George Yancy at the New York Times confesses his sin:
I am a failed and broken feminist. More pointedly, I am sexist. There are times when I fear for the “loss” of my own “entitlement” as a male.
Chief among his sins was his failure to give his wife sovereignty:
For example, before I got married, I insisted that my wife take my last name. After all, she was to become my wife. So, why not take my name, and become part of me? She refused. She wanted to keep her own last name, arguing that a woman taking her husband’s name was a patriarchal practice. I was not happy…
…I dropped the ball. That day I learned something about me. I didn’t respect her autonomy, her legal standing and personhood. As pathetic as this may sound, I saw her as my property, to be defined by my name and according to my legal standing. (She kept her name.) While this was not sexual assault, my insistence was a violation of her independence. I had inherited a subtle, yet still violent, form of toxic masculinity.
To repent of his sin, he now realizes that he needs to put himself in service of women, seeking out every opportunity to be their champion:
[My toxic masculinity] still raises its ugly head — I should be thanked when I clean the house, cook, sacrifice my time. These are deep and troubling expectations that are shaped by male privilege, male power and toxic masculinity.
If you are a woman reading this, I have failed you. Through my silence and an uninterrogated collective misogyny, I have failed you.
Yancy mistakenly believes the virtuous way of life he extols is feminism, but what he describes as feminism is really chivalry. If he were a chivalrous man, he would have known to give his wife sovereignty from stories like The Wedding of Sir Gawain, and he would have likewise known it was his obligation to be women’s champion.
It is not merely Yancy who is mistaken however. Chivalrous men erroneously believe that their chivalry is the natural antidote to Yancy’s feminism. Neither side realizes they are on the same team, with the same values and goals.
H/T Instapundit
Folks like Yancy remind me of Republicans who constantly extend the hand across the aisle, constantly make concessions, constantly offer to give up more and more, and liberals and Democrats still hate them. Every time those Republicans extend that hand of friendship, they draw back a bloody stump.
Male feminists think by showing how “down with the cause” they are, that women will like them, be attracted to them and want sex with them.
Look, failed feminist men. No matter how feminist you are, no matter how aligned with them you are, no matter how much you beg and grovel, feminists are still not going to like you. They’re still going to hate and disrespect you. And they’re still not going to be attracted to you and are still not going to have sex with you.
I rather see it as another example of the two becoming one flesh. If people would see how God set up marriage works rather than thinking it dehumanizes women somehow…
What a rat’s nest his head must be.
I’ve always found this debate about marital surnames to be rather humorous, because the objection is always as he notes there that it is a patriarchal practice. The hilarious thing is that a woman’s surname is her own father’s name, which is of course as patriarchal a practice as it gets — so no matter what surname she has (unless she deliberately changes her surname to a surname of her choosing) is patriarchal. The objection is therefore hollow — it is merely expressing a preference for her father’s name over her husband’s name, and that’s quite telling of a rather poisonous attitude right off the bat.
—-
If he were a chivalrous man, he would have known to give his wife sovereignty from stories like The Wedding of Sir Gawain, and he would have likewise known it was his obligation to be women’s champion.
Very much so indeed, yes. I’ve come to believe that many of the more common male sexual fetishes and perversions (for example, femdom/submission, cuckolding and so on) are really based on eroticized/fetishized versions of chivalry with the woman as sovereign, obeyed, sacrificed for, yearned for and yet sexually unavailable. This stuff all runs really deep the psyche of Western men, I think, and because of that it can crop up in rather unexpected, and perverse, ways at times.
Yes, I’m a sexist. I’m a misogynist. By today’s modern definitions, I am both.
I am a sexist and a misogynist because
–I believe men want and need things from their marriages
–I believe it’s the job of wives to supply those wanted and needed things to their husbands
–Wives have duties and obligations to their husbands, and husbands rightly expect their wives to live up to them and carry them out
–I believe the best, most workable marriage model is that based on the New Testament
–I think women are fully rational agents and are fully personally responsible for all the choices they make, including having sex while intoxicated
–I expect women to accept responsibility for the sexual decisions they make and all the natural consequences flowing from them and I don’t allow women to shirk that responsibility or pass it off onto someone or something else
–I expect women to use common sense and prudence in the places they go, when they go there, with whom they go there, and their attire and demeanor once there. And I believe women are fully personally responsible for their choices in all of the above
Yancy boy get fired for sexual harassment in 3, 2, 1….
