Why Chivalry is an Unconditional Male Duty

Support for unconditional Chivalry is a fundamental principle for TFAs (Traditional Family Activists). TFAs have a particular understanding of the term “Chivalry.” Chivalry is not really opening doors or being polite though these things may be symbolic expressions of Chivalry; Chivalry is the male duty to provide for and protect women. Chivalry is a very important and fundamental concept, it is not trivial or a side issue. Chivalry is a necessity, not a luxury.

For instance, it is the husband’s duty to financially support his wife. A husband financially providing for his wife is Chivalry; part of the broad theme of men “providing for and protecting” women. The rule that only men are drafted and only men serve in the military (upheld in society until very recently) is Chivalry. Women are (or were) excluded from the military in order to keep women out of harms way, in order to protect women. Protecting women is part of the Chivalrous “provide for and protect” ethic. The man paying for the date is Chivalry. The man paying for the date is symbolic of the man’s intention to financially support the woman in the context of marriage. Examples of Chivalry go on and on. Chivalry is a vitally important ethic for keeping society together and keeping society functioning. Men must provide for and protect women, men have a duty to provide for and protect women, the functioning of society would come to a screeching halt if men stopped providing for and protecting women.

The reason why Chivalry is so important to the functioning of society is because women’s femininity must be supported and promoted and empowered. Women’s femininity is dependent upon male support; male support of femininity being what Chivalry is. Femininity is what women contribute to life, to the family, to men and children. Femininity is necessary for bonding, healthy attachments and good relations with others, to create the sense that life is a friendly and welcoming place. Femininity is taking care of the details, making sure all the little things are working, making sure everybody is getting along. Masculinity takes care of the material part of life and the overall structure and plan of life and creates the rules but femininity is what makes sure everything works at the micro-level, at the day to day level, at the level of detail and routine, and particularly in the field of human relationships and getting along.

Without Chivalry femininity collapses, femininity is destroyed. Femininity cannot protect itself, femininity must be protected. This is why Chivalry means to provide for and PROTECT women. Likewise femininity needs to be provided for, needs to be resourced and supported because femininity is disadvantaged and disabled in the field of creating and commanding resources. This is why Chivalry means to PROVIDE FOR and protect women. Femininity is vital for life, the functions of the feminine are every bit as important for the maintenance of the society as the functions of the masculine. Femininity however is dependent upon the masculine, dependent upon Chivalry, as femininity cannot function by itself independently. Femininity needs to be sheltered, insulated from the challenges and dangers and unpredictability of the outside. This is the role Chivalry serves; Chivalry is the barrier between the feminine and the radically unpredictable wilderness that must be tamed and controlled.

Chivalry is based on the feminine that Chivalry supports. The whole point of Chivalry is the elevation and support of the feminine. Men can conquer and control the world without the feminine, the masculine function can assert itself independently, but the whole point of masculinity is not self-assertion or self-aggrandizement but is instead to serve and support the feminine, to serve and support femininity, to serve and support women, to be Chivalrous. Masculinity does not require femininity to support and uphold it; masculinity can simply assert itself, but masculinity has no purpose except the support of the feminine. Femininity on the other hand cannot exist at all unless it is being sheltered and supported by masculinity because femininity is fragile and vulnerable and cannot assert itself unilaterally; it is instead dependent upon masculine assertion in the form of Chivalry first and only then after Chivalry is in place as a barrier can femininity emerge into the world and perform its feminine function.

So Chivalry is foundational to life; Chivalry is necessary because the feminine function that relies upon Chivalry is necessary.

As to why Chivalry is an unconditional duty of men towards women; it is because Chivalry is a necessity, not a luxury. Chivalry cannot be allowed to fail, it cannot be allowed to be conditional on anything because the Chivalry system keeps the world moving, it keeps life working, it has to always be there, it cannot be something hit or miss; maybe it will be there or maybe it won’t; it has to be safe to rely upon it, it has to be dependable. The other reason why Chivalry is unconditional is precisely because it can assert itself unilaterally and independently without any prior conditions being met. This is not the case with femininity that needs for Chivalry to be in place first.

