On the Moral Superiority of Women explains how suffragists turned traditional conservatives’ chivalrous arguments against them. Chivalry/courtly love teaches that women are the source of manners and morality, and that men are made moral by becoming enslaved by romantic love for their moral betters. Traditional conservatives thought in the past just as they do now, that they can fight feminism with chivalry. But chivalry is the foundation of feminism, so the move reliably backfires:
Traditionally suffragists based their case for the right to vote principally on equal rights and attempted to embarrass men into giving them the vote by pointing out how shameful it was for a purported democracy to deprive half of its citizens of the right to vote. In response, opponents of women’s suffrage often argued, among other things, that women were morally superior, finer beings, who would be debased and degraded by participating in the tough hurly-burly would of politics. In the progressive era, women now readily agreed. Women were indeed morally superior. Men had control of society for too long and had made a mess of it. America’s politicians were scoundrels and corruption was the order of the day. An infusion of moral superiority was just what was needed and it was women voters who would supply it.
The suffragettes’ argument was logically bulletproof. If you assume women are more moral than men, then giving them the vote will clearly increase the nation’s virtue. Better yet, if you care about virtue you should take the vote away from men and give it to their betters.
But despite the fact that fighting feminism with chivalry is a reliable way to empower feminism, traditional conservatives aren’t about to change tactics. Thus we have complementarians who are convinced that women won’t rebel against headship and submission, if only men are chivalrous enough.
No amount of facts and logic will persuade the traditional conservative that chivalry (once deployed correctly) won’t defeat feminism. Facts and logic don’t matter, because the love for chivalry doesn’t come from a logical place. It comes from the beating heart of the mammas boy, way down inside. If these men were to unchivalrously not enable feminism, their mothers might scold them!
As History.com explains, this is how the 19th Amendment came to be ratified. A legislator who had previously voted against the amendment received a note from his mother, imploring him to be a good boy and vote for it (emphasis mine):
The speaker called the measure to a ratification vote. To the dismay of the many suffragists who had packed into the capitol with their yellow roses, sashes and signs, it seemed certain that the final roll call would maintain the deadlock. But that morning, Harry Burn—who until that time had fallen squarely in the anti-suffrage camp—received a note from his mother, Phoebe Ensminger Burn, known to her family and friends as Miss Febb. In it, she had written, “Hurrah, and vote for suffrage! Don’t keep them in doubt. I notice some of the speeches against. They were bitter. I have been watching to see how you stood, but have not noticed anything yet.” She ended the missive with a rousing endorsement of the great suffragist leader Carrie Chapman Catt, imploring her son to “be a good boy and help Mrs. Catt put the ‘rat’ in ratification.”
Still sporting his red boutonniere but clutching his mother’s letter, Burn said “aye” so quickly that it took his fellow legislators a few moments to register his unexpected response. With that single syllable he extended the vote to the women of America and ended half a century of tireless campaigning by generations of suffragists…
Related: Tackling the patriarchy, holding the door open for trannies.
I don’t think they get how both ethoses see women as goddesses.
Also of note from the bold statement…there’s the power of a mother. Something most feminists don’t get either.
Pingback: How chivalry (and mamma’s boys) brought us women’s suffrage and feminism. | @the_arv
Related: The Army and Marine Corps are having trouble recruiting high quality infantrymen… uh… I mean… infantry people.
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/09/19/this-mattis-created-task-force-wants-to-recruit-and-retain-the-best-candidates-for-the-infantry/
It never seems to occur to anyone that shoehorning women into the infantry and Special Ops might not be the best way to recruit the high testosterone male candidates who have always done the close-in killing and disproportionately suffer the greatest losses in combat.
Mommas-boys, cads, drifters, foreigners, dilettantes…that is who is served by feminism.
Female suffrage will certainly be looked upon as the West’s gravest error.
On the flip side, huge benefits are up for grabs for those rare entities capable of containing the FI to some degree going forward: be it Trump, China or ISIS.
Oscar,
It never seems to occur to anyone that shoehorning women into the infantry and Special Ops might not be the best way to recruit the high testosterone male candidates who have always done the close-in killing and disproportionately suffer the greatest losses in combat.
I am delighted to hear that the men most suited for the most dangerous types of military roles are no longer joining the military. That is just as good as more men getting red-pilled about Marriage 2.0.
Non-compliance from the people who are taken for granted always transfers the cost onto the parasites and grandstanders.
In other words, Harry Burn’s own mother hit him with a neg and a fitness test; he failed the test and caved in. The simple explanation reveals all. Once again it is easy to see clearly through The Glasses. Unfortunately, Tradcons cannot see at all through their plastic Helms of Chivalry.
