The Advantage of Chivalry over Courtesy

Tarnished Sophia has written an article titled “Chivalry Is Dead, Long Live Courtesy” which contrasts Chivalry with courtesy pointing out that courtesy is for everyone and poses no thorny ethical or moral dilemmas while Chivalry is for women only whether the woman wants it or not. The implication being that courtesy is preferable to Chivalry because of courtesy’s simple and uncontroversial nature while Chivalry is loaded up with all sorts of “baggage” that makes people, certain people at least, uncomfortable.

First off what is courtesy exactly, what is it based on? In the Merriam-Webster online dictionary it says courtesy is “polite behavior that shows respect for other people; something that you do because it is polite, kind, etc.” Merriam-Webster says about Chivalry “an honorable and polite way of behaving especially toward women.” I think there are two key differences between the two concepts as reflected in their dictionary definitions. Chivalry has in it the concept of “honor” while courtesy merely refers to “respect.” Honor is a stronger concept than respect; honor implies heroism and facing danger and sacrificing oneself on behalf of another while respect simply implies holding someone in high regard and not being rude or insulting them. The other aspect of Chivalry is the “especially toward women” part.

Courtesy seems to be derivative of a kind of humanitarianism, love of ones fellow human beings, the desire to help others because they are fellow human beings just like we are; the spirit that we should all help each other and be kind to one another and respect each other’s humanity as human beings.

Chivalry is derivative of something else; derivative of men’s love for women primarily in its romantic form with a generalized halo effect so that women in general are viewed by men in general in a way similar to how the man in love views the woman he is in love with.

Courtesy is kind, Chivalry is romantic. Courtesy is one human being to another. Chivalry is the man to the woman.

Tarnished starts out her post with three vignettes of Chivalry in action in the modern world and then offers the hypothetical alternative scenario of how things would be different if the principle in operation in these scenarios was courtesy rather than Chivalry. In reading through the vignettes what interests me most is the psychological motivations of the actors. Why does the man act as he does in each case and why does the woman act as she does in each case?

In the first scenario Tarnished presents it is the holiday season and a man sees a woman struggling to get a bunch of packages into her car and helps her. The woman thanks him and the man walks off totally ignoring a man struggling to get packages into his car. One might think the man’s act of helping the woman was courtesy but the fact that the man completely ignored another man struggling in the same way proves his motivation in helping the woman was Chivalry instead.

I am assuming the woman in this scenario was simply grateful for the help and didn’t ask questions about why the man was helping her exactly. As for the man, in the man’s image of himself he probably sees himself as a protector of women, a good man doing right by women. Seeing a woman he could help probably gave him a masculine thrill, an opportunity to show how manly and heroic he was, an opportunity to be “the good guy” in a woman’s eyes, an opportunity for a kind of romantic charge. This spurred him into heroic action to help the woman with her packages she was fumbling with. When the man’s heroic deed was done he then saw a man in the same situation a little while later and thought to himself “I hope that poor guy can figure all that out” and went on about his business.

In the second scenario Tarnished presented the issue is who pays for the date. According to the professions of the man and the woman the woman probably made more money in this scenario but the man wanted to pay for the date, the man insisted on paying for the date. This made the man very proud of himself while his date felt “dejected” after her offer to pay for half the date was refused.

I can understand the man’s motivations in this scenario; he wanted to be the breadwinner and the traditional man who pays for the woman and gives to the woman a good time. Why the woman reacted negatively is harder for me to figure out. Maybe she felt like a free loader or a beggar or something; maybe she was proud of her own career and her own money making and wanted to advertise that she was a woman who was “carrying her own weight.”

In the third scenario that was apparently something that happened in Tarnished’s own life she was going to the bank where she had to walk through two sets of doors and an older man was in front of her. The older man held the door open for her and Tarnished walked through the door thanking the older man. Since Tarnished reached the next set of doors first Tarnished figured she’d return the favor and hold the second door open for the older man to walk through just like he did for her before. The older man didn’t take kindly to this and came up to the second door and then held the second door open motioning for Tarnished to walk through in front of him. When Tarnished just stood there not complying with his request he barked out “Women don’t hold doors for men. Now, march in there!” Tarnished then decided to make her deposit using an ATM machine rather than the tellers inside and the older man finally walked through the second door himself muttering under his breath “rude bitch.”