The issue of maybe a woman not “deserving” Chivalry is often brought up but this emphasis on whether a woman “deserves” Chivalry completely misses the point of what Chivalry is. Chivalry is masculine, it is not feminine. Chivalry is a male duty; it is not a female duty. Men owe God Chivalry to women. The woman is not an actor or a participant regarding Chivalry, she is the recipient of Chivalry. Men give women Chivalry not based on what is fair but based on what is right. There is no reciprocal female equivalent of Chivalry as men do not need provision and protection from women; rather women need provision and protection from men. The masculine shields the feminine; the masculine is on the outside while the feminine is underneath sheltered by the masculine. The masculine faces the storm directly without shield or barrier; the feminine is sheltered from the storm by the masculine barrier as the feminine would be destroyed if it had to face the storm directly without protection. There is nothing reciprocal or interchangeable about these roles or these status positions; they are simply the nature of what the masculine and the feminine is.

Chivalry is also a male duty to all women; though what the Chivalrous duty entails is affected by what relationship a man has to a woman. For instance a man’s Chivalrous duty is much more focused on his wife day to day than it is on a woman somewhere across town that he doesn’t know but this is a matter of the responsibility hierarchy different women hold in a particular man’s life; this does not alter the fact that Chivalry is a general principle of male protection for women. When I say Chivalry is a male duty towards all women I mean men are to provide for and protect women not only abstractly as a class (such as women being excluded from the military); but also men should have a bias towards protecting all women they have contact with, all women who are part of their daily routine, all women they have any kind of social relationship with, all women they have an opportunity to protect through extraordinary circumstance, all women within their sphere of influence, all women period. Women have a special status in relation to men, a status automatically established simply because a woman is a woman; this relational status of women to men creating the duty in the man to treat the woman in a protective guardianship fashion consistent with the Chivalrous ethic that all men owe all women Chivalry as the man’s virtue and the man’s duty alone; the woman being only recipient and beneficiary, not participant.

So yes, unconditional Chivalry is a fundamental TFA moral value; Chivalry is the precursor of Traditional Women’s Rights and the foundation of patriarchy. Conditional Chivalry where the woman has to “earn” Chivalry first is not Chivalry at all; it is just abuse and manipulation by the man against the woman. A man has no right to impose any cost upon the woman in order for the woman to receive what she was always entitled to in the first place.

Chivalry Series:
The Natural Order, Chivalry, and Traditional Women’s Rights
Chivalry Explained
The Unearned Gift of Chivalry

About Jesse Powell TFA

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

25 Responses to Why Chivalry is an Unconditional Male Duty

  1. The Radical One says:

    Another important aspect of unconditional chivalry is that it gets women to trust in men- to trust that men will do right by them and take care of them. This in turn could have the added benefit of weakening feminism as most of feminist complaints revolve around men treating women unjustly. Of course mainstream feminists don’t want men caring for women because it would signal somehow that women are “weak” and “nurturing” and feminists hate that. However, most everyday ordinary women would be compelled to form lasting relationships with men and feel safer having more (or any) children and even remaining in the home with them. There’s a lot of women who won’t even have babies because they cannot trust men and feel that men are just out looking to use and abuse them. And if financially providing for wives was a male duty upheld by society and the law women wouldn’t be putting off childbearing until they could “afford” it and the economy might flourish once again. By women seeing that men really aren’t all a bunch of “jerks” looking to use them and abuse them they might turn away from seeing feminism and “equal rights” as a necessity and instead trust in marriage and a husband to do right by them.

    One could say that a woman doesn’t “deserve” chivalry but men showing chivalry to only those women who “deserve” it only causes the other women who don’t “deserve” it to have even more disdain for traditional gender roles and men in general. Unconditional chivalry is a part of traditional women’s rights and traditional family values because these rights and values revolve around men taking care of women which in turn leads to more feminine women willing to fulfill the traditional female role.