Thanks for an amazing piece of history. I knew about the “more moral” argument, but the actual voting history is astounding. Personnel is policy. Individuals matter.
In the end it doesn’t matter, since women’s suffrage is here to stay. There is no way, no way in hell, the Nineteeth Amendment will ever be repealed, ever. Not going to happen. Those who seriously propose it can kiss careers and family good bye and will be painted as the shitlordiest of shitlords ever to shitlord. It will take complete governmental collapse to disenfranchise women. Won’t happen short of that.
Another historically important thing happened around that time involving chivalry
Prohibition was the canary in the coal mine before suffrage.
http://prohibition.themobmuseum.org/the-history/how-prohibition-changed-american-culture/womens-rights/
Hmmmmm, I’s beginning to sense a patter. Women get deeply involved in something and it all goes to hell in a hand basket. The solution is simple, scapegoat all the men!!!
It seems similar to how when a govt program screws things up, they dont fix the actual problem, they just give that program more money and personnel. When female participation screws things up, dont limit their participation. no, give them more opportunities because its clear that the problem is that they werent involved enough to make it work. duh.
Slightly OT, Beth Moore is yet another example of the dangers of letting women get into positions of influence in the church. There is a lot of things in this article that will have you shaking your head when you read them.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/beth-moore-bible-study/568288/
@thedeti
That’s the way it looks.
But looks can be deceiving.
Mommas-boys, cads, drifters, foreigners, dilettantes…that is who is served by feminism.
And my favorite, dudes who run “face tattoo game”.
Perhaps that’s why so many tribal civilizations used disfigurations of the face as a way of identifying its member males. Women must love it.
@ Cane Caldo
You really see the potential for women’s suffrage going away? It’s probably my pessimistic nature ,but I just cant see a path to that ever happening. I am curious what causes you to doubt thedeti’s statement.
“be a good boy and help Mrs. Catt put the ‘rat’ in ratification.”
He certainly did.
When my men’s German drinking club finally voted after 80 some years to allow women to vote, all of the arguments for suffrage came down to “well, it is 2018!”
So, all evils under the sun can be allowed because “it is 2018!”
It is equivalent to the Hegelian/Marxist concept of history. “You want to be on the right side of history, don’t you?”
They should have given women the vote on the condition that they would be eligible for the draft. And not in non-combat positions either like medics and file clerks. They would be right there fighting alongside men on Normandy Beach because, after all, they are “half the population”.
Men were given the vote to avoid civil conflict, and because they were conscripted. Women didn’t fight, and didn’t want to fight, so their “half the population” argument was irrelevant.
Gage says:
September 20, 2018 at 2:56 pm
Slightly OT, Beth Moore is yet another example of the dangers of letting women get into positions of influence in the church. There is a lot of things in this article that will have you shaking your head when you read them.
***********************************************
False teacher, just like Priscilla Shirer, Joyce Meyer, and most of the rest of the female teachers.
My wife knows that Beth Moore (and all the rest of the female “teachers”) and her extra Biblical “God spoke directly to me and told me to tell you” garbage is not allowed in our house, nor her reading it anywhere.
And when I call BM out, you should see the reactions. Some women will vigorously defend their favorite false teachers. And their husbands say nothing.
Well haven’t gotten further than the title but I see the gloves are off again.
FSG
Men were given the vote to avoid civil conflict, and because they were conscripted.
No. There are entire books of US history that contradict this. The entire Revolutionary period contradicts this. Try “Rights of Englishmen” for something a bit closer to the truth.
“Half the population” and “fairness” are appeals that worked well in the Victorian era and continue to work today, thanks in part to chivalry and the cult of courtly love.
Or to put it another way, that even TradCons might get: “Mah better half of th’ population!” means what?
Gage:
The only way I see the Nineteenth being “repealed” is through governmental collapse. Much of society will continue but without a functioning central government, until one fills that power void. In that instance, folks will be worried about far, far worse things than the franchise.
Women are never, ever going to give up hard-won political rights and social privileges as long as a political, social, economic and cultural infrastructure exists to support them even minimally. It just won’t happen. It will happen only because no other choice exists following a political/economic collapse of the federal government.
Do I necessarily want that? No. Such an event will be so incredibly destabilizing, worldwide, on so many levels, that the ramifications cannot be predicted in any favorable way. Would that be a “good” thing? Depends on what you mean by “good”. “Good” in the sense that a hard reset button is hit and that lets you start many, many things with a clean slate. “Not good” in the sense that it will inflict a LOT of pain on a LOT of people. “Not good” in that it will almost certainly devolve into widespread civil unrest that cannot be contained and probably into military conflict. “Not good” in that the USA as you and I know it will probably split into at least 3 separate entities, with conflicts over land and resources. Most of these things are just total wild cards and while it’s fun to theorize, there’s just no way to know how something like that would shake out except to say that many of the liberalization of the past 100 or so years will be reversed, mostly out of necessity.
