In Praise of the Chivalry Honoring Woman

A Chivalrous man needs a Chivalry honoring woman. A Chivalrous man is Chivalrous as his duty to God to please God and to serve God but the part of a Chivalrous man that is a man most definitely wants to be with a Chivalry honoring woman. If a man is Chivalrous it is impossible for a woman to claim to love the man while at the same time condemning or being indifferent to Chivalry. Chivalry is part of a man’s soul and a man’s purpose so to reject Chivalry is to reject the Chivalrous man himself.

There is a criticism against women who support Chivalry in men that they are “entitlement princesses” or that they are stuck up and arrogant, that they are bossy and demanding. Whether this criticism is valid depends on what is meant by “chivalry.” The word “chivalry” has many different meanings to many different people; some forms of the word “chivalry” are abusive to men and some are not. The key is whether “Chivalry” is meant in a traditional sense or in a feminist sense. The traditional sense is where Chivalry is under the man’s control; the feminist sense is where chivalry is under the woman’s control. In both senses chivalry is meant to benefit women so the benefit to women is not the crucial criteria; the crucial difference between legitimate and abusive chivalry is who is in control of the Chivalrous act. Is the Chivalrous act dictated by the woman according to the woman’s demand or is the Chivalrous act something the man does on behalf of the woman whether the woman approves of the Chivalrous act or not? The former is abusive against the man while the latter is appropriate gender role behavior. There is no problem with a woman supporting Chivalry in the male controlled traditional sense; it is only problematic if a woman feels entitled to dictate chivalry to men to please her as a feminist would do.

Chivalry under the man’s control has to be unconditional Chivalry based on obedience to God to be legitimate or true Chivalry. Chivalry is not meant as a power resource for the man to gain leverage over the woman; Chivalry must be a free gift from the man to the woman for it to be called Chivalry.

So is a woman who supports traditional male controlled Chivalry an “entitlement princess?” No; no because Chivalry is her rightful possession. It is not only her rightful possession because she is a woman but even more so it is her rightful possession because she is signaling obedience to the calling of womanhood by her endorsement of unconditional Chivalry. In other words when a woman advocates unconditional Chivalry she is engaging in the virtuous affirmative act of professing a commitment on her own part to be a traditional woman because by advocating for unconditional Chivalry she is saying that the role of the traditional woman is important and worthy of protection and support.

On a personal level as a Chivalrous man women who support Chivalry are affirming me as a man and approving of me as a man; they are showing a certain kind of admiration towards me which of course is good and something that I like. More importantly though a woman supporting Chivalry is signaling to me that she is trustworthy and that she is worth defending, that she is worth investing in. All women are worth investing in to some extent; this is why Chivalry is universal or unconditional. However some women are a better investment than other women. There is a kind of mandatory investment in women and a discretionary choice of which women I want to be involved with and actively support as a man. Every woman is entitled to the mandatory minimum of investment that is derivative of the male gender role; however only women who show good characteristics will receive extra investment from me as a man’s discretionary investment will of course go to those women who the man feels safest and best investing in. It is not so much that the good woman “deserves” the extra investment though that is partly the case; it is that the good woman won’t squander or waste the man’s investment.

When a woman supports unconditional Chivalry she is signaling trustworthiness, that she understands her role and position as a woman. She is inviting me as a man to provide for and protect her in a way that is welcoming and friendly and respectful. She is in effect being feminine and projecting femininity when supporting unconditional Chivalry. She is also saying that she prefers a man like me over my male competitors which is always a nice thing to see. She is also indicating that she respects herself as a woman; that she sees her womanly role and purpose as something important and something that she will stand up for. She is indicating that she knows her worth and will defend her status and rights as a woman. This to me is all good; it is what I want to see in a woman.

When a woman rejects Chivalry that is automatically a danger signal that there is something wrong with this woman; she is a feminist or a manipulator of one kind or another. She doesn’t trust me as a man and she probably doesn’t like me either. She is saying she prefers a man she can manipulate, not a man who sticks to his principles.

Where others see an “entitlement princess” I see a woman who will stick up for her rights as a woman; her legitimate rights as a woman. Remember a woman supporting Chivalry in the way I am defining Chivalry is not a feminist, she is someone who values her role and purpose as a woman. If a woman will not defend her legitimate interests as a woman that means there is something wrong with her; that is a danger signal. That’s not what I want to see as a man.

A woman who stands up for herself as a traditional woman will support me in my goals as a traditional man. If a woman already respects herself as a traditional woman then I don’t have to work to convince her that the role of the traditional woman is worthwhile and I won’t have to fight her to try to get her to conform to a traditional role; she will understand and accept the value of the traditional female role already.

Yes a woman who supports unconditional Chivalry will place demands on me to live up to my role as a traditional man. However I have a duty to fulfill the role of the traditional man regardless so it is not a problem if a woman pressures me to live a virtuous life; the life I should be living anyways. A woman who encourages me to become my best self is a good thing, not a bad thing.

So women don’t be afraid to openly embrace and advocate traditional male controlled unconditional Chivalry as part of a man’s duty to God and to yourselves as women. It is not only right and the truth it will also serve as an encouragement for men to rise up and become their best selves as men.

For me a woman supporting unconditional Chivalry is always welcome; it’s always something that I want to see.

Advertisements

About Jesse Powell TFA

Anti-Feminist, MRA, Pro-Traditional Women's Rights Traditional Family Activist (TFA)
This entry was posted in Chivalry, Women's Duties and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to In Praise of the Chivalry Honoring Woman

  1. mamaziller says:

    Jamaican men (with all their flaws) are in general chivalrous. They give women social privileges on their own terms. They are not traditional and do not care for women as traditional men do (but I think this is partly because they do not have the tools to do so, they lack traditional male role models). They do however seek to protect women and give up their seats for us, carry things for us, open doors etc.

    I like chivalry from men, and support it. I also support women who support, follow and submit to the needs and desires of chivalrous men. Men who oppose chivalry show me that they do not understand the burdens/weakness associated with being a female. They show me that they see me as equally as strong as them, and that is not how I see myself or other women. Yes we are strong and can be strong, but not in the same ways as men. Where we are weak men are strong and when men understand this I think most are naturally chivalrous.

    Men who are not chivalrous are not all bad though. They fall into two general groups though and in a mate I would not want either. The first group is just blind to the burdens/weaknesses of being a female, while the second group sees the burdens/weaknesses and agrees to actually take on some of those burdens. The second group are like feminists men, they say they will help care for infants and children and do domestic work etc. I have no interest in this because childcare is my domain.

    Not that my husband would not help if he has to, but it is in general my responsibility and personally I want that responsibility. If a man cannot see the burdens of being a woman it is true that he cannot be trusted though. If a man sees and agrees to directly help rather than enable women to carry out their role (rather than chivalry) then he can be trusted. But since I like childcare I still would not be interested in this proposal.

    But yes I support chivalrous men, they are good men, they understand that women have burdens that they do not have, they understand that being a man means being free of female burdens and they embrace that and use that privilege to provide, protect and enable us. They embrace male privilege to give us female privilege (chivalry). I wish society would stop taking away male privilege so that more males can be chivalrous.

  2. Pingback: The Difference between Feminist Women’s Rights and Traditional Women’s Rights | Secular Patriarchy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s