U Not Gonna Like This

A post from the archives of Male Samizdat:

Ah, the old double standard. Feminism is a champ at enforcing these, and one of the most subtle is the double standard of chivalry towards feminists.

Chivalry, in part, and as usually thought of, is a social contract. Roughly speaking, in return for the submission of women to the leadership of men, men protected and deferred to women, even at the cost of men’s lives.

The feminists recognized the men’s part of the deal, and began work to undermine the system, turning it into a weapon against men. They did this in an incremental manner, ever so slowly demanding the prerogatives of men under chivalry while demanding to retain the concessions made to women under the same system of chivalry.

The incrementalism was necessary to get men to agree to this. As feminists pushed the boundaries, men complied with their side of the social contract, deferring to women, and becoming accustomed to the new equilibrium. Once an area of culture had been overrun, the feminists moved to the next cultural beachhead, still insisting on, and depending on, the deferral to women under chivalry.

Women have now nearly completely arrogated the prerogatives of men, yet still many insist on and invoke the men’s obligation when it suits them (i.e. women). If two parties are in all other respects equal, but one can always call on the other to defer…well, then, you get what the feminists wanted all along. They can now dominate men, without incurring any obligation.

I would like to propose a thought experiment with respect to the last sentence in the previous paragraph. Suppose for a minute the contract of chivalry had been inverted - women had the leadership roles, while men were protected and provided for. While this is against the natural order, it at least has the virtue of equity. The feminists did not turn chivalry upside down. Instead, the feminists changed the social contract and made sure men got nothing in return!

The way out of this is to recognize that the social contract of chivalry no longer exists. Instead, chivalrous behavior should be extended only to women who act like ladies, and to women who are truly defenseless (the elderly, disabled, and handicapped). Those women who insist on being equal to men should not have the privilege of chivalry extended to them. Yes, you read that right. Where obligation does not exist, then favorable treatment lies within the purview of privilege. American women have broken the social contract, which therefore abrogates the social obligation of men.

In other words, when a women does not act like a lady, you are relieved of the obligation of acting like a gentleman. Note that failure to act like a gentleman does not necessarily mean uncharitable, hostile, or violent behavior. It simply means that you treat her like any other man. There is no other possible response that makes sense if you see chivalry as a social contract, and one that is observed more in the breach.

After all, paladins defend the honor of ladies, not whores.