One thought I have is that if such a thing happens, we can expect our creditors, including China, to come a-calling to collect on their IOUs. And that won’t be pretty, not at all.
How so?
@thedeti
I don’t see repeal as a viable option. But the history matters. As the broadside I shared yesterday demonstrates, the opponents of women’s suffrage quite accurately predicted what feminism would usher in. Yet today conservatives pretend that none of this ever happened, and that for some mysterious reason men have suddenly changed while women became even more awesome than they always were.
I’m not sure what all will become of this country, but however so long as the earth endures, men will be men and the women will be women. Truly there is nothing new under the sun.
“Why are women, judging from this catalogue, so much more interesting to men than men are to women? A very curious fact it seemed, and my mind wandered to picture the lives of men who spend their time in writing books about women; whether they were old or young, married or unmarried, red-nosed or humpbacked—anyhow, it was flattering, vaguely, to feel oneself the object of such attention, provided that it was not entirely bestowed by the crippled and the infirm—so I pondered until all such frivolous thoughts were ended by an avalanche of books sliding down on to the desk in front of me.
Now the trouble began. The student who has been trained in research at Oxbridge has no doubt some method of shepherding his question past all distractions till it runs into its answer as a sheep runs into its pen. The student by my side, for instance, who was copying assiduously from a scientific manual was, I felt sure, extracting pure nuggets of the essential ore every ten minutes or so. His little grunts of satisfaction indicated so much. But if, unfortunately, one has had no training in a university, the question far from being shepherded to its pen flies like a frightened flock hither and thither, helter-skelter, pursued by a whole pack of hounds.
Professors, schoolmasters, sociologists, clergymen, novelists, essayists, journalists, men who had no qualification save that they were not women, chased my simple and single question—Why are women poor?—until it became fifty questions; until the fifty questions leapt frantically into mid-stream and were carried away. Every page in my notebook was scribbled over with notes. To show the state of mind I was in, I will read you a few of them, explaining that the page was headed quite simply, WOMEN AND POVERTY, in block letters; but what followed was something like this:
Condition in Middle Ages of,
Habits in the Fiji Islands of,
Worshipped as goddesses by,
Weaker in moral sense than,
Idealism of,
Greater conscientiousness of,
South Sea Islanders,
age of puberty among,
Attractiveness of,
Offered as sacrifice to,
Small size of brain of,
Less hair on the body of,
Mental, moral and physical inferiority of,
Love of children of,
Greater length of life of,
Weaker muscles of,
Strength of affections of,
Vanity of,
Higher education of,
Shakespeare’s opinion of,
Lord Birkenhead’s opinion of,
Dean Inge’s opinion of,
La Bruyère’s opinion of,
Dr. Johnson’s opinion of,
Mr. Oscar Browning’s opinion of, . . .
Here I drew breath and added, indeed, in the margin, Why does Samuel Butler say, “Wise men never say what they think of women”? Wise men never say anything else apparently.”
-Virginia Woolf, A Room of One’s Own
I check on Rollo Tomassi’s twitter feed sometimes. This little prize from the NY Times showed up recently. I bet that with a little work a girl like this could waltz into just about any church in the US or Canada and be one of the “beautiful, beautiful” unmarrieds that some lucky feller should Man Up and wife up. Even if she’s Jewish…
By the way, I’m completely sure she’s leaving out some flings. That’s not her true N. It is actually higher.
There’s the modern Upper Middle Class woman all the TradCons are ready to put up on a pedestal and grovel to. Not all that pretty a sight, really.
@AR…
I read that too…2 things came to my mind
1) It was pretty easy which guy was her first.
2) The NYT has nothing better to do than post wimminz feels. No wonder newspapers are dying.
Pingback: How chivalry (and mamma’s boys) brought us women’s suffrage and feminism. | Reaction Times
We should be at a point where we say ‘we should start caring about women’s feelings less’.
The entire Revolutionary period contradicts this.
FSG
How so?
No conscription.
Suggestion: Game less, read more.
The Nineteenth Amendment was a national tragedy. Almost all the ills our society suffers today come from that. It’s centennial anniversary is coming up soon. We could do no better than to repeal it in its hundredth year.