Dang, talk about Chivalry gone wrong! I think I can understand the older man’s actions quite well but I can also understand Tarnished’s actions. The older man and Tarnished clearly had different ideas of what the little door holding ritual was supposed to be about. The older man had a traditional notion of what holding the door open for a lady was supposed to mean and Tarnished had a modern feminist notion of what holding doors open for people was supposed to represent. Tarnished was clearly not going along with the older man’s script and tried to turn holding doors open from a Chivalrous gesture into a courteous gesture. The older man however definitely saw what he was doing as Chivalry and not courtesy and mightily resented Tarnished’s effort to convert his Chivalrous intent into courtesy instead. So a confrontation developed where the older man insisted on his Chivalry and Tarnished refused to go along with his Chivalry leading to the confrontation to finally be defused by Tarnished finding a way to not have to walk through the door by going to the ATM instead. It seems at first the older man was insisting on his Chivalrous intent that Tarnished did not want to cooperate with and then things escalated to the older man issuing an order to Tarnished to accept his Chivalrous intent where Tarnished then did not want to “obey” his order.

I wonder about the older man’s life. I can imagine that holding doors open for women as they go into banks, as they go into stores, as they step into cars, has been a cherished part of this man’s life for years; for decades even. I bet this man has ritually opened doors for women hundreds of times, maybe thousands of times. Imagine all the doors there are in this world that have to be opened and every time a man happens to be physically closer to a door a woman wants to walk through that is another opportunity to provide to the woman a little Chivalrous gift of holding the door open for her to allow her to walk through the door first. What a beautiful ritual. It’s brilliant really. Every man can participate in the ritual of opening doors for women and he can do it repeatedly. Another opportunity to open a door for a woman may happen once a week for years; year after year after year. Opening doors for women could serve as a constant reminder to women that men are in service to them and it serves as a constant reminder to the man that he is in service to women.

So just like the older man had done hundreds of times before routinely he saw that he had an opportunity to hold the door open for Tarnished and so he took it. There was a problem however; there were two sets of doors to open and to be a Chivalrous man he had to open both of them for the lady. The second set of doors to open provided an opportunity for mischief; maybe the lady would end up doing something really crazy like trying to open the door for him instead. After Tarnished turned the tables on the older man completely messing up his script then things degenerated into confrontation as the older man struggled to put the world right side up again as it should be with men in service to women as is the natural order of things.

In the three scenarios Tarnished laid out the alternative courtesy version of how the event might have gone instead is presented as the superior outcome. In the first scenario the man helps both the woman and the man put their packages in the car. In the second scenario the man and woman share the cost of the date with no objection from the man making the woman happier. In the third scenario the older man accepts Tarnished holding the second door open for him and is thankful for it; both Tarnished and the older man being heartened that there are still polite people in the world.

When I look at the three scenarios I feel good about what the man did in each case; I am glad the outcomes are what they were rather than being converted into their courtesy equivalents like Tarnished is advocating for. The idea that men will just passively give up Chivalry as soon as a woman shows the first hint of discomfort with it is a rather shocking idea. The idea that men have some sort of obligation to go along with the destruction of Chivalry just because some woman out there doesn’t like it is quite outrageous. I am glad that the men in the scenarios listed stood their ground. I see the older man at the bank as being especially heroic because he was practicing Chivalry in a strictly idealistic way to a woman who was a complete stranger to him and better yet he tried to exert authority over the situation when the woman was messing things up with her crazy feminist egalitarian ideas. If there were more men like him around to impose discipline on disordered women the society would be a lot better off than it is today. The older man learned his sense of ethics and his sense of how relations between men and women should be in the past when society functioned a lot better than it does today.

Tarnished is presenting the alternative scenarios of courtesy as better because in the courtesy scenarios there is no conflict and everybody is happy. The problem however is that the conflicts in the Chivalry scenarios exist due to the women in the Chivalry scenarios trying to undermine the Chivalry being practiced on their behalf; the conflicts in other words are based on the woman violating the rules of good gender relations. If the man just surrendered to the woman’s demands in each case then the gender dynamic would have been broken for good. With the man resisting the woman in the woman’s attempt to abolish Chivalry there is still hope that a positive gender dynamic can be maintained or rebuilt. If men give up the fight then the battle is truly lost.

What is wrong with men loving women? To say that Chivalry is bad is to say that men loving women is bad because after all that is what Chivalry is based on; it is based on men’s love for women. Chivalry produces a huge benefit for society; men providing for and protecting women is a huge benefit to society. The proper care of children is dependent upon Chivalry as Chivalry is the mechanism by which men provide support to women so that women can then care for children.

Courtesy and generalized generosity towards others has its place but Chivalry has its place to, a very important place in human affairs.

