so pay attention to me!”. But it’s not that simple for a man, not even a virgin like me. About 99% of the time, I don’t have to go through this process. But there are some days…. you could call it my time of the month… where suddenly blubbering out how great this woman looks to her seems *rational*. And I don’t want to do that. I would rather get on my e-mail or Facebook and encourage a Christian woman who is actually doing the right things. I don’t want to be encouraging other women who are trying to cheat their way to attention without letting me express my faith, talk about politics, and so on. If I can’t lead you to learn about God so that you can serve God, then you shouldn’t get attention from me. One of the most helpful things I ever learned was from a young lady who had a sexual past, who flat out told me that she used sex in order to pacify and control men so that they would continue to give her attention no matter how much of a witch she was to them. That helped me to understand why I have to be selective with who I am going to endorse with my attention.

I think that men need to recognize that just as women who embrace feminism are responsible for wrecking men with all of this hooking-up, high tax rates, gun control, no-fault divorce, etc., that men are wrecking women by rewarding them with attention for the wrong reasons. If you want to fix women, the easiest thing to start with is to favor the good ones – the ones who listen to you, the ones who study hard things, the ones who want to serve God. Avert your eyes from the flirty ones. Don’t talk to them. Consciously prefer the best, most moral, most hard-working, women. That’s going to communicate the right message to women, and give them an incentive to value the right feminine qualities.

Christian men, if you are single, why not just take a minute now to go to the book store and buy a good apologetics or economics book and some white flowers for the Christian woman you know who does the most good for God? That would be a start. I recommend “Is God Just a Human Invention?” and three white carnations, some baby’s breath and some greenery. They are not too expensive and they last a long time. If you get her that book, tell her about Brian Auten’s read-along, which just started again. We all have to do the best we can to fix male-female relations. Women, and men. The solution to the problem of women being bad is not for men to be bad, too. It’s for men to be selective.

Related posts

News

Study in feminist journal calls chivalry and gentlemanly behavior “dangerous”

5 Comments

Dr. Stuart Schneiderman reports on the study.

Excerpt:

With heavy heart we turn to Kathleen Connelly and Martin Heesacker’s article, entitled: “Why Is Benevolent Sexism Appealing?” Co-authored by a graduate student and a professor at the University of Florida, is has been published by a scholarly Journal called the Psychology of Women Quarterly.

Here is how the PWQ describes itself:

Psychology of Women Quarterly (PWQ) is a feminist, scientific, peer-reviewed journal that publishes empirical research, critical reviews and theoretical articles that advance a field of inquiry, brief reports on timely topics, teaching briefs, and invited book reviews related to the psychology of women and gender.

Here is a snip from the abstract of the study:

Previous research suggests that benevolent sexism is an ideology that perpetuates gender inequality.

[…]The results imply that although benevolent sexism perpetuates inequality at the structural level, it might offer some benefits at the personal level. Thus, our findings reinforce the dangerous nature of benevolent sexism and emphasize the need for interventions to reduce its prevalence.

Got that? Treating men and women differently in good ways is “dangerous” even though it has good effects. So no more giving women flowers, and no more giving men respect.

Dr. Schneiderman comments:

Connelly/Heesacker have discovered that when men behave like gentlemen toward women it produces “life satisfaction” for both parties.

They conclude that gentlemanly behavior is “dangerous” and that we must intervene “to reduce its prevalence.”

By their pseudo-reasoning, the positive benefits that accrue to men and women when men act like gentlemen provide a false sense of satisfaction that undermines the feminist revolution.

Since I did not spring for the $25.00 fee to read the article, I can only surmise that by benevolent sexism the authors mean such simple courtesies as asking a woman out on a date, paying for her, holding the door for her, helping her with her coat, accompanying her home and so on.

This argument is not new. It came in with second wave feminism. It was intended to assert women’s independence and autonomy. It resulted in more men treating more women discourteously and disrespectfully.

From a feminist perspective, if a man acted like a gentleman, a woman was expected to act like a lady. This was a bad thing, a betrayal of a woman’s allegiance to the feminist cult.

Feminists believed that gentlemanly behavior signified that women were the weaker sex, needing male protection.

They also believed that when a man paid for dinner and a show a woman felt obligated to repay the favor with her “favors.”

From a feminist perspective it’s better for women to give it away for free because then she will not feel that she is being bought.

As I say, feminists have been rebelling against “benevolent sexism” for around four decades now.

As a result, women are more likely to be abused. They are more likely to be used for sex. They are less likely to be involved in sustained relationships.

Men have been excoriated for acting courteously and politely, lest they be accused of being patronizing, so they have concluded that they need to act badly toward women.

Men concluded that they could further the revolutionary feminist cause by being revolting.

When feminism decided that courtship and even dating was a relic of a bygone age, all the rude, lewd, crude dudes rejoiced.

Today, Connelly and Heesacker have their backs.

Here’s a nice video showing a traditional marriage:

See those traditional sex roles? Feminists think we should intervene to reduce its prevalence because it’s “dangerous”.

I’ve written before about how feminists push women into premarital recreational sex because they want to undermine sexist notions like chivalry, courtship, marriage and stay-at-home motherhood. Their number one target is the traditional family, where the husband works and the wife stays home and raises the children. They know that if they can get women to binge-drink and hook-up with a bunch of men, then marriage will die. And that’s their goal. That’s what it means to be a feminist – act promiscuously and depend on the government for free condoms, free abortions and single mother welfare. Government replaces men.

Related posts

News

Nearly half of 15-year-olds are not living with both parents

Leave a comment

Dina sent me this article from the UK Telegraph, which features our favorite Conservative MP, Iain Duncan Smith.

Excerpt:

Some 45% see their mother and father’s relationship break down before then, although 80% are born to a couple living together.

The figures were released as the Government announced plans to change the way it measures the effectiveness of social programmes for the poor.

Halting the breakdown of family life will become the key measure of success, with officials being asked to record how they promote family stability and tackle joblessness, and whether children in the families affected perform as well their peers in other families.

Companies providing the programmes to provide help for Britain’s 120,000 so-called problem families will be paid in accordance with how well they improve the statistics in these areas, the Daily Mail reported.

Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, told the Social Justice Conference in London: “Stable, loving families matter.

“They matter for this government, and they matter for the most vulnerable in society

“By measuring the proportion of children living with the same parents from birth and whether their parents report a good quality relationship we are driving home the message that social programmes should promote family stability and avert breakdown.

“You don’t help families by shrugging your shoulders when parental relationships fall apart.

“When families are strong and stable, so are children, showing higher levels of wellbeing and more positive outcomes.

“But when things go wrong – either through family breakdown or a damaged parental relationship – the impact on a child’s later life can be devastating.”

Mr Duncan Smith warned last week that the welfare system was promoting destructive behaviour by encouraging poorer families to have more children and denying them the incentive to get a job.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could have a frank talk in this nation about the social costs of family breakdown and how to prevent it? We need to spend time as a nation going over the harm that family breakdown causes to children, and developing best practices for dating, courting, mate-selection and behaviors with marriage.

I wrote quite a long post about how women can prevent divorce earlier this week and was surprised that we did not get many comments on it. I noticed that many people read it, but no one commented. Sometimes I feel that a whole bunch of us have this view of relationships such that we choose our mate based on emotions, and that the purpose of the relationship is to make us feel happy. But that’s not going to provide children with the stability they need.

Related posts