Sunshine Mary had a guest host contribute the other day, and quite an interesting discussion ensued. Jesse (NOT Bill) Powell asserted that men owe women because they’re women. Or it’s “natural”. Or that God ordains it (even though he doesn’t believe in God). Or something.
My initial reaction is that if Mr. Powell is one of chivalry’s better advocates, it’s most definitely doomed. In addition to Mr. Powell’s insistence on using “God” despite his atheism (always beware of anybody who thinks it beneficial for everybody to believe what he doesn’t believe himself), he’s obviously unable to differentiate between what should be and what is (what I call G and A). For example:
Men are the natural leaders of society; they are the natural leaders in marriage, in family life, in religious settings, in work settings, and at all levels of government.
The man is always in a position of authority in relation to women; this is due to the very nature of being a man.
The man’s status within his marriage is fixed; the only question is to what extent he is living up to the duties of his masculine role.
In terms of the ideal (G), he may be correct, but in the actual real world (A), he’s dead wrong. In politics, your personal life, relationships, or whatever other sphere, one must first recognize A before one can have any hope of bringing about G. Conflating the two causes contradiction, stagnation, exploitation, and chaos.
Perhaps as a man I was a “natural” leader of my unit in Afghanistan, but our female First Sergeant was “in a position of authority in relation to” me, and she was a power-hungry, psychopathic bitch. I was not her leader. If you want to make the case that I should have been her leader, be my guest. Tell me that I (or any other man in our unit) actually was her leader, and you only prove you’re a complete moron. Our company commander was also female, but her “natural leader” wasn’t any man either, it was the First Sergeant. “Natural” or not, that was the case. It was the case no matter how pretty Powell’s ideals, no matter what the Bible says, and it will remain the case until the Army decides otherwise (good luck with that).
What Powell describes as natural is actually an ideal, and it’s an ideal that has no relation whatsoever to modern Western society.
But upon that conflation rests his entire case.
In other eras, men were in positions of authority “in marriage, in family life, in religious settings, in work settings, and at all levels of government,” and as individuals sometimes they still are. The Christian duty of a man is to use this power for righteous ends.
But he can’t use power he doesn’t have. If his wife is one bad mood away from wrecking his family and taking half his income, how can he be beneficient when she’s the one who’s got him by the balls? Can you be generous to a boss who can fire you for staring at her too long? Meek when you’re naturally afraid of your own shadow? We can postulate for hours on the virtue of mercy, but it’s a simple fact that you can’t be merciful unless you already have the power to punish.
Christians understand the value of mercy, but they’re often utterly clueless about its prerequisites. Instead of raising their boys to be strong men who know when and how to be caring and nice, they just raise their boys to be caring and nice. So the typical church girl goes for some bad boy with balls instead.
And the solution is to raise young men to be even nicer.
But nicer means weaker. “Nice” Christians may mean that the feminists get less angry (although I doubt it), but it also means less virtue, less righteousness, fewer warriors willing to stand up instead of stand down.
And it means a hell of a lot less chivalry.
(The “chivalrous” men to whom Mary’s commenters referred were most definitely Alphas. I guarantee each of them also knows several other “nice guys” who never even cross their minds.)
During my last days as a Blue Piller, I saw the awful excuse for a movie otherwise known as Courageous. It’s supposed to be a Christian guide to fatherhood, but instead I found it to be little more than self-righteous masturbation.
Any man who’s already a good father already understood anything decent the movie had to offer, but decent beta fathers were likely to feel castrated by it. It didn’t advocate being the head of your household, it advocated being subservient to your children.
But the guys who actually could use its lessons on love and caring would never sit through the damn thing. Alphas with dark triad traits (like the knights of yesterday) are the ones who need the Christian message of love and charity, but Christian art is so painfully awful that these are the last dudes they’ll ever reach. (Considering all the amazing but unemployed actors in nearly every major metropolitan area, I’ll never accept low budgets as an excuse for Christian movies with horrendous acting.)
There’s very little Christianity out there today to appeal to the guy who already knows how to inspire women, who knows how to lead. And those are the only guys who can actually be chivalrous.
Instead, we just tell some manboob who’s already terrified of women that he needs to respect them more. He should tutor her in math three nights per week instead of two!
She’ll get bored with him, lose any interest in him she might have had, and take advantage of him. He’ll only inflate her already excessive ego.
Is that “chivalry”, or just a violation of Matthew 7:6?