Tarnished ends her article saying:

“Chivalry is an outdated concept that disenfranchises both men and women, though in very different ways. Courtesy is a valuable concept that tells us to be polite and helpful to all others, regardless of age, creed, skin tone, sex, or orientation. I know which one I’d pick for a better society. How about you?”

Courtesy is a very weak ideal that can only help at the margins; and besides nobody is against courtesy so advocating for courtesy is meaningless. Perhaps humanitarianism is the broader more fundamental ideal that courtesy is the symbolic expression of so it might make sense to advocate for humanitarianism to help society in a more significant way but again nobody is opposed to humanitarianism so I don’t know what advocating for more humanitarianism would mean or entail or what difference it would make. It is always good to tell people to be more generous and to be better people but I don’t know how much difference it will make.

Chivalry however, Chivalry is a very powerful idea that society is hugely deficient in due to feminism and it is something we desperately need much more of as a society. What would I pick for a better society? There is no doubt about it; I would pick Chivalry.

About Jesse Powell TFA

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

17 Responses to The Advantage of Chivalry over Courtesy

  1. Tarnished says:

    First, let me say thank you for relaying my own post in such detail, and in an unbiased manner. I greatly appreciate it, as I’m typically used to my words being taken out of context. The only thing in this entire post that I might quibble about is the fact that I have never identified as a feminist…Indeed, there are a number of statements and ideas that I don’t fully agree with that originate with feminism.

    Before I write a true response, I have a few questions that would help me to understand your position better, should you answer them.

    1. In a previous conversation, you said it was right and good for men to have authority because they would not “abuse” it as a woman might (see your servant vs served argument). What then, are we to make of men who *do* use their authority in an abusive way?

    2. Obviously, you are an adult and probably know that transexual and transgender people exist. Now, would you extend your idea of chivalry (whether symbolic or concrete) to a person who was born male, but due to surgery/hormone therapy was for all intensive purposes a woman? What about a woman who simply dresses (and passes) as a man? If you found out their “true” identity, would you then treat them chivalrously…despite the fact it would look like you’re opening doors or pulling chairs out for a fellow male?

    3. At what point do you feel it is acceptable to force your idea of chivalry on someone else? If the concept of chivalry (which was initially based on a knight’s code of honor towards *upper class* women) that you hold causes a woman mental/emotional anguish, do you believe that her pain is inconsequential since you believe you’re acting “in the greater good”? Or would you abide by this hypothetical woman’s wishes for nonpreferential treatment if confronted with anger/tears in public?

    4. Even if you don’t agree with it, can you at least understand how people like myself believe that certain forms of chivalry are used to infantilize women, rather than “show love” to them? Also, can you accept the fact that using chivalry rather than courtesy is unfair to your fellow men, as you would be significantly less likely to offer your assistance to them…despite seeing that they clearly require it?

    5. This doesn’t quite go along with our current discussion, but my curiosity is piqued: How do you feel about people (either male or female) who do not choose to marry or have children, and instead focus on their careers and community?

    I await your answers, and hope to continue this conversation later today.

    Thank you,

    • niceski says:

      Chivalry isn’t about men loving women, it is about men loving men. If a man does something that a woman finds distasteful or makes her uncomfortable (because it casts her as weak, dependent, or in need, when she is not) — the man is doing this for his own ego, not for the woman.

      • I say that Chivalry is about men loving women because it is a masculine ethic of men specifically intended for women’s benefit that at the emotional level for the man is motivated by romantic feelings either towards a specific woman in a relationship context or as a generalized halo effect directed towards women in general. In terms of the moral foundation of Chivalry Chivalry however is a duty towards God (or the Superior Power) on behalf of women.

        It is true though that Chivalry is based on the man’s sense of himself and the man’s goals and the purpose of Chivalry is to advance the man’s agenda as it relates to his duty towards women. Chivalry is also the mechanism by which men gain legitimate authority over women.

        As far as a woman having a negative reaction to Chivalrous behavior by the man it needs to be kept in mind that the man is not responsible for the woman’s reaction to his behavior; the man is responsible for his behavior only and is not responsible for how an individual chooses to react to or interpret his behavior. Just because a woman feels demeaned that does not mean the man intended for the woman to feel demeaned or that he was motivated in his actions by a desire to demean the woman to elevate himself.

        Also a fundamental principle of Chivalry is that it is done to serve the objective interests of the woman based on the man’s judgment of things; it is not done based on what the woman herself demands or desires. Chivalry must be under men’s control, not women’s. Chivalry under women’s control is feminism. Chivalry under men’s control is patriarchy. I am advocating here for patriarchy and against feminism.