I don’t know much indeed anything about American Suffragettes but even Deti above with his suggestion of their “hard-won political rights” perhaps unintentionally romanticises and justifies that cackle of witches.
I only know of English Suffragettes: they were a minority of women and from the UMC and much disliked by most women both for their aims and for their behaviour: They were terrorists. Even during their reign of terror not all adult males had the right to vote, indeed and although the numbers grew, in 1800 just two per cent of English males had that right. That right to vote was not however an unalloyed benefit for the poll was not secret nor should one assume that the right was limited to rich men; for the right depended on property ownership and many UMC types considered the owning of property as beneath them – strange as that may seem to us. It was the politicians – men – not the women who brought about female suffrage and against the popular will – how ironic.
I don’t see repeal as a viable option.
Repeal has exactly zero chance. There is no country in the world where one gender votes and the other does not (either both or neither).
What might have been more realistic if not for manginas is to create a ‘matrix’ of media volume around women while quietly adding expiry provisions in various misandric laws.
There was a hag on Facebook the other day whining about the Kavanaugh situation, and she insisted that women’s rights have gone BACKWARDS over the last 40 years. This proves to me that there is no awareness of what laws do or don’t pass. Women will always trot out the same old tropes about ‘pay gap’ and ‘women still don’t have rights’ no matter what is passed. That means it will go largely unnoticed if a number of laws just expire. Just innundate women with media interference about vague woman-appeasing garbage, while they fail to notice the expiry of the laws.
The problem is that stupid cuckservatives take women’s demands at face value and actually pass laws under the stupid belief that women will be satisfied. The level of whining would be the same whether any of these laws existed or did not. Just keep them inundated with emotion-evoking content so that their votes are nullified IF the legislators on the other end were red-pill (they are not, so this is moot).
A government that incorporates Artificial Intelligence into its decision analysis (which will not be a late-stage democracy like the US or UK) will more easily be able to outmaneuver female and mangina screeching.
@AR
It’s a nauseating appalling read. What makes it even more disgusting is the realization she is not the exception, she is the rule among women.
If the man’s world is said to be the State, his struggle, his readiness to devote his powers to the service of the community, then it may perhaps be said that the woman’s is a smaller world. For her world is her husband, her family, her children, and her home. But what would become of the greater world if there were no one to tend and care for the smaller one? How could the greater world survive if there were no one to make the cares of the smaller world the content of their lives?
No, the greater world is built on the foundation of this smaller world. This great world cannot survive if the smaller world is not stable. Providence has entrusted to the woman the cares of that world which is her very own, and only on the basis of this smaller world can the man’s world be formed and built up. The two worlds are not antagonistic. They complement each other, they belong together just as man and woman belong together.
The Nineteenth Amendment was a national tragedy. Almost all the ills our society suffers today come from that. It’s centennial anniversary is coming up soon. We could do no better than to repeal it in its hundredth year.
Very nearly every constitutional amendment since 1865 has been ratified under what can only be described as highly suspicious circumstances. The U.S. Constitution is for all practical purposes dead letter anyway.
Men were given the vote to adjudicate conflict. If they were governed by men who actively worked against their interests, there could be a revolution.
Men were denied the vote to avoid potential conflicts. Catholics were denied the vote because some thought that they were fifth columnists for Rome.
Women don’t fight. They might use proxies cucks) to fight for them, but they don’t wage direct war in their enemies.
The idea that men vote because of magical “rights” that fell out of the sky is hogwash.
I didn’t say that, but I don’t think you care.
Repeal ALL Amendments, or at least all from the 11th onwards.
Various lefto-faggots (cuckservatives among them) believe that this would make society backward. Quite the opposite, all of those amendments repealed would create a society more moral, more prosperous, and more technologically advanced that we currently have.
@AR
That is a nauseating read. But I’m more struck by some of the stuff at the end. Not staying up with her sick dog. Not being able to tell her man she loves him. That is not going to be a viable marriage. She’ll divorce him after a decade or so and write an article for Salon declaring her bravery. That is a woman who has zero self-awareness, but much self-esteem.
I run across articles on feminism every so often when researching historical dresses/sewing techniques. The “women’s magazine” essentially started as a way to sell sewing patterns, and the major titles incorporated a lot of articles by the 1890s. It’s interesting how the late Victorian woman viewed feminism and suffrage. It was not really seen as an unalloyed good. More like something that was “merited”, but even the women pushing it seem to be aware that it would destroy our traditional place in society.
And she’ll have headaches and refuse her husband sex.
The 19th Amendment will never be formally repealed, but it doesn’t much matter who votes or for whom. We’ve been ruled by a permanent government of unelected judges and bureaucrats for decades now, and this becomes more obvious by the day as they obstruct everything Trump tries to do. In due time, Americans of all political persuasions will learn to solve their problems the way Hillary solves hers. I call this system “Darwinocracy”.