Call it: Interservice rivalry.
What a horrible wife who refuses to cleave to her husband.
I told my wife-to-be, that she could take my name, or she could keep her name and her current marital status.
Given all the talk about the majority of women being attracted to 20% of the men; and given all of the discussion about social structures put in place to enable most every man to get a wife in spite of that; I wonder if chivalry as discussed by Dalrock came into being as a means to keep the common man calm. For the guy who can’t get a wife, getting the “love” of an upper-class lady through being her “servant” must be / have been preferable to getting no attention from a woman at all.
New subject: Statements about bad/good, useful/not useful, right/wrong, moral/immoral have no value all by themselves. Those words acquire meaning only in comparison to some standard. A lot of miscommunication happens when two or more folks are engaged in a conversation where those words and words like them are being used. Each party to the conversation assumes that all the others have the same standard in view. In most cases, they don’t. And the folks talk right past each other. Just like men and women do. Because at least the men think that woman has in view the same standard that the man has when they engage in moral reasoning. This is very seldom the case.
re deti’s “I expect women to … ” In the immortal words of Delbert McClinton: “Expectin’ of someone is quick to be takin’ its toll”. deti can expect all he wants. Better to develop an understanding of the difference in moral reasoning between men and women. (not “morals”; moral reasoning)
I’ve posted this poem before by Kipling because it highlights the differences in moral reasoning between males and females – particularly this line: …Where ,,, he uplifts his erring hands to some God of Abstract Justice—which no woman understands.
The Female of the Species
As the poem discusses, we can live only where our perceptions allow us to live. Our moral reasoning can be based only on what we perceive. Men and women don’t generally perceive the same things. Therefore, male moral reasoning is going to be different than female moral reasoning. Bottom line – if you need her to go your way, that is, if you need her help, you must rule over her. You cannot rely on her reasoning her way to being what you need. What she perceives is generally different from what he perceives. Therefore, he must rule over her in order to get from her what he needs.
Guys who insist that male and female reason the same way are bound to be disappointed.
Re. the research done on the development of Moral Reasoning:
A lot of the guys in the manosphere debate whether women have agency – and then point to whether women make the same “moral” choices that men do. The research has shown that women have a set of morals that drive their choices that is fundamentally different from what men have. Many men expect women to be making choices from the men’s frame of reference and have no clue that women are making choices based on their own, different, frames of reference. At its most basic (and in general), women make choices / show agency from the perspective of what choices / behavior will best advance their desire to make babies and make babies in the safest and most stable circumstances possible. The moral reasoning that men develop is not driven by this and so some men end up being baffled by the fact that women make different moral / behavior choices than they do.
Women have the ability to carry life within them. For those who value this ability, and for those who actually get pregnant and give live birth multiple times, their outlook on what is important is going to be different than a man’s outlook. Women tend to build community, regardless of whether they can or want to birth live babies; men tend to feed and defend that community. Two totally separate activities, requiring totally different mind sets and skill sets. (Many women who aren’t invested in creating babies still get caught up in the community-building part of what women do.) In a non-religious sense, morals are those principles that are defended because they are necessary for keeping the respective skill sets intact. Choosing those things that will help build or preserve your group’s spot in the larger circle of life is considered being moral. GIven that mens and womens spot in the larger circle of life are different, the morals that inform their choices are likewise going to be different. It is the unwise man who thinks he knows the choices his wife will make because she thinks just like him. Maybe she does. But in most cases she doesn’t – even if she pretends to. Before the industrial revolution and the advent of labor saving devices made possible by oil, the distinctions between mens and womens worlds, and the differences in what they considered moral, was more obvious.
Yes, women have agency. Yes, women make moral choices. Just not the same one’s that men do.
