Women, How to Get Chivalry Back

Feminism killed chivalry, let’s get that tidbit out of the way first.  It wasn’t even because feminists disliked chivalry, they very much rely on it even if they won’t admit it.  Men simply stopped getting any benefit from being chivalrous and thus it died.  But chivalry had a great purpose and therefore is ready for a return.  It simply eased social interaction between men and women, and gave both men and women benefits they could find from each other.  For women, it helped them navigate everyday things and gave them some protection in a hostile world and for men it acknowledged them and rewarded them for their efforts.  But this second part, the part about the things men got from it, ceased to be.  So men abandoned it.  But it could certainly return pending a few tweaks in overall female demeanour.

Chivalry died because the benefits men were supposed to get from it went away.  You see, men like being acknowledged for their efforts.  Chivalry is kind of like a trade between men and women.  Men will do things like offer protection, courtesies, and perhaps some spoils to known and unknown women alike.  But in return, women thank, praise, or in some other way reward men for this.  In this way, things turn out evenly.

When chivalry is a part of the social code, it guides social interaction.  Men have a well known role to follow, and women do as well.  No awkwardness ensues.  It is not only a lubricant that greases the wheels of social interaction, but it provides some of the necessities each gender needs in life.

But when feminism became popular, the male haters decided it was no longer part of the social code to in any way acknowledge or thank men.  What this leads to, since chivalry was not entirely deposed, is that men are sort of like a butler class to women.  They serve and support, but it is not expected that they be perceived as equals or receive any social benefit for their service.

In practice, this means that women feel entitled to men’s things for no reason at all other than that they are women.  So for example, rather than a woman thanking a man, and perhaps returning some small talk for giving up his space on a train, a woman simply takes the seat and does not acknowledge him in anyway, and yes I have not only received this treatment but I have witnessed it.  Or women will simply cut in a queue because they feel they can get away with it and then they pretend they did nothing wrong.  Or they subtly expect someone will open the big heavy door for them but then storm through it as if it were opened automatically as soon as someone opens it for them.

Let’s face it, women aren’t as strong and sturdy as men, and don’t have the same ability to stay balanced.  They know this because they experience it when they try to navigate their way through the actually harsh environments of both country and city alike.  I have seen women tear every tendon in their knee from simply slightly misjudging the depth of a curb.  I have also seen women lose balance from slight nudges.  Not to mention, they can’t keep the same pace as men when walking and they know it.  Lastly, can you blame them for being slightly uncomfortable in densely crowded areas surrounded by strange men?

Women definitely benefit from chivalry, as could men.  Life is actually easier for men and women alike with chivalry.  But it is gone now.  Let’s be clear that chivalry is not about men ranking themselves beneath women, it is more of a trade.  So, if women want it back, they need to buck up and have the decency to respect and observe men for being chivalrous.


It is mostly youngish women that lack social graces.  Older women are usually happy when a gentleman helps them in some way.


Why The Left Makes Things So Dull

Have you ever noticed that when the Left takes control, they institute their own positions, use their own language, and change titles to things that are so dull?  For example, how often have you heard the wording used in the following language: “We need to be tolerant and provide equal opportunity for all”, or “We stand for diversity and equality”, or “We are committed to principles of equal opportunity, tolerance, and compassion”, or “We strive to provide an atmosphere of…”, or “We are united in …”.  It gets awfully repetitive.  Not only that but the language is almost devoid of meaning and almost suspiciously bland and lacking in vigor.  I wondered why that was, especially when I read in the BBC that at Harvard, the administration decided to change the title of the house masters from House Master to Faculty Dean.  Unfortunately, “faculty dean” to me is likewise empty of meaning and just as dull as the rest of the language they use.  I think the shame is in how dull the Left makes the world when they get into power.  So the question is, why do they make things so dull, I thought about it and here is why.

The Left makes things dull because they necessarily must remove information content when they institute their positions and titles and use their language.  What does removing information content mean?  Let me explain.

For them, there should not be any sort of ranking or power structure or