    • Melissa says:

      I often think about that and how it is very true for many of the young women growing up today. They turn their focus in feminist and career-driven directions often because, based on what they have known and experienced, they feel men are not able to be trusted. This due to various factors such as family breakdown (their own parents or parents of their peers), relationship instability and serial monogamy, celebration of career-women and career-moms in the media, seeing a lot of male drinking and irresponsibility, etc. Anyway, I am NOT trying to bash men! I am just mentioning that in this day and age and in my experience, a lot of young women don’t even think or expect that a man would be willing to financially support them, and they are very reluctant to allow themselves to be financially supported by a man because it seems too dangerous (for lack of a better word). I also thought this way as well up until about age 26, and then was lucky enough to come to my senses (i.e. realize the destructiveness of feminism).

  2. Melissa says:

    If men were to start practicing unconditional chivalry, it would drastically change society. Similar to what you wrote about femininity; if men want there to be feminine women in society (to see, meet and/or marry), then chivalry is essential.

    • jcapz says:

      Thank for the great and informative read I really enjoyed it. It’s people like you that I love to show that chivalry is in fact not dead. With simple habits and beliefs, chivalry can be an easy practice.

    • jcapz says:

      I apologize, my initial reply was meant for the author. But in reply to you, I fully agree with you. That is why I made a blog for the sole purpose of being chivalrous and being a gentleman. With habits formed to show chivalry, drastic change would show.

  3. Will S. says:

    On what basis, as a secularist, can you argue what ‘ought’ be for anything, whether chivalry or secularist patriarchy, or whatever?

    If you are an atheist, you presumably can’t believe in an absolute morality of right and wrong, since you have no transcendent frame of reference; all you can ultimately appeal to is pragmatism, what works best for society. Which is all fine and dandy, but how can you convince any other secularist that he or she OUGHT to be patriarchal, and support what you propose, a return to the previous order?

    Frankly, while I think your quest certainly is noble enough in spirit, I ultimately think it’s futile.

  4. Jojo says:

    I understand what you mean by chivalry better now. I still have problems with it. Honestly, it sounds like female superiority to me.

    It’s not right of me to take something from a man and not give anything in return. If I were married and I refused to perform my duties as a wife then my husband shouldn’t have to stick to his duties. He can if he wants, but I wouldn’t expect him to. It’s a partnership and if I don’t hold up my end of the deal, then it’s broken.

    Women by and large aren’t feminine anymore. I don’t think they want to be. They see it as a weakness, so what is there to protect or support? I don’t think women would suddenly start being feminine again. I believe they’d just take it for granted. That’s what they’re taught to do from a young age.

    I still think men only need to be chivalrous towards women they care about. If some strange woman needed protecting, I would not want my husband potentially risking his well being or life protecting her. Then I would lose out and I should be more important.

    I just don’t think women are owed anything if they don’t offer anything themselves.
    Sure I think I have a right to cared for by my husband, but not just any man.I’d like to be protected by men in general, but I don’t believe I have a right to it.

  5. yoursexymaster says:

    Well chivalry is far from something women just get if she is some fat violent dyke I’m not letting her have my damn time. These bitches rant about extermination of men and you think they deserve chivalry?

  6. Responding to Jojo:

    First, thanks for your comment here.

    Chivalry is not female superiority, it is male duty. Male duty and female superiority are not the same thing even when the male duty is directed towards the benefit of the woman as is the case with Chivalry. I draw a distinction between female controlled Chivalry and male controlled Chivalry (even though I didn’t mention the particular issue of who controls Chivalry in the above article). Female controlled Chivalry is feminism; male controlled Chivalry is patriarchy. Female controlled Chivalry I would characterize as female supremacist but I very clearly define Chivalry as being necessarily and by definition male controlled. In other words the man acts on behalf of the woman for the purpose of furthering his own goals and values as a man. The individual man is also bound by the collective Chivalrous rules of the male community; the male community being equivalent to the government or another community such as a religious community the man feels bound by the rules of. Chivalry is not just what an individual man decides it is arbitrarily Chivalry is decided upon men collectively and then imposed upon each man individually. Ultimately Chivalry is based on obedience to God and is a duty owed to God on the woman’s behalf.