Men were given the vote to adjudicate conflict. If they were governed by men who actively worked against their interests, there could be a revolution.
To which period of time and land are you referring?
Men were denied the vote to avoid potential conflicts. Catholics were denied the vote because some thought that they were fifth columnists for Rome.
Were Catholics not allowed to vote in, say, 1100 AD?
In what country and period of time?
Women don’t fight. They might use proxies cucks) to fight for them, but they don’t wage direct war in their enemies.
So?
The idea that men vote because of magical “rights” that fell out of the sky is hogwash.
So you reject Natural Law? You reject the notion of God-given rights? Interesting.
Please, moar sweeping generalizations. They are so very, very convincing.
No conscription
I didn’t say that, but I don’t think you care.
Yes, you did say that. Perhaps reading books instead of comics?
@Paul, Cynthia
She’s carrying out the plan that she was taught. AF-BB.
‘When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. ‘
Because that’s the husband she can refuse sex to and dictate that he is the helpmate.
FSG SpeedGaming, when the forest cantons met to form a confederation, were Catholics allowed to vote? This is a rhetorical question.
The late, great Angry Harry’s observations of the Suffragettes:
-BITCHES like Emeline Pankhurst who handed out white feathers to boys as young as 14 for not going to face German guns and artillery in WW1, knowing they themselves wouldn’t have to do it.
-BITCHES who used arson, violence and political threats to get the vote, at a time when their country was at war
-BITCHES who divorced their husbands who had been captured and were POWs. The British and German authorities actually collaborated during the war to help British POWs work out where their wives went to so that they could continue relations with their children.
-BITCHES who would go to alcohol and sex fueled parties in London and other major cities, getting impregnated and telling their husbands at he Front, “Honey, I have some news for you…”
They were never noble. feminism was never noble, even from its’inception
According to Ann Coulter, not only should women NOT have the right to vote, neither should men who don’t pay any income taxes.
According to Ann Coulter, not only should women NOT have the right to vote, neither should men who don’t pay any income taxes.
Well, yes. This is what it used to be, and is extremely logical.
All voters should be current or past taxpayer (retired taxpayers can vote if they paid enough, just like the Social Security system has credits one must accrue to qualify for payments upon retirement).
Hey Dalrock,
Just wanted to give you notice of a typo. In the first quote, I’m pretty sure it should be “hurly-burly world”, not “would”. FYI.
Reporting some sad news. Zippy Catholic was killed this week in a vehicular accident.
Mentioned on Patheos, but family confirmation here:
https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2018/09/12/at-least-the-rationalization-hamsters-are-fecund/#comment-59205
Reporting some sad news. Zippy Catholic was killed this week in a vehicular accident.
Oh! That is terrible.
I have long suspected that exactly the same thing happened to PM/AFT in September 2016, as his frequent blogging and tweeting both stopped very abruptly, with no explanation, no comments on his blog or anywhere else, or any responses to private emails. At the moment, that is our working assumption about PM/AFT, unless he someday reappears on his blog.
Tranny kills 3 co-workers and self: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/harford/aegis/news/bs-md-moseley-20180920-story.html
Authorities in Harford County were still trying to determine late Thursday why Snochia Moseley opened fire at the Rite Aid warehouse where she had taken a temporary job, killing three employees and fatally wounding herself. …
Troi Coley, a friend of Moseley’s since high school who had stayed in frequent contact with her in Facebook Messenger, said Moseley sometimes felt as if the world was against her but was not an angry person in spite of her alienation. …
“She wasn’t a monster, wasn’t an angry person,” Coley said. “I just believe this was emotional distress. If she did this, it was her last straw.”
I guess hormone “therapy” will push some (already insane) people over the edge.
BTW, the “she” is a “he.”
Let’s say from 1750 until the Constitution was ratified. There were states and colonies which did not allow Catholics to vote and it wasn’t because their legislatures didn’t think Catholics had natural rights.
So why were women not allowed to vote until the 20th century? I’ll give you a hint: it’s not because they didn’t own property, and it has nothing to do with natural rights.
Natural law and natural rights are two different beasts. Hobbes mixed them up. You’ll find nothing like inalienable rights in the writings of Aquinas. And voting was never conceived as a natural right by the Founders. If it was, they disenfranchised a lot of men. When did people discover that voting was a natural right derived from natural law?
Well, I can certainly understand why you’d think that as I was quoting you.