  2. Thank you for recognizing my effort to be honest and fair minded in my response to your article even though I am obviously disagreeing with your overall point of view.

    So, to respond to your questions:

    1. As far as men abusing authority. The hierarchy is God on top, the male community below God, the individual man below the male community, the woman below the man. If a man is abusing his authority he is in violation of the male community and he is in violation against God (assuming the male community is being obedient to God). A woman has the right to disobey a man if such disobedience represents obedience to an authority higher than the man such as the male community or God. Ultimately all obedience is owed to God. A man is obligated to subordinate his interests to the woman’s interests; the woman’s interests always come first and the authority the man exercises over the woman must be used for the purpose of benefiting the woman. If the man fails to do this his claimed authority is illegitimate as it is being used for a purpose contrary to God’s intention of how the authority is meant to be used.

    So basically a man abusing his authority loses his right to claim authority regarding the issue where he is abusing his authority. Also the man is subject to being punished for his violation of the rules of the male community. The woman does not decide independently whether a man is abusing his authority; objective standards based on the cultural rules determined by the male community is what is used to determine whether a particular man in a particular situation has been abusing his authority. Any man failing to subordinate his interests to the interests of women is automatically in violation of community norms and is therefore not entitled to obedience from women and is possibly deserving of punishment for his violation of community norms regarding how men should treat women.

    2. As far as transgenders and people whose sex is not so easy to identify. Basically someone’s biological sex should determine their status in society. Things might get interesting if I personally know someone was born female but “he” is successfully fooling others into thinking “he” is really a man. As far as government policy is concerned I would say the biological sex rules regardless of how someone presents themselves. In terms of social interactions the sex someone is viewed as being would probably determine their status. I would definitely not treat a biological male as a woman just because he had surgery and hormone replacement therapy or something even if he was a convincing fake as a “woman.” I would have to be truly fooled in order to treat a biological male as a woman. Basically inheritance rules; what gender you are is not a choice.

    3. Chivalry is not based on the woman’s consent; Chivalry is something men impose upon women. When a man practices Chivalry he should have some kind of purpose in mind regarding what his Chivalry is meant to accomplish or what purpose his Chivalry is meant to serve. If some Chivalrous act is “not working” then the man may reconsider the wisdom of what he is doing but the principle that Chivalry is under male control meant to serve male defined purposes is very important; it is very important that the man’s Chivalry remain under the man’s control. Chivalry is not done for the purpose of making a woman “feel good,” it is done to provide a service or benefit to the woman. The good done for the woman is an objective good, it is not a good dependent upon the woman’s emotional reaction. The woman’s emotional response does not determine the goodness or legitimacy of the man’s Chivalrous act. If the woman reacts to a man’s Chivalrous act with public anger or tears I am thinking she is being rebellious, she is being manipulative, she is trying to take control away from the man and seize it for herself. I would only reverse or withdraw my Chivalrous act due to public anger or tears if the public anger or tears indicated that my original Chivalrous intent was not going to be achieved through the means I was using. Public anger or tears however indicates a power struggle is going on in which case I will place a priority on trying to win the power struggle so I can maintain my dominant position because maintaining my dominant position is important in its own right.

    4. As far as Chivalry “infantilizing” women rather than showing love for women. Chivalry is definitely meant to subordinate women, to place women under men’s authority. I can see how this can be seen as “infantilizing” women; Chivalry does imply taking away from women “adult responsibilities” with the man “handling” the “serious stuff” and “shielding” the woman from having to deal with such “challenges” herself. Chivalry can be seen as transforming a woman from a “full adult” into a person of lesser capacity and responsibility similar to the status of a child regarding certain spheres of life; this transformation being referred to as “infantilization” by feminists.

    The thing is the woman should not be in the position of a “full adult” in the first place because the woman shouldn’t be operating independently in the masculine realm. Chivalry takes away from women duties and responsibilities they shouldn’t have in the first place; duties and responsibilities that are harmful to them and harmful to their ability to contribute to society. In this way Chivalry is an act of love because it is loving to protect women from masculine dangers and burdens harmful to their life and purpose as women. Chivalry does not impose upon women a child like status; Chivalry recognizes the child like status the woman is in already and then protects the woman from the “adult” responsibilities that are harmful and dangerous to her because of her intrinsic child like state.

