MRAs, by and large, aren’t big fans of chivalry, and complain bitterly about the terrible injustices forced upon them by this archaic concept, like having to hold doors open for ladies from time to time.
But perhaps they are not considering the many fine benefits of chivalry. In the comments section of Alcuin’s pro-patriarchy blog, our traditionalist friend fschmidt recently set forth the case for chivalry in a way that even the dullest misogynist could appreciate:
In early western culture around the time of the Renaissance, chivalry meant that ladies should be honored and sluts should be raped. This is a totally sound concept and encourages good behavior on the part of women. You cannot expect women to behave if they are not rewarded for good behavior and punished for bad behavior.
Fschmidt’s opinion inspired a lively discussion. Caeser’s Ghost argued that fschmidt had gone a bit too far with the whole rape thing:
Women who dress and behave like whores shouldn’t be raped. They should be prostitutes and treated as such.
Fschmidt replied:
Caesar’s Ghost, I have the greatest respect for prostitutes. Prostitutes provide a valuable service. But sluts provide no value and undermine morality. This is why sluts, identified as provocatively dressed women outside of areas of prostitution, were regularly raped around the time of the Renaissance.
CG argued that prostitutes deserve only the most limited sort of respect:
I respect prostitutes in so far as they fulfill a lowly but necessary function in society. Outside of that function, I have no respect or value for them.
Promiscuous women who are not prostitutes should be treated badly, but I don’t believe that they should be raped. I regard the Renaissance as a great era, but I would have to disagree with their way of handling the problem of sluts.
The mission of Alcuin’s site is, as he states at the top of every page, is to “Promot[e] the Intellectual Renaissance of the Western Tradition.” Apparently you can’t have a real renaissance without sorting out whether or not sexually active women should be raped, or just treated like shit.
For those interested in exploring fschmidt’s opinions further, check out his not-terribly-popular CoAlpha Brotherhood discussion forums. Or this post, in which I examine his CoAlpha brother Drealm’s theory about how women oppress men by dressing like sluts and not covering up their evil sexy hair.
This post merits the famous blinking
tag.
Queuing in an orderly manner?
Yes, that’s misandry.
Me too. All any suitably wonderful lady has to do is ask nicely and my bottom’s all theirs.
I’m not quite sure why, but I’d say that about 80% of my posts are right after or before a CassandraSays post. It’s freaking me out a little.
I was walking along a narrow footpath (sidewalk) this afternoon and a man approached from the opposite direction pushing a pram (stroller).
I stepped onto the road to allow him to keep pushing his pram on the footpath.
MISANDRY.
Bet you only did it because it was a little girl in the pram.
As an historian of the mediaeval era, I’m just going to point out that that wasn’t the historical basis of chivalry at all. Rather, the sacrilization of knighthood spun out of the eleventh century “Peace of God” movement. You see, following the conclusion of the age of invasions, Europe was infested by mercenary soldiers who no longer had any wars to employ them. These soldiers, being armed and unemployed, survived by running around the countryside robbing people (and, indeed, raping). Finally, everyone else got together under the banner of the Church to tell them that enough was enough, and lay-out some ground rules for how “proper knights” were supposed to behave. Hint: it didn’t involve raping people.
All I know about the middle ages I learned from Terry Jones.*
*No, not really.
lowquacks: Do improved rights to abortion Not Ron Paul. He’s straight-up anti-abortion.
Why do so many otherwise reasonably leftists think that Ron Paul is somehow a less scary alternative than, say, Romney? Paul is basically Crank Magnetism made flesh. He’s so totally disconnected from reality that he’s terrifying.
@CassandraSays
Precisely.
@Pecunium
The “states rights” angle should mean a fair few states would be better off under him than most Republicans, right?
I’m not an expert.
Specifically, the states that don’t vote Republican (Blue States on average contribute more to the federal budget than they receive in federal aid, on average).
Honestly I kind of just laugh at Paul a lot at this point. He’s pathetically stupid. I mean, he reminds me of general jackassery frequently (Such as when he claims that according to Purchasing Power Parity, Meriken are richest; PPP is a bullshit statistic invented by Meriken who wanted to feel better about not actually being the richest), but he personally is so comically stupid that I frequently have to laugh.
Then I remember he votes against things like abortion rights and I get angry again. I didn’t say I only laugh at Paul, after all =.=
@Rutee
I meant more specifically about abortion, but yeah. I think a Libertarian position would mean far less of both state contribution to and receipt of money overall though, yes?
Again, United Soviet States of Australia here. I don’t get this small-government thing at all.
Well, to be fair, pretty much any current Republican candidate would in theory want to cut spending to vital social programs. The thing with Paul, though, is that he’s so deranged that he might actually try to follow through with it even in cases where it’s clearly inadvisable to do so. With the more Machiavellian candidates we’re sort of counting on them being constrained by a certain basic level of common sense. Ron Paul doesn’t have any common sense.
@CassandraSays
That’s exactly what I was trying to say but expressed articulately. Thankyou.
His worship of the free market and BOOTSTRAPS is one of the scariest parts of his whole schtick.
Why do so many otherwise reasonably leftists think that Ron Paul is somehow a less scary alternative than, say, Romney?
This isn’t true, in my experience. It’s the liberals and pseudo-liberals who tend to like Paul, not actual leftists. You won’t find too many leftists who politically like “free market” capitalist types, given that most, if not all, of us are sort of anti-capitalist by definition.
(Okay, so I’m a Marxist who has a pet peeve with mainstream dems and such being referred to as “the left” or “leftists”)
@Darksidecat
Me too! I think recognising the left-right/conservative-progressive axes as somewhat separate is an important part of making talking about politics far less confusing.
Should be taught in schools, certainly.
I guess I’m a left libertarian progressive. 🙂
Rutee Katreya, I’m just going to make myself an idiot here, but why do you expect someone to know anything much on the middle ages? I don’t think too many people in North America go farther than castles don’t look the same as Disney draws them, there were swords and horses used and they painted funny designs on their shields. Oh, and all that stuff was in Europe.
Left libertarian? What’s that?
Eh, I’m using the American definition of “leftist”. If you mean actual leftists, the Democratic party doesn’t have any.
Oh, you mean Canadians. :p
Cubans count too, I guess.
Addendum – There are a few actual leftists who identify as Democrats, especially in certain parts of the country, but on the whole the Democratic party is solidly centrist. I remain baffled as to why anyone who leans even slightly left, progressive, or socially liberal would have anything positive to say about Ron Paul, though. He’s batshit.
I don’t, that’s why I’m not surprised.
I have plenty of positive things to say about Ron Paul! For one thing, he makes debates entertaining. Take a shot every time Ron Paul blames something on the Federal Reserve that is entirely unrelated to the Fed!
Talking outta turn….that’s misandry.
Looking out the window…that’s misandry
Staring at my sandles…. that’s misandry
Paddling the school canoe, oh you better believe that’s misandry.
XD
@Lowquacks
Zhinxy should be able to help you with that question, hopefully she’ll pop in 🙂