In Great Britain it is not possible for a Roman Catholic to become Prime Minister. That remains the law which is why Tony Bliar had to delay his conversion to Roman Catholicism until after he ceased to be Prime Minister even though everyone new of his messianic delusions.
The earliest assertion that the ordinary working-man should have a right to vote for his local representative was made during The Putney Debates of 1647 that is to say during the most recent Civil War (on our side of our pond). It should also be remembered that the Putney debaters were not making any assertions as to the Lords or the Monarchy itself. The Chartists of 1848 (who did not resort to terrorism) had considerably more support than ever did the Suffragettes and yet Parliament ignored them – does that not support Rookh Kshtriya (Anglo-Bitch) assertion that anglo-puritanism and woman-worship much predates the latest incarnations of female aggrandisement. It might also be recalled that unlike England most Parliament’s in continental europe had fallen into decay or been abandoned by the seventeenth century, England’s being the great exception. A man or woman is no more oppressed by not having a vote as to their local representative than a non-shareholder is being oppressed by not having a vote at say the Starbuck’s AGM.
[…] Keith had been friends with two of the girls. They attended youth group together at their church. “They hang out all the time. If he had been maliciously touching them since back in the summer, then they wouldn’t be going out of their way to walk by our house to go to school together. They go to youth group together, they carpool together. To any reasonable person, I’d think that these allegations would be obviously ridiculous, but apparently there aren’t any reasonable people anymore,” Dennis says.
Keith is an A and B student, plays football, takes advanced math classes, is well-liked by his teachers, and loves attending church. One of the girls, according to Keith, identities as a “feminist.” […]
https://www.dangerous.com/49605/boy-13-arrested-cuffed-and-dragged-from-school-over-metoo-allegations/
“I think the whole political climate is what is motivating this. Anytime you disagree with somebody, now you accuse them of sexual assault and automatically they’re a victim and you’re a monster. It’s so highly publicized now, that’s just the answer.”
He sees the whole terrifying situation as trickling down from the way all the adults on television appear to be treating each other these days. “What 13 year old girl doesn’t love drama? I imagine that’s all they see it as. Let’s stir up some drama.
Victimization, get out of jail free card, drama, and attention. It’s why females will keep doing it as long as there is no reprocussions.
All I can say is the poor kid identifies as a feminist…hopefully he got a real good lesson why he should discard that immediately.
My husband was kind enough to dig up this fine specimen of womanhood’s story. As he says, “Men prepare for marriage by working hard; women prepare by sleeping around.”
Off topic, but interesting. Comedian demolishes relationships by ridiculing the idea of “soulmates”.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/how-one-man-broken-up-13284474
Reporting some sad news. Zippy Catholic was killed this week in a vehicular accident.
Sad news.
Gage said:
Hmmmmm, I’s beginning to sense a pattern. Women get deeply involved in something and it all goes to hell in a hand basket.
Exactly this. You can, in fact, completely predict female behavior with 100% accuracy every time. Here is their pattern:
When moving in to usurp all things male, they:
*Take no responsibility for anything
*Blame men
*Claim more resources for me
When called out about absolutely anything, they will:
*Move the goal posts
*Belittle/Name Call
*Go into Hysterics
This is why very few things, if any thing, should be co-ed. Keeping men and women separate is the right idea.
“With that single syllable he extended the vote to the women of America and ended half a century of tireless campaigning by generations of suffragists…”
And pretty much ended America too.
Opus @ 6:00 am:
“In Great Britain it is not possible for a Roman Catholic to become Prime Minister. That remains the law which is why Tony Blair had to delay his conversion to Roman Catholicism until after he ceased to be Prime Minister even though everyone new of his messianic delusions.”
That was exceedingly dishonest of him. He was not any kind of Christian, putting his loyalty to God on hold in order to capstone his political career. “You’ll have to wait, Jesus, humanity needs me!”
Thank you for letting us know. Heartbreaking news.
His posts will be missed.
Anonymous Reader says:
May God bless his family, and may we meet at the resurrection.
Traditional conservatives thought in the past just as they do now, that they can fight feminism with chivalry.
This is how Z-Man thinks we can win the gender war. By displaying chivalry you will melt the hardened hearts of angry feminists since that’s why they’re so angry: – no “real men” around anymore. He says to always open doors for the whamens. I’m surprised he doesn’t endorse laying your coat over a puddle, removing your cap, bowing low and say “After you Mi’ Lady…”
off topic but of interest to this readership; Brazil is the most violent country in the world in absolute numbers, with 60000 murders a year; recently the leadung vice-presidential candidate declared “The family has always been the central nucleus. From the moment the family is dissociated, the social problems that we are experiencing emerge and eminently attack the needy areas, where there is no father or grandfather, only the mother and grandmother. And therefore tend to be really a factory of maladjusted elements that tend to join narco-gangs that affect our country, ”
By tracing the link between fatherlessness and violence without making clear that deadbeat fathers are to blame for that situation or mentioning the heroism of single moms, he has committed the ultimate political heresy and is being attacked on all sides as a dirty mysoginist whom no self respecting woman should vote for.