I said: Our moral reasoning can be based only on what we perceive.
Hence the emphasis in the New Testament on being spiritually dead. The spiritually dead man cannnot perceive the things of the spirit. In order to perceive the things of the spirit, the dead man must have his ability to perceive changed. He will not perceive the things of the spirit until his ability to perceive is changed by God’s regenerating power.
The spiritually-dead man is going to have a moral reasoning process that is different from the moral reasoning process of the spiritually-alive man. The spiritually-dead man has agency. Just not the same agency that the spirutally-alive man has.
Along with what I said upthread, this truth is relevant to deti’s comments upthread about what he expects of women. Lazarus could not call himself out of the grave. Neither will a spiritually-dead woman demonstrate the same application of her agency as a spiritually-alive man (or woman) will.
Agency is not the issue. Where one can apply that agency, and why, is.
This abject groveling makes me think of…
https://infogalactic.com/info/Stockholm_syndrome
RichardP,
Far more men could get a wife until we had our modern lunacy.
Women needed it for their own support, something the State usually takes the place of today. That was independent of chivalry.
Yancy sounds like someone confessing his counter-revolutionary thought crimes before a tribunal of the Chinese Red Guard.
First sentence in the article:
Men, listen up.
George is a lifetime academic with three philosophy degrees, holding the current title of professor of Philosophy at Emory University. When a man with those inspiring qualifications tells me to “listen up” so he can tell me how to stop being toxically masculine, I do it; so I can hear just what kind of inanity is coming next.
George’s bio from his website is revealing:
http://georgeyancy.com/bio.html
Dear Male Feminists: The only thing you could do to earn the approval of the female feminists is go away forever. (‘Course, then they’d be stuck without men to build stuff and solve problems, but I doubt that’s occurred to them.)
From “The Rage of All Women: “Man-hating dyke” is the worst thing you can call a lesbian. But in the #MeToo era, it’s time to reclaim it.”
“Frankly, men do not deserve this much mental sympathy, and the few who do already know it. But even as men kill women who question them daily, those of us with the least amount of investment in patriarchy are afraid to say what we really think of them….Men have to learn what it feels like when we stop protecting them, and we have to stop seeking male approval. We have to name who’s perpetrating violence against cis and trans women in this country: It’s white men, with the white women who are invested in patriarchy along for the ride. We need to quiet the last of those self-censoring voices.”
Shoot if you think men and women have specific gender roles and hold them accountable to do them…you’re pretty much a sexist and a misogynist.
I could never get why you hate women because you don’t want them to be men. But then again I don’t like women who try to LARP as a man.
“We have to name who’s perpetrating violence against cis and trans women in this country: It’s white men”
She’s just a liar, that’s all. When it comes to violence against women, the average white man is an amateur compared with his swarthier brethren.
I don’t think it’s enough that George Yancy merely confesses his Sins Against Women in the public arena. I think he also needs to engage in self-flagellation, so everyone can see how repentant he is. After all, if it worked in the 13th century, then it should be good enough in these “enlightened” times.
Man is the head of the marriage because God said so. It has nothing to do with ‘entitlement’.
What he should be repenting of is that he married a rebellious woman and decided to be in her frame.
Yancy boy chose to marry a feminist. Therefore he qualifies for Jeff Strand Rule No. One: Any man dumb enough to marry a feminist deserves all the misery he’s in for. He gets no sympathy. None.
Pingback: Chivalry’s mortal enemy: Toxic masculinity. | Reaction Times
My testosterone levels fell just by reading that guy’s comments.
One of my BIG weaknesses as a Christian, is that I swear a lot. I try not to, very hard….
….and George Yancy has made me lose my resolve.
FFS, George, grow a f***king pair. Your ”wife” is a bitch who is happy to take your money, but not your name. She doesn’t only not respect you but also the institution of marriage, and if she is a Christian, she disrespects God as well.
I take it you’re supposed to come home from work, AND clean the house AND cook AND wash up. DON’T ask for sex – that’s patriarchal oppression Central. Get yourself castrated, because you’re supposed to work and NOTHING else.