    I will add I am referring specifically to the masculine realm when I talk about women’s “child like state.” Women have inferior capacity in the masculine realm and superior capacity in the feminine realm. Chivalry is meant to keep women away from the masculine realm and support women in the feminine realm so that the woman’s efforts will be directed to her area of strength (the feminine realm) rather than her being forced to operate in her area of weakness (the masculine realm).

    5. A single woman (presumably without children) is free to be career focused as a career for her will not be in conflict with her family responsibilities. Hopefully logically her career will be in an area of feminine strength as that is where she can best contribute as a woman but I would not be in favor of formal restrictions on the career choice of a single woman (excluding certain occupations that are dangerous or strongly associated with the male role). A married woman without children is still a married woman and so is entitled to full financial support from her husband and is under the authority of her husband. A man either single or married has full rights regarding career choice (excluding possibly some occupations strongly associated with the female role). I am totally in favor of freedom of choice as far as whether to get married or not for both men and women; once married however there are strong gender based duties for both the man and the woman. A married woman has the right to refuse to work; a woman’s husband does not have the right to “order her” to work as such an order is contrary to community norms and is a moral violation. Similarly a wife does not have the right to work without her husband’s permission. As far as a married couple having children; reproductive rights within marriage should be equal for both the husband and the wife, how many children a married couple has should be a joint decision.

    • Tarnished says:


      Thank you for the responses. Although they make me disagree with you even moreso than before, at least I have a slightly better idea of your thought processes. I’ll respond in kind;

      1. Given the fact that you call your blog “secular” patriarchy, I’d made a quick assumption that you were an atheist, or at least someone who held entirely secular/nonreligious views. Obviously, since you refer to God in this answer, I was wrong…and as you’ve stated that you live in the US as I do, you’re probably some sect of Christianity. This actually makes a lot more sense, as I’ve yet to encounter an atheist with beliefs even remotely similar to yours.

      As for a woman not being able to independently decide if a man is abusing his authority, and instead relying purely on cultural norms…I disagree with this very much. In areas of the world still under Taliban rule, a woman can be stoned to death for being raped or for reporting a physically abusive husband. This is mandated as the norm by a group of men in the community, yet I think most would agree (and certainly the woman would) that being punished for a crime committed *against oneself* is utter folly.

      2. Lolenjoy already expanded on this issue in the direction I was going to take, so I won’t make you repeat yourself. However, I *will* note that your phrase “someone’s biological sex should determine their status in society” is very off putting. I already don’t believe in it, but what’s to prevent people from changing it to say “someone’s pigmentation should determine their status in society” or “someone’s height should determine their status in society” or even “someone’s age should determine their status in society”? Putting value qualifiers on characteristics that one has no real control over is generally considered to be in poor form, and for good reason: It is prejudiced.

      3. The fact that you’d believe that a woman who is angered or tearful at your attempts at forcing your ideas of subjugation on her is being “manipulative” or “rebellious” rather than simply being pissed off at your arrogance is very telling. I doubt very much that any woman would think to herself “Hey, this man is trying to open a door for me…I think I’ll attempt to wrest authority from him by telling him off”. No, rather I can see her getting justifiably distressed by a strange man who is unwilling to treat her with the respect she asks for. I know that in many women, myself included here, a man who goes out of his way to make sure you know that he doesn’t care about how you feel sends up huge danger signals. If he doesn’t care that you dislike it when he pulls out your chair, opens your car door, takes your groceries from you, or pays for your food…what’s to prevent him from *also* not caring if you don’t want to have sex with him later. Yes, men (and people in general) who don’t care about one’s feelings are to be avoided out of simple safety measures.

      4. I think this is the saddest response I’ve read of yours. I’m not being passive aggressive when I say this, nor am I trying to be emotionally manipulative…the answer you gave here literally made my heart ache for you. In making yourself (and all men, by extension) into constant “protectors” and the only “real” adults, you’ve put yourself so far away from typical human interaction that you would be incapable of viewing women as equals in your life. I tried to imagine having a significant other that I thought of as childlike or less than adult…it made me sick to my stomach. I asked my lover how he’d feel marrying, having a relationship with, or having sex with someone he wasn’t capable of relating to as an equal in their own right…he said that it would either make him feel like a pedophile or that he was taking advantage of that person. Needless to say, neither of us would ever want to pursue any kind of relationship with someone who is *that* unequal to us.

      You have continuously said that chivalry is something that men do for women, to show love for women in general, and to create a sense of honor. Yet where is the honor in believing another person to be inferior to you? How is it respectful to look at a woman your own age and essentially say to her, “Yes, you may have the same number of years of life experience, you may have traveled more than me, done more for the community than me, had more children than me, and had more opportunities for personal growth than me…but you are still a child in my mind.” I don’t know, maybe I’d have to be your type of religion to understand this way of thinking, but to me it simply reeks of erroneous arrogance.