He nailed it. Seems like only one sex get prepared for what marriage is.
And it’s no surprise which sex is usually the first to pull the plug on marriage.
May he rest in peace.
I don’t think I knew him very much. May he rest in peace, and lay his loved ones find comfort in their painful time.
I’m shocked he went there…but he’s right. Amazing it takes bravery like that to call out something that obvious.
A good correlating article to what gals on the carousel (like the NYT broad) bring to marriage.
‘Can You Trust A Dancing Skeleton?’
https://sigmaframe.wordpress.com/2018/09/21/dancing-skeletons/
‘Of course, any documented evidence of the hundreds, or perhaps thousands of carnal acts a girl might do in her sordid history can be swept under the rug all too easily. But they can’t hide the state of their hearts. Their soul’s can’t lie…
The spiritual condition of a bride after riding the carousel for 10 years – no homemaking skills, no inner joy, no sexual desire, no passion for life, no respect for husband… All the virtuous characteristics that would draw forth a husbands love have been sucked out and destroyed, like a fetus at a Planned Parenthood clinic.’
Ranger @ 12:06 pm:
“recently the leading vice-presidential candidate declared “The family has always been the central nucleus. From the moment the family is dissociated, the social problems that we are experiencing emerge and eminently attack the needy areas, where there is no father or grandfather, only the mother and grandmother.”
Dan Quayle got another gig?
earl — “Victimization, get out of jail free card, drama, and attention. It’s why females will keep doing it as long as there is no reprocussions.”
‘;
Absolutely. No repercussions either. :O)
Left to devices, what do women do all day? Sit around and watch the soaps that saturate
television from afternoon through night. About all Prime Time is, is violent/empowerment drama for females, like the song ‘Watching the Detectives’. Electronic Prog-ramming. Pretty funny ain’t it! Guess who the Progs are ‘ramming’? earl.
It’s really easy using females. Just repeat the script and press the buttons and His Satanic Will is done! That’s entertainment.
Satan has ensured that the religion you compress well above is highly incentivized throughout the West, but especially in America, where Jezebel dwells. Incentivized not just for females, but their parents, relatives, teachers . . . the State . . . churches and so forth.
It’s easy. The angle hasn’t changed since Eden. Just the modes of implementation.
Tranny kills 3 co-workers and self: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/harford/aegis/news/bs-md-moseley-20180920-story.html
Thanks RPL. I used to live 1 mi from there. Even temped in that warehouse center (not for Rite Aid) for a short stint in between jobs.
purge 182 — “With that single syllable he extended the vote to the women of America and ended half a century of tireless campaigning by generations of suffragists…”
And pretty much ended America too.”
Yeah. Handing the keys to satan. Note that ‘tireless campaigning’ already was hot going back to 1870. Seneca Falls was about 20 years before that. So officially, this Endless Rebellion in America is, organizationally, 160 years old. And that’s merely the external or organized aspect of a feminism predating Seneca Falls.
Ranger do you have any links to stories about the uproar over the politicians comments in Brazil?
FWIW…my television viewing has gone way down from even a year ago because it just seems to be nothing more than immoral emotionally stirring nonsense. That would be the type of stuff females would eat up.
Why it took me that long to figure it out…I don’t know.
I visit other sites like Vigilant Citizen…it’s pretty eye opening how blantant the media, the music industry, and Netflix is getting with everything from Satanism to every sexual perversion under the sun. I don’t bother to watch it but the descriptions show that most people are probably blind to the programming they are getting. It’s not going to be pretty.
There was a limited amount of conscription during the Revolutionary War.
Militia service was also frequently mandatory in the Revolutionary War time period. Men who did not attend militia drill could be fined. The first Federal gun law I am aware of mandated that male citizens own a gun, bayonet and ammunition for militia service.
Couldnt find much in English, but those are the ones I found:
link1
link2
(this one is particularly funny, as the guy who is trying to argue for the greatness of single moms as parents to keep their kids out of jail is our former president, writing from prison)
link 3
link 4
the interesting thing is actually this. The leading candidate, Bolsonaro, is, like Trump, literally Hitler , and the lefties immediately started pointing and shrieking at General Mourao’s declarations, as expected.