I get it. I understand. I’ve had a lifetime’s indoctrination, from the education system to the entertainment industry, through the media and through advertising: She is better than you. In every way. Don’t ask her to cook. Don’t ask her to clean. Don’t ask her to do laundry. Don’t ask her for sex. Don’t expect her to have children, ”unless she wants to” – which she doesn’t statistically. Don’t ask her if she actually is pregnant with your child, since she can abort it behind your back. Don’t ask her to accompany you to church. Don’t ask her to partner you in any way.
Explain to me, Why TF I need a woman in my life for?
Three philosophy majors?
Really?
Those have the highest rate of suicide.
Nothing like deep contemplation in a bathtub full of hot water with some Gillettes.
This guy and masculinity don’t belong in the same sentence.
We’ve been married for 30 years, and we’ve always considered ourselves a team united against the world. So much for autonomy. As long as we’re obeying God’s law in our marriage, we’re good. It’s hard to understand how anyone would apply social justice concepts to a marriage.
“She refused. She wanted to keep her own last name, arguing that a woman taking her husband’s name was a patriarchal practice.”
Stupid daughter. Last name is probably her father’s.
I’ve always found this debate about marital surnames to be rather humorous, because the objection is always as he notes there that it is a patriarchal practice. The hilarious thing is that a woman’s surname is her own father’s name, which is of course as patriarchal a practice as it gets — so no matter what surname she has (unless she deliberately changes her surname to a surname of her choosing) is patriarchal. The objection is therefore hollow — it is merely expressing a preference for her father’s name over her husband’s name, and that’s quite telling of a rather poisonous attitude right off the bat.
I have friends and the wife has a hyphenated last name. And their kids have a hyphenated name.
I wonder how many last names their grand kids will have.
I have friends and the wife has a hyphenated last name. And their kids have a hyphenated name.
So triple the patriarchy — the kids have the dad’s name, the mom’s dad’s name and grandma’s dad’s name? Or is it only double patriarchal trouble, with dad’s name and mom’s dad’s name (or grandma’s dad’s name?). The more patriarchy, the merrier.
I’ve heard that some couples now blend their last names to create a new one, thus avoiding the hyphenation problem.
So a couple with the names Smith and Goldberg might, after marriage, take on the name of Smithberg.
Naming conventions vary worldwide. For example in much of the Spanish speaking world most people have two surnames, the father’s family name followed by the mother’s family name ( as Novaseeker points out this is her father’s surname). The woman with two surnames usually doesn’t change them when she marries, but will sometimes tack on a third (Mary Smith Jones de Williams). It can get out of hand over time I suppose and we’ve all seen some monikers so lengthy as to be comical to an outsider.
In the USA taking the husband’s name has long been the tradition. Maybe that is going away, but for now a woman’s refusal to take the man’s name is a clear marker of danger ahead. She is establishing early parameters and expectations. Setting up her frame so to speak. Good luck with that, mister progressive-liberated man. I guess it works out OK for a certain type of guy.
Silly women…the last name is the answer to this often asked question.
‘Whose bitch is this?’
Chivalrous men erroneously believe that their chivalry is the natural antidote to Yancy’s feminism. Neither side realizes they are on the same team, with the same values and goals.
Dead right on this one, but what really makes this so jarring is that the chivalrous men are often happy to make an open display of their ignorance. Seeing that last paragraph reminded me of something I saw from David French around the time Trump was first making his rise in the political theater. You can read it yourself, and scratch your head over how he can correctly see feminism as the force for destruction that it is and yet somehow still believe that the key to defeating it will be for more men to present themselves to the Legion of Satanic Harpies and announce that they are ready to protect them with their lives:
It’s probably somewhat fitting that even after French goes to the trouble of defining what the “real” masculinity is, he takes special care to add that women can have it too:
. . . Because even the “good” masculinity will become toxic if we won’t acknowledge that the women can do it even better!
A roundabout link to French’s dreck is here: https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-call-of-cuck.html
@ Scott
That’s customary in Latin America. The woman drops the name she got from her mother’s family when she takes her husband’s name. The man keeps both of his.