    The woman is not above the man in Chivalry because the woman is not controlling or dictating Chivalry and because Chivalry is meant to serve male goals and values, not female goals and values.

    Jojo said “It’s not right of me to take something from a man and not give anything in return.”

    You need to understand, God (or evolution or whatever) gave men a multitude of advantages over women in the arena of the classic masculine strengths related to dominance and rule making and creating and controlling resources. These are advantages that men get simply because they are born male; they are inherited genetic advantages and also social advantages based on the assumed characteristics and role of the man. These areas of masculine superiority however are not given to the man to benefit the man, they are given to the man to benefit the woman. The areas of masculine superiority the man possesses are more to the point meant to support the areas of feminine superiority the woman possesses; hence masculinity exists to serve femininity as referred to in my above article.

    When you as a woman come into a relationship with a man you and him are not equal to each other, he is superior to you in some ways and you are superior to him in some ways. You as a woman owe him the advantages you possess derived from your femininity; he as a man owes you the advantages he possesses derived from his masculinity. Chivalry is exactly these advantages of masculinity the man possesses through inheritance directed to the woman’s benefit based on his decision. The Chivalrous man is merely fulfilling his obligation to women by giving to the woman the benefit of the masculine advantages he himself inherited by virtue of being born male.

    Jojo said “If I were married and I refused to perform my duties as a wife then my husband shouldn’t have to stick to his duties.”

    No, no, no. The husband’s duties are always the husband’s duties regardless and the wife’s duties are always the wife’s duties regardless. If a wife is not fulfilling her duties she should be punished as her not fulfilling her duties is a bad act on her part and bad acts should be punished. What you are proposing is that if the wife does bad to her husband then that gives her husband the right to do bad to her in return. This is totally wrong; bad acts should be punished as bad acts because they are bad but duties remain duties regardless.

    You say, referring to relations between men and women, “It’s a partnership and if I don’t hold up my end of the deal, then it’s broken.”

    Marriage is a partnership in the sense of the husband and wife working together towards the common goal of the good of the family but the marital relationship itself between husband and wife is a domination / submission relationship where the husband is absolutely bound by his unconditional duty of Chivalry towards his wife which will be imposed upon him by social shaming and if necessary the law. If you as the woman aren’t “holding up your end of the deal” then that is bad behavior on your part that hopefully can be corrected without too much damage being done to the relationship.

    It’s irrelevant how feminine women are today, women by their inherited nature are in the female role regardless. Likewise men are in the male role whether they like it or not. If men were only Chivalrous towards women they “care about” that implies that the man’s duty towards women is dependent upon how the man is “feeling” towards the woman. Chivalry is a duty, feelings be damned!

  7. Responding to yoursexymaster:

    Amusing name you’ve got there.

    Even women who are “some fat violent dyke” are entitled to the Chivalrous considerations universal to the female sex. I never said such a woman is “deserving” of Chivalry. In fact I would never pass such a judgment on a woman one way or the other. A woman may have good characteristics or a woman may have bad characteristics but these are simply the virtues and sins of the woman herself, they are completely irrelevant regarding my obligation of Chivalry towards her because my obligation of Chivalry as a man is based on who I am as a man and what values I am trying to uphold and promote, they are not based on the characteristics of the woman who is the recipient of my Chivalry in any way.

    You (as a man) need to understand that you are in an authority relationship and a guardianship relationship to all women, even the “fat violent dyke.” You are to look out for their well being and create a world that is supportive of their purpose and their contribution as women. Remember, if the woman in question had been given the Chivalrous respect and consideration she was always entitled to due to her status as a woman she never would have become a “fat violent dyke” in the first place.