But even Bolsonaro supporters, mainly, started saying “well, maybe he expressed himself roughly and awkwardly, but what he said is true. Maybe he should have highlighted the heroism of single mothers and talked a bit more about deadbeat dads, but the correlation does exist after all, so its no big deal, hes a general after all not a politician, even Obama said something similar”, and they dont even see why Obama’s speech, which addresses fathers and calls for more responsibility from them, is acceptable and the General’s speech is not.
“Traditional conservatives thought in the past just as they do now, that they can fight feminism with chivalry. But chivalry is the foundation of feminism”
Well said!
Brilliant post! Shared immediately!
@earl “All I can say is the poor kid identifies as a feminist…hopefully he got a real good lesson why he should discard that immediately.”
From what I understood, the kid said one of the girls identified as feminist, not he himself.
Except my ongoing aggravation at your misuse of “chivalry,” @Dalrock, I completely agree. Just call Courtly Love by its true name. Replace “chivalry” with “Courtly Love,” and you’ve got it. But Courtly Love isn’t the whole of chivalry, nor was it ever needful to it. It just likes to pretend to be (and always has).
Chivalry comes, according to the Oxford Dictionaries, from “Middle English: from Old French chevalerie, from medieval Latin caballerius, for late Latin caballarius ‘horseman’ (see chevalier).” Not from anything to do with womankind.
In fact, your blog is the only source I’ve found, including C. S. Lewis’ book (discussed elsewhere) that conflates the two. Even sources favorable to Courtly Love don’t make believe that it IS chivalry. The nearest I’ve found outside the RP blogs is what Merriam-Webster cites as the “English Language Learner’s Dictionary” definition of “chivalry”:
: the system of values (such as loyalty and honor) that knights in the Middle Ages were expected to follow.
: an honorable and polite way of behaving especially toward women.
I could go on, but will save the rest for a regular blog post.
Arguing with white-knight traditionalists is like arguing with communists. The motivation is coming from an emotional source, not a rational one. As a result, rational arguments will be largely ineffective. If you really want to make a difference (instead of just kvetching about it), you should brainstorm on effective ‘kill-shots’; statements that bring the motivation into negative light.
An effective kill-shot should be:
Short
Simple
Emotionally evocative
The more base the emotion tapped, the more effective it will be. Sex, Status, and Safety (the three S’s) are all extremely effective. Because your typical white-knight sees women as the reason for his existence, these are best when acknowledging women as central to his world and defining how he is still failing them.
A few quick drafts:
Would you respect a man who cannot make decisions for himself and his family? (status)
If she is your better half, you must be selfish to keep her from achieving her best. (sex)
You can only protect what you can keep behind you. (safety)
If the choice were between a society where women have no legal right to vote and a society where women have the right but freely and proudly choose to vote according to the wishes their husbands or fathers, and where the more momentous the vote the more dutifully they do so — I think I’d prefer to live in the latter. What it would take to bring that about? No idea. Some kind of spiritual movement among women perhaps. No sign of this yet…
I recommend for all those who dispute the courtly love chivalry conflation:
gynocentrism.com
Jason K: Because your typical white-knight sees women as the reason for his existence, these are best when acknowledging women as central to his world and defining how he is still failing them.
The original, medieval White Knights only served Ladies. Women who were high born, well bred, genteel, gracious, soft spoken, erudite, slender, young, and beautiful.
It must be tough being a White Knight in 21st century America. So few true Ladies. Most White Knights must settle for serving some obese, foul-mouthed, tattooed, she-beast with a rainbow buzz cut. That can’t be easy.
I pretty much gave up a decade ago on broadcast TV, when I cancelled the cable. I got one of those indoor HD antenna to occasionally watch concussion ball, but that’s it.
I had Hulu for a while, but cancelled it when they came out with calumnies like A HandMaiden’s Tale. Netflix is on the chopping block, and I only use it to watch old reruns, like Star Trek.
There is no doubt about it, the MSM is at war with us, and they will do whatever it takes to win and utterly destroy us. I expect that “wrong thinking” churches will be accused in the future of “hate crimes” and that a liberal Supreme Court will back that up,
The character assassination against judge Kavanaugh is despicable. It brings home to me the fact that there is no turning this country around, it will have to be cleansed via fire.
Pingback: Women unleash their rage! Beta males revolt! - Fabius Maximus website
Pingback: The day chivalry killed chivalry. | Dalrock
Pingback: Feminism is the parasitic rider chivalry longs for. | Dalrock
Pingback: cons of womens suffrage – Finance and Morality
Pingback: The Good Wife Level 4 – Cornerstone