Silly women…the last name is the answer to this often asked question.
‘Whose bitch is this?’
Dat bitch be taken. But da bitch at dat table, she still for sale. Her father be comin’ in soon, if yo interested.
Barf.
$100 says Yancy’s wife hates his pathetic, groveling weakness. But she doesn’t know why she hates him. He must grovel more.
Like Boxer the horse in “Animal Farm” he must work harder. But working harder just makers her more unsatisfied. Rinse and repeat.
Btw – never, ever wife up a woman who insists on keeping “her” (really, her father’s) last name. Any man who does is just asking for misery.
First sentence in Yancy’s bio:
“George Yancy, Professor of Philosophy at Emory University, works primarily in the areas of critical philosophy of race, critical whiteness studies, and philosophy of the Black experience.”
So — doctorate in philosophy of Blackness.
Once — just once — I’d like to see a Black academic who was famous for, oh I dunno, finance or English lit or chemistry instead of “Being Black.”
Why do men need women to “civilize” them?
Anyone who says that women civilize men is implying that masculinity is toxic. To wit, it implies that there is something inherently “toxic” (for lack of a better term) about male nature.
Conservatives and feminists both believe in toxic masculinity.
As the husband is the protector of his wife, her husband’s name is a warning and a WALL erected around her and against the other savages.
She is not losing her independence in this relationship, but instead, gaining it.
Men becoming more conscious!
For example, before I got married, I insisted that my wife take my last name. After all, she was to become my wife. So, why not take my name, and become part of me? She refused. She wanted to keep her own last name, arguing that a woman taking her husband’s name was a patriarchal practice.
Did this man realize how illogical his reasoning was?
His wife’s “last name” is actually the name of another man—the husband of one of her great grand mothers. So, this woman chose to take the name of another woman’s husband rather than her own? And that makes her “liberated” from the evil Patriarchy?
And, it gets worse. The owner of the name she chose to take is a complete stranger to her, because, in all likelihood, she has never met him before, and cannot even point him out in a crowd. So the wife chose to identify with a total stranger, instead her own husband, to whom she has pledged her body and soul? How absolutely illogical does that sound?
Feminism is indeed a mental illness.
@RichardP
The mistake Christian men make is assuming any woman sitting in church even contemplates scripture for one second when processing moral reasoning.
He’s going into the woman’s frame…so probably not.
Not going to apologize for saying this – this Yancy guy is a total tool. I can only guess what his life and marriage must be like – not good from a perspective.
Earl is correct – can’even call yancy a guy, because he does not even think or act like one.. I have been married 15 + years, and sorry, but when two people get married, they both give up some of their independence. After all, it is a partnership, with both people participating.
And what is wrong with thanking someone for doing work around the house? I think my wife whenever she does something for myself or my daughter around the house, and she thanks me…it is called common courtesy, respect, and acknowledging their efforts.
What a flipping idiot; the only cure for him is lead posioning.
Since a lot of people don’t want to believe sin exists (and it does) so they don’t ever come to the realization they do sin…they have to paint evil as something else for their self-righteousness…be it your skin suit, gender, ideology, or mental issues.
It’s not the male or female gender itself that is toxic or the skin suit you wear…it’s our sinful human nature.
“…I dropped the ball. That day I learned something about me. I didn’t respect …[myself]”
And you will be paying for the rest of your marriage.
What he learned when he offered his name was that he was a gutless pussy.
This stretches the definition of chivalry pretty far. Chivalry as understood today would also include her taking his name. It’s not just debasement. There is a distinction between what we understand as chivalry in the modern era (mostly just simply social interaction courtesies) and its origins which renders lots of these posts hard to follow. A very chivalrous man from 1950 as he understood chivalry would have laughed at the idea that he was not sovereign in his home even if the “foundations” of chivalry included such silly notions that were alien to him. What he knows is treat women with respect because that how his father taught him how to behave. He doesn’t know and it doesn’t matter the connection to Sir Whatever.
