I racked my brain on how I could sufficiently start this article to best get your hackles up, but I realized that just stating the subject alone would make your “WTF face” better than anything I could write. So here goes…
It was a phrase introduced to us in 2011 via The Telegraph that basically stated that Chivalry is but another method of keeping women under the thumb of Team Phallus. It’s an ongoing tactic that seeks to paint any male action, no matter how kind or generous, with a sinister brush. It’s in the same vein of “mansplaining,” where any argument regarding women based from a man’s point of view is instantly dismissed as condescension and masculine ignorance.
“Mansplaining” is how this article is likely to be judged… by women who often speak on the subject of men.
“Benevolent Sexism” recently reemerged with all the glory of a herpes outbreak in an article from the Daily Mail (and others) that said that chivalric actions may mean a man is secretly sexist. The article states that there are two types of sexism, benevolent and hostile, but both lead to the same sexism that keeps women subjugated. They even made a handy chart that in no way makes their point more ridiculous.
Looking at this chart, the most prevalent thought that went through my mind is that the feminist researchers who did this study are coming from the angle that a man’s behavior – no matter how Galahadian – is wrong. They are stating here that women should receive no special treatment because any kind action geared toward women is masculinity serving itself.
First off, feminists, you need to get your house in order. Telling us we’re sexist because we give you special treatment due to your womanhood, then turning around and saying that women should never go to jail for anything, or getting angry that people don’t stand with women who claim they were raped despite evidence to the contrary, is straight up hypocrisy.
Secondly, these researchers seem to come from a perspective, and one I’ve seen shared throughout many feminist circles, that the very nature of men is somehow unacceptable.
And I dare venture into the first category to wreck your point. The researchers want to say that men owning topless calendars is “hostile.” This alludes to the fact that men objectifying women based on how sexy they are is wrong.
I’ll bypass the often conveniently overlooked point of how it was that woman’s choice to be photographed in full knowledge that men would be drooling over her, and cut to the chase: How is enjoying a naked woman hostile? How is the biological drive to see a woman naked in any way wrong?
I’ve seen it argued that it promotes a “rape culture” spurred on by the objectification of women. This is utter lunacy. Are they afraid if a man sees a naked woman he’ll transform into a rapist under the full moon, or if fed after midnight? Men don’t have a “rape bug,” and to that end I don’t know any rapists. I do, however, know plenty of men who would do some pretty nasty things to a rapist were they to find one.
On top of that, feminists have a lot of explaining to do about their views on our propagation of the species. Men need that drive that pushes them to see a woman naked. It’s a drive that creates healthy homes, happy wives/girlfriends, and is the leading cause of children. Are these feminists suggesting men are guilty of hostile sexism for wanting sex? Mother Nature might disagree, and she has an untold years worth of arguments backlogged.
That upon seeing a woman our eyes are instantly drawn to various parts of their body is naturally wired into us, and not something to be ashamed of, or shamed for. Every man is subject to this impulse, no matter how “upright” a man he is. You think Pastor McChurchpriest doesn’t notice Cindy Lou Hooters sitting in his congregation? Trust me. He notices.
This overwhelming compunction is there to help us choose a suitable mate. At a glance men can discern if a woman is physically fit to bear and care for his children. This has become insulting to feminists, but once again, Mother Nature smiles upon it. It promotes a healthier species, and encourages procreation.
Sorry feminists, but I’ll take “Gaia’s” opinions over yours.
Let’s move on to the matter of forming a men-only sports club. To that end I ask, “So what?” Spaces designated for men are not “hostile.” If anything, trying to take men-only spaces from men is the hostile act here. If it bothers feminists that there are spaces just for men, then why not start their own gender inclusive sports clubs? Men are not like women, and having a men-only space is a way to freely speak and act as men around other men. There’s nothing wrong with that, and I’ve yet to hear a good argument explaining how it’s bad. To boot, why are they not going after women about their own exclusionary organizations? Why is it the sin of sexism when a man does it, but empowering when a woman does it? You can’t have it both ways.
Aside from agreeing that wolf whistling and leaving all the housework to the women is wrong, I don’t know many men who think MOST women interpret innocent comments as sexist remarks or that women who want equality are secretly looking for special treatment. Both of those are the domain of feminism and given that feminists tend to mistakenly believe they represent all women, I can see how they might get confused about those two issues.
I don’t need to go into too much detail about the righthand column about “Benevolent Sexists.” I feel the idiocy of it speaks for itself. In fact, upon my posting it to Twitter I had women tweet me that they were big fans of benevolent sexists, and that finding one was a priority.
“Benevolent sexism” is feminists putting a sheepdog in wolf’s clothing. The actions on the right column are nothing but pure chivalry, and the ideals of chivalric actions passed down throughout the ages are more focused on creating strong, noble men – not weak women. In fact, I’ve often joked that chivalry was the age old answer to the new feminist question. It was already teaching men respect for women, long before any feminist popped up.
I think feminists have such a problem with chivalry because it’s men being good men on men’s terms. It’s the utilization and embracement of our natural strengths and urges, and from what I’ve observed, it’s something feminists have deemed dangerous. They’re half right. As author John Eldredge said “Yes, a man is a dangerous thing. So is a scalpel. It can wound you or it can save your life. You don’t make it safe by making it dull; you put it in the hands of someone who knows what he’s doing.” If men are a blade capable of deep cuts, then chivalry is the tempered hand. It doesn’t shy from a man’s potential, but instead guides it in beneficial ways.
Feminists see chivalry as a way by which men view women as weaker, but women are weaker than men. That’s not an insult, it’s biology. Chivalry isn’t focusing on this, but it’s focused on using that natural gift of being stronger to protect that which we deem valuable. The urge to protect is one that doesn’t stop at an ideological border, either. Even the feminist men who use a cheap gas station knockoff of chivalry feel that urge. It’s why you see the oft ridiculed, fedora clad White Knights, milady. Very few things are more valuable to a man than the women in his life, and it’s not because of objectification or purely sexual reasons. Have you ever seriously insulted a man’s mother?
I’m sure feminists will tell me I’m wrong, but they should be careful not to try to femsplain about my sex.
Hailing from Austin, Texas, Brandon Morse has been writing about politics and culture across many websites for the last six years, with a heavy emphasis on anti-authoritarianism. Aside from writing articles, he is also known for voice acting and authoring scripts. He is an avid gamer, dog person, and has a bad habit of making vague references to things no one has heard about or seen. Follow him at @TheBrandonMorse on Twitter.
Don’t miss Morse’s previous column: Right in the Childhood: A Pill for Every Ill.