      5. This was perhaps the most confusing, though it was slightly refreshing in it’s own way. At least you don’t believe all men and women should get married or have children. And it was good to see that you believe in people making their own career choices for the most part…although it sounds like you don’t approve of men being schoolteachers/nurses, or of women being soldiers/oil riggers.

      All in all, I’m unsure if there’s much of a reason to continue this conversation. I don’t mean this in a harsh way, and I did not start here with the intent to try and change your opinions (as I was 99% sure from the get go that you believe in yours as totally as I do mine). But as we will never see any common ground in this topic, it may be all for naught, and might be better if we pursue more productive ventures. I will end by saying that, while your views may work for a select group of men and women, I’m happy to know that it is a fairly small one. Likewise, I’m happy to live in the US, where we do have freedoms of speech *and* a goodly amount of equality for both of us to enjoy. In the same way I’m free to continue paying for my lover’s meals/entertainment, lending men my coat when they’re cold, opening doors for everybody, helping fathers with their groceries, and opening my own business next year…you are free to find a woman and community that shares your opinions and will make *you* happy as well. At the end of the day, our daily use of American freedom might be one of the few things we can agree on.

    • As far as responding to your comments, first of all, I am 100% an atheist. I use the term “God” as a kind of short hand, not as a literal real thing. I also sometimes use the term “Superior Power” but the term “God” is more universally understandable and has the kind of associated meanings I often want to convey. The source of “God” is evolution or “God” is the outcome of the inherited characteristics of men and women that developed through the process of evolution. Men and women have different inherited characteristics, these different characteristics then leading to gender roles and specialization of functions. Specialization of functions then leads to gender hierarchy because any time two people share a common goal but have different roles they are better at a hierarchy will form between them where one person is the dominant giver and the other person is the submissive receiver. Since the woman is the one who directly gives birth and then needs male support to help raise her children this then means that the man is the giver and that the woman is the receiver. Since the man is in the position of being the giver this then means that the man has to be in the dominant position to maintain his role as the giver. This is what gender hierarchy is based on; men being dominant givers and women being submissive receivers. This is entirely consistent with the theory of evolution as specialization of function by gender leads to greater efficiency and the survivability of the species.

      So, I do not believe in a literal supernatural God but evolution functions as a kind of God equivalent very closely. The moral structure of Christianity, at least the more conservative forms of Christianity which teach gender complementarianism or patriarchy, is something I admire very much and try to emulate. I do strive to place “God” as the ultimate organizing force of human life. Gender roles are most certainly imposed upon us by “God”, the duty of Chivalry is something that “God” imposes upon men, all of the moral rules I have laid out are meant to be reflections of “God’s will” or “God’s plan” as closely as I can approximate it according to my understanding of things.

      I suggest this earlier post I wrote at this site on the subject of how I view “God” as an atheist:

      What the Superior Power Means to me as an Atheist

      In my hierarchy you have to keep in mind that God is always above the male community. The male community in the United States is very messed up; it has been taken over by feminism. I would never dream of telling people they should trust what the current male community in the United States is telling them to do at the present time. When I refer to the male community being a reference point of moral judgment above the individual man I am saying how things should work in the hypothetical society of the future that will be patriarchal and healthy. In the United States at the current time the only moral reference point that is still functioning is God. Thankfully “the truth” is still with us and available for use and guidance. I am laying out moral rules of family life and gender relations consistent with the will of God in a way understandable to atheists. That is the purpose of what I am trying to do at this site.

      As far as freedom of choice and people being allowed to live the way they want to live. Yes it is true there are many religious communities operating in the United States who are able to insulate themselves from the harm of feminism very effectively. What the Ultra-Orthodox Jews have been able to accomplish in this regard is absolutely amazing. I will say however that feminist adults do not have the right (in a moral sense) to impose their feminist lifestyle upon their children as feminism directly harms children and steals away from children the care and support they are entitled to as children. Feminism is about men stealing from women by depriving women of the Chivalry they are entitled to and the woman then stealing from the child to compensate for what the man has stolen from her. Cultural pluralism might be good public policy but only in the sense of allowing for a smooth transition away from the unhealthy feminist culture of the present towards the healthy patriarchal culture of the future.