  8. Jojo says:

    I still don’t see the difference between this and female superiority. It sounds the same as feminism; that women are owed something just for being women regardless of what they do. That sounds like something I hear from feminists. I agree men are born with advantages over women, but that doesn’t mean they have any obligations to women regardless of how women act. If a man is chivalrous towards me no matter what then I have no incentive to actually perform my role as a woman. I can behave as a man and still be rewarded for it. It’s like rewarding a child who causes mischief the same as you reward children who follow the rules.

    I do believe my husband has an obligation to be chivalrous towards me, but only because he is my husband. He gets something out of it. A man who is not my husband won’t necessarily get anything from me in return so I see no need for him to feel obligated.

    It should be dependent on how he feels about the woman. He shouldn’t have to care for a random woman that he receives nothing from. And it should be dependent on her behavior. I just see all of this as saying men exist to serve women whether they gain anything from it or not.

  9. On the issue of incentives for the woman, first of all the woman should perform her role as a woman simply because it is the right thing to do in the same way the man should perform his role as a man by being Chivalrous simply because it is the right thing to do. In a more practical sense a woman who demonstrates a commitment to pleasing her man through commitment to the feminine role will be more desirable to a man who wants to gain his identity and purpose through his commitment to the masculine role. All men owe all women Chivalry as a general principle but each individual man certainly has the right to choose which woman he thinks would be best for him and in that way discriminate in favor of those women who will cooperate with him in his family goals through obedience and discriminate against those women indicating they will not conform to the feminine gender role. In addition punishing women for bad behavior does not conflict with Chivalry; it is just that punishing women for bad behavior is separate from Chivalry.

    • Jojo says:

      I’m sort of convinced. I have mixed feelings about it still, but I’m leaning more to agreeing.I have a genuine question though. If men owe all women chivalry because of the advantages they were born with, why do I not owe all men my womb since I was born with that advantage over them?
      Also, I have another question I’d like to ask you, but it doesn’t pertain to this topic. Would you prefer I ask in an email?

  10. Glad to hear I am starting to “make sense” to you. The reply to your comment I wrote up I think is a matter of general interest and is good enough to be its own post so I will be shortly posting my reply to you as a new post for everyone to read and comment upon if they wish.

    You mentioned you had some question you wanted to ask me off the topic of this thread. It sounds like whatever your question is it would be better if you ask me in private; feel free to send me an email regarding whatever your question is.

  11. Pingback: The Chivalry Hierarchy and Women’s Corresponding Feminine Duties to Men | Secular Patriarchy

  12. Pingback: 10 Basic Principles For Running Game - The Chivalrous Mind

  13. jcapz says:

    Thank you for the great read. It’s people like you that make me happy to show that chivalry is in fact not dead. With simple habits being practiced, chivalry can be something easily acted on.

  14. Just to straighten things out, I’m Jesse Powell, the author of the OP and the person who created this website. Actually I have written a number of articles on the subject of Chivalry; it’s one of my favorite subjects. 🙂 Go to my Chivalry category and you can see what all is in there.

    I’m surprised and pleased about your favorable response to me. I am a cultural radical you know; the name of this blog “Secular Patriarchy” should tell you something.

    I am just now trying to start up a cultural / political group called the Traditional Family Activists. If you would be interested in joining or supporting my group in some way that would be great, though it is more than I expect.

    I have actually placed Chivalry as the foundation of my moral system as it relates to men. Support for Chivalry is absolutely foundational to what I am wishing to promote culturally.

    It would be great if you could link to my website. I will link to your website regardless because I think what you are saying is important for people to read, especially the single men out there. I like that you are intentionally trying to distance yourself from the “players” who like to “pump and dump” women by faking desirable masculine traits simply as a ploy to manipulate women.

    I’m glad we met each other. I discovered your blog based on the pingback to this post. I see your blog is still new, only a month-and-a-half old. I hope your blog grows in audience. I especially like that you are placing Chivalry front and center as an organizing principle of how men should treat women.

    All men should strive to have a “Chivalrous mind.” What a great title for a blog! 🙂

  15. zarehalization says:

    YES! Check what I have to say about Chivalry http://wp.me/p3LxOA-4G

  16. Pingback: What Women are Entitled To | 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 )

Connecting to %s