I do think think you are correct that most modern calls for chivalry are calls to white knight in support of feminism. But they don’t harken to any ancient unbroken concept of chivalry they are just perversions of an outdated concept of polite social norm applied to the modern feminist world.
Sometimes I wonder if God is going to remove this cancer once and for all from the church. For 900 years this disease festered.
“Sometimes I wonder if God is going to remove this cancer once and for all from the church. For 900 years this disease festered.”
Not until Jesus comes back. It’s going to be a long, bumpy ride until then.
He didn’t remove the motivations that led to the fall of man. We just haven’t got the memo yet that we are repeating the same mistakes nor looking at the solution that’s right there in the church.
@Kevin
Are you saying that if I were to go back in time and blog in the 1950s, that it would be absurd? Or are you pointing out that just like today, chivalrous men in the 1950s were clueless that chivalry did the heavy lifting to make feminist dreams come true? I agree with both, for the record.
Oh, and guess what….ever deal with the IRS or a bank lately, like a mortgage refinance or joint filing of taxes?. Guess whom still gets put first on the application or as the primary tax payer?. It was not my wife, nor has ever been. I take great joy in remaindering her every time we run into this situation. It’s not all bad, I remind her, as I have a better credit record than she does.
Moreover, I insisted she take my family name; I made it quite clear there would be no wedding if she insisted on keeping her family name. Woman, especially, those whom insist they want children, have no idea what kind of slap in the face disrespect it is to a husband to have his children have the name of another man. Once again points to what Rollo and others in the manoshpere have said repeatedly…hypergammy just don’t care and it is totally obliviously to any feelings men may have about anything.
OT, but hopefully no too much: the Gosnell movie. Everything put forth and discussed lately applies to this cinema piece, and you can see it easily with The Goggles.
Female Lead:
-Strong/independent walk plus RBF/Sometime Billy Idol scowl
-Less than five minutes into it, she says, “I’m the boss of the police, don’t you ever forget it.” This is while feeding one of her 5 children
-“Has it all (TM)” Ball-busting pro-choice prosecutor with the dream hubby, 5 kids, and the “boss of the police”
-All shame is heaped on the white male lead, who also happened to be Catholic
Was this garbage purposefully written into this as a hook for the grrllzz? Or is it the usual worldview projection?
George Yancy makes a living peddling critical race theory at Emory University. Lately he seems to be attempting to extend into (male) feminist theory, yet much of this 2018 apologia appears to have been copied from his 2015 NYT editorial, “Dear White America”:
“As a sexist, I have failed women. I have failed to speak out when I should have. I have failed to engage critically and extensively their pain and suffering in my writing. I have failed to transcend the rigidity of gender roles in my own life. I have failed to challenge those poisonous assumptions that women are ‘inferior’ to men or to speak out loudly in the company of male philosophers who believe that feminist philosophy is just a nonphilosophical fad. I have been complicit with, and have allowed myself to be seduced by, a country that makes billions of dollars from sexually objectifying women, from pornography, commercials, video games, to Hollywood movies. I am not innocent.
“I have been fed a poisonous diet of images that fragment women into mere body parts. I have also been complicit with a dominant male narrative that says that women enjoy being treated like sexual toys. In our collective male imagination, women are ‘things’ to be used for our visual and physical titillation. And even as I know how poisonous and false these sexist assumptions are, I am often ambushed by my own hidden sexism. I continue to see women through the male gaze that belies my best intentions not to sexually objectify them.”
So, what’s he learned in the last three years, and why is he repeating himself?
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/24/dear-white-america/
I don’t know about the rest of LatAm, but in Mexico that is only done informally. Legally, the wife doesn’t change her name. So if she was Maria Martinez Godoy and she married Pedro Jimenez Gomez, she would informally be called Maria Martinez [Señora] de Jimenez, where the “Señora” part is optional, but her driver’s license and Passport would still have her maiden name.
Perhaps hypergamy is actually the manifestation of two possible setups…
1) When the man agrees or believes him and his wife are equal in marriage…and she subconsciously knows it can’t be that way. (God set it up this way…trying to recreate marriage causes problems). So she starts scanning to find men who figured out it’s not equal.
2) When a woman has spent her whole existence more or less getting her rocks off being rebellious to any male authority…her husband is male authority. A big way to do this is to be an adulterer.
@ Earl:
1. No.
2. No.
You are projecting male ways of reasoning onto women again. Hypergamy isn’t conscious, any more than a man turning to look at a girl he finds pretty is a conscious action. The act of not looking, or as some call it “guarding the eyes”, that is conscious.
Yancy:
Yancy engaged in a brief frame battle with a woman and lost. Now he’s urging other men to lose as well. Because he was brainwashed with feminist equalist equalism and does not understand that his “better half” isn’t just a man with boobs.
The name-change thing is a “tell”. Even with millennial girls, it’s still a clue, a hint, a challenge, a fitness test. A frame battle.
I never said it was conscious…in fact I said it was subconscious.
Kevin
A very chivalrous man from 1950 as he understood chivalry would have laughed at the idea that he was not sovereign in his home even if the “foundations” of chivalry included such silly notions that were alien to him. What he knows is treat women with respect because that how his father taught him how to behave. He doesn’t know and it doesn’t matter the connection to Sir Whatever.
So what? Who cares?
It’s not 1958, it’s 2018. There’s no way back to 1958. So what difference does 1950’s chivalry make, beyond the fact that it is part of what got us into this mess?
“Mah TROO Chivalry!” isn’t even an argument, it is merely an emotional bleat.
DR Smith @ at 8:07 am:
“Not going to apologize for saying this – this Yancy guy is a total tool.”
Most cloistered academics are. You can’t get that far in that isolated an environment without being a carefully vetted yes-man. Always remember the Golden Rule of Arts & Sciences: whoever has the gold makes the rules. Don’t trust any college prof on real-world issues unless he has either proven, marketable skills or conspicuous fuck-you money.
Having a fiancee even suggest keeping her own last name is probably enough of a red light to abandon the whole thing. The rot is likely quite deep for that to rise up.
I was going to make a crack about black cuckold porn, but then I saw a picture of his face.
Earl
You wrote “subconsciously” in terms of a woman “knowing” proper ordering of marriage only.
But I’ll apologize for replying hastily and possibly misreading.
Nevertheless, hypergamy is a feature of the human female. It is internal, it is not a manifestation of any social setup. Hypergamy just “is”. It can be constrained by social structures, it can be controlled, it can be uncontrolled, etc.
Would you write “Perhaps envy is a manifestation of [social situation]:” or would you agree that envy is part of human nature?
I suggest reading not just Yancy’s full article (if you can suppress the gag reflex that long), but the NYT comments – particularly the ones that have the little flag that says “Times picks”.
His olive branch — if you want to generously call it that — was basically spit and stomped upon. I’m paraphrasing here, but only slightly: “apology NOT accepted.”
Basic tone of the 2-3 “picks” that I read were to denounce his utter capitulation as still insufficient and to pronounce that only ACTION (not just 1000 words of obsequiousness in “the newspaper of record”) would be deigned as worthy of a fleeting glance and a patronizing pat on the head.
It is truly amazing to me that these guys think they are going to get so much as a dog treat – let alone some type of doe-eyed admiration.
Pingback: Introspection is necessary for everyone | American Dad
@mrteebs
Same as it ever was. Male feminists have been getting trashed by women for “not doing enough” probably since the 70’s, maybe since the 20’s.
Look at those comments with The Glasses: what’s reallly happening?
Just in case this doesn’t pop up as a pingback
https://americandadweb.wordpress.com/2018/10/26/introspection-is-necessary-for-everyone/
I raised that issue before we got married. Had my wife declined to take my name, that would have been a deal breaker. Fortunately, she said “OK”.
If any man should be foolish enough to think its a good idea to be a “male feminist” he should have a look at the article “Beware These 10 Types of Feminist Men” at everydayfeminism.com. This long rambling article consists entirely of statements of the form “Beware men who…” with enough vague statements so that every man on the face of the Earth is ultimately covered. It ends with a simple paragraph “Beware male feminists.”
Some Tradfemsplaining:” Dear Men and Boys of America… Its now Time you Need to… “https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZsXBbCK4E0
Dear Men and Boys of America… Its now Time you Need to…
More Tradcon Femsplaining
Basic tone of the 2-3 “picks” that I read were to denounce his utter capitulation as still insufficient
And ironically, women don’t want “utter capitulation” — they want the opposite. They want …
Remember this song from the 1980s? A female hymn to alpha males.
The actual definition of hypergamy is about social status.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy
What I’m saying is when either the man decides to not be the head in marriage or the woman decides to rebel against male authority because they’ve swallowed the lie that both are ‘equal’ you get this ‘manifestation’ in the wife which is called hypergamy. This equality in marriage is based off the lie that the world thinks marriage is a class system where the man is the superior and woman is the inferior and the only way they become equal is that there’s no authority in marriage.
God set up marriage that man is the head and woman is the body…it’s the chain o’command.
‘For the husband is head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church, His body, of which He is the Savior.’ Ephesians 5:23
‘But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.’ 1 Corinthians 11:3
@ Gunner Q.
You know what is really funny? If you read Yancy’s bio and some interviews he has given, he came from the Philly projects/ghetto – in his own words! I’d like to see him go back there….he’d bbe beaten within an inch of his life or worse the second they see him or he’d open his mouth. he has totally sold out his own culture & race.
I officially nominate Yancy as the new whitest black man in American, possible the world.
@AR
‘Perhaps envy is a manifestation of [social situation]:” or would you agree that envy is part of human nature?’
And I’ll present the question another way as to ask if this is why Mr. Yancy is being so tortured right now.
Is male authority in marriage a manifestation…or is it an ‘is’ when it comes to marriage?
@DR Smith – “I’d like to see him go back there….he’d bbe beaten within an inch of his life or worse the second they see him or he’d open his mouth.”
-I’m sure he was. That’s why he left.
Kinda/sorta related – As a Dario Argento fan, I was interested in reviews of the remake of my favorite film of his. This lady’s write-up was okay, right up until the pot-shot she took at men at the end of it:
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/suspiria-2018
I actually private-messaged her on Facebook and pointed out that the villains in both films are female, as most witches usually are. Eagerly awaiting her response.
@ Dalrock
Blog post idea https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/high-school/she-holds-her-own-newports-jenna-martz-has-battled-in-the-trenches-for-four-years-of-high-school-football/
Reading that article made me cringe…
****************************************
“370H55V says:
October 25, 2018 at 9:53 pm
I raised that issue before we got married. Had my wife declined to take my name, that would have been a deal breaker. Fortunately, she said “OK”.
*****************************************
Weirdly, we didn’t even have this discussion. It didn’t even occur to us to. It was just on her list of things to do before the actual wedding day.
Good find The Question. There is so much there.
For example, “Around that time, their middle sibling was also in the process of transitioning from male to female and finding her identity.“.
Almost 20 years ago, the (then) National Vice President of the National Coalition of Free Men (NCFM – now called the National Coalition for Men) wrote the following about chivalry and feminism, published in NCFM’s newsletter “Transitions”:
“The female institution that subordinates the needs and nature of men to those of women, while promoting special entitlements, privileges, and protections for women, is feminism (although feminists would deny that that is what feminism is about). But men have their own institution: chivalry is the male institution that subordinates the needs and nature of men to those of women, while promoting special entitlements, privileges, and protections for women.” By Pradeep Ramanathan, National Vice President NCFM, Transitions, March/April 1999
This is a parody, right? No man could actually think this way, could he? Somebody please tell me this is a parody.
FYI, my wife was PROUD to take my name. The notion of her keeping her old name never came up. Never.
This is a subtle example of woman entering a man’s frame. By acknowledging her belief system, he just yielded to hers.
Does anyone know where I can find a list of characteristics of biblical masculinity? I have googled and found a lot of chivalrous garbage.
Excellent post. What should I say to someone who quotes Eph 5:25 “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her” as the essential idea behind courtly love?
Pingback: Trump and toxic masculinity. | Dalrock