      Lastly, it would be very immoral of me to see women as my equals in the masculine sphere, authority and decision making being part of the masculine sphere. It would be me abandoning my duties as a man towards women, towards children, and on behalf of society as a whole. It would be me abandoning my duty to God; me shunning the burden that God has placed upon me. You are very wrong if you think I am going to defy God on behalf of your agenda.

      • lolenjoy50 says:

        So what’s it like having a worldview that will probably be extinct in all developed countries within a few generations?

      • Tarnished says:

        Well, as I have no agenda and belong to no organizations other than the ASPCA (nonhuman animal welfare) and GAMA (hobbies/gaming) that is fine. As I said before, the US and western society in general, allows both of us to live as we desire. And given how vast our country is, I’m confident that we will never cross paths…or at least, wouldn’t stay near each others path for long, given our differences.

        Your form of atheism is very odd compared to every other atheist I’ve know/read/watched. I’d be curious what a discussion between you and Richard Dawkins, or Matt Dillahunty would be like. I find that while some parts of evolution could be extrapolated to work as you state, this is only true in a general sense. It completely leaves out mutations like myself (high testosterone females), gays and lesbians, any males who are so disabled that they are necessarily receivers, intersex people or those with convoluted chromosomes (XO, XYY, XXY, etc), or communities that have a deficit of menfolk/an excess of womenfolk. Alone, these groups are a definite minority…together, they encompass millions upon millions of people worldwide. Due to this, there will most likely never be global patriarchy again, and if some cataclysmic event comes along that would even temporarily necessitate a return to the strict gender roles you mention? Well, let’s just say I don’t hold out much hope for our species if *that* many of us are deceased. I truly believe that in such a drastic environmental change, humankind would go the way of the dinosaurs.

        At any rate, I think we’re done here, so have a good day/life.

  3. lolenjoy says:

    I’m sorry, but forcibly subordinating someone is not ‘showing love’ for them. People used the same arguments (‘they are better off’) to justify slavery.

    Have you ever considered that women are human beings with their own wants, desire and free will? Why exactly should any of them consider you in authority over them for no reason other than accident of birth? I could say I have authority over all red haired men, but it doesn’t make it so. You have no means to enforce this authority without the woman’s consent, hence you have no authority.

    Finally considering you think gender is something you are born with, what do you make of intersex people? Plenty of genetic conditions can result in you being born with features of both genders, or even a DNA makup of XO or XXY. Who decides where they rank in society?

  4. Responding to Lolenjoy at November 23, 2013 at 9:10 am

    So what’s it like having a worldview that will probably be extinct in all developed countries within a few generations?

    Your question to me is hilariously ironic! You’re the one who knows far better than me what it’s like to have a world view that will go extinct in a few generations. Feminism is a pathological anomaly; patriarchy is what the norm is in the history of human affairs. The return of patriarchy has already started in getting going in the United States I am happy to report to you.

    • lolenjoy50 says:

      Nah. Suggesting that we are going to go back to a time when women have no freedom is like suggesting we are going to go back to slavery. People wouldn’t stand for it. Once a group gains personal freedom there’s very little you can do to take it away on a global scale, especially since the vast majority of the world would recognize how wrong it would be to do so. Can you honestly imagine, for example, removing women’s right to vote? Never going to happen.

      Everything going on at the moment from gay marriage to access to abortions points to society becoming more tolerant over time. You should talk to some children some time (actually don’t, you would probably creep them out). Kids these days are being brought up to understand that there are very few differences between men and women and that your gender doesn’t have to limit you in any way. Girls are doing better than boys at school and growing up wondering what career they should go into, not how many babies they should have. Fields like medicine that were previously male-dominated are becoming the opposite. You’re never going to take that freedom away.

      Admittedly the United States is a bit of an aberration. It will take you longer to catch up the rest of the developed world because a lot of the population is so traditional they will literally vote against their own interests. Plus there’s all the religion that will make people vote for idiots as long as they promise to keep oppressing the gays or whatever. But its only a matter of time before all the bigots die out and the more free-thinking next generation grows up. It’s all there in the numbers. So good luck holding on to prejudice, you’re probably in the right place for it. But the future certainly looks bright to me 🙂

      • Tarnished says:


        You make a good point here. While there are bastions of traditional thinking in the US, mostly in the Midwest’s Bible Belt and a few in the South, children of my generation (I’m 29) and the newer ones are actively attempting to change society to be more tolerant of issues like gay marriage, transsexualism, gay adoption, and reduction of strict gender roles for both men AND women. It’s heartening to see that while my fellow 30 year olds can be sticklers about fiscal policy, government spending, and other actually political topics…it’s becoming more and more difficult to find anyone of recent years who thinks the 1950s were the epitome of American civilization.

        Interesting point about religion though; A rational person would see that faith is NOT fact. For example, I’m Wiccan. I believe in the Goddess and the God, interspecies reincarnation, and hence the presence of an immortal soul. I fully recognize that these are BELIEFS and that despite my own personal experiences that cause me to believe them, I have absolutely no way of “proving” to others that I’m “right” or giving evidence to them…again, it’s faith not fact. (I also DON’T believe in the New Age hokum that’s constantly trying to ride on the coattails of my religion…crystals, tarot cards, and seances, oh my!) I wish more of my fellow Americans would also believe with their hearts, but vote with their heads. Honestly, when they don’t it just makes the rest of the world think we’re all a bunch of rude, stupid, religiously fanatical rednecks. I promise…we’re not all like that.

  5. lolenjoy says:


    Thanks, I’m glad you agree! Really if you look at the ages of people who are against things like gay marriage and abortion (two obviously hot topics) they are primarily the older generation. And I do believe its the same with encouraging strict gender roles. Kids these days don’t want to be told that what they can and can’t do depends on their genitalia rather than their capability!

    Regarding religion I think its more than possible to be religious and tolerant. In fact loving your fellow man (and woman) is a key part of most religions. It’s just a shame that it has been hijacked as a vehicle for people to express and share intolerance in a socially acceptable way. Even Jesse’s strange mixture of God and evolution is really just a justification for his personal beliefs rather than a reason behind them. Acting as if evolution, a completely naturally occurring process, has some sort of ‘desire’ for us to act in a certain way is like saying we shouldn’t fly because we might upset gravity!

    But sadly parts of America do have a real problem with people mixing up politics and religion in an attempt to force their beliefs on others using the ballot box. Probably more so than a lot of other countries. And the nasty thing about that is that often people will vote for what is undoubtedly *bad* for them (economically for example) simply because it comes with moral policies that they agree with (like no gay marriage). Enter the Republican party and the largest wealth gap imaginable! But like everything else I’m sure it will come good in the end, it just might take some parts of the US longer to get there.

  6. niceski says:

    “Also a fundamental principle of Chivalry is that it is done to serve the objective interests of the woman based on the man’s judgment of things; it is not done based on what the woman herself demands or desires.”

    Exactly. That’s why it is corrupt. Not only is is pure ego indulgence — it is manipulative, inefficient, and it undermines trust between women and men. The indulgence of the ego is the manipulation and corruption of the spirit. Trust is the glue that holds society together. A society built on manipulation, coercion, and magical thinking will not stand the test of time. History has taught us this. Clearly you have the mind of a child, or a very confused person, if you really believe much of what you say. All I see in your writing is egotism. Nothing convincing or even logical.

    • Teresa says:

      Having experienced the “chivalry” of a selfish and immature person, I am inclined to agree with niceski here.

      Chivalry Guy’s attentions to me were nothing but condescending manipulation- albeit dressed up as something much nicer. NOBLE, even.

      One day, after about a year of dating, his mask fell off.

      And here I am. No longer capable of living in someone else’s dreamworld.

    • Teresa says:


      I also have a hard time believing some of this stuff isn’t just satire.

  7. Crystal says:

    “Tarnished then decided to make her deposit using an ATM machine rather than the tellers inside and the older man finally walked through the second door himself muttering under his breath ‘rude bitch.'”

    Okay, is this guy being a real gentleman? Because if he insists on pushing his favours on me without my reciprocation then I find that offensive. If a man wants to hold the door open for me yet will not support me in earning my black belt degree to defend myself against rapists when he’s not around, then he is not doing his job and he is being sexist and ungentlemanly. Gentlemen do NOT force their attentions onto women, whether they are chivalrous, sexual, or otherwise as doing so is extremely rude and in the case of sexual can quickly cross the line into nonconsensual relations.

    What about communication? Shouldn’t Tarnished and the older guy have talked about it together? As it is, there is nothing wrong with a lady holding open the door for an older person regardless of sex; it’s good manners and even George Washington accepted it from a young woman. If he could accept it (especially considering the day and age he lived in) why can’t some folks?

    In short: chocolate ice cream is delicious. But if you force me to eat chocolate ice cream you are doing me a disservice. So it stands with a woman having chivalry forced onto her. If a man wants to do it that’s his business but a woman should be willing to receive it otherwise where is the joy in traditional chivalrous gestures, as it becomes a way for a guy to prove his manliness rather than a reciprocal act between him and the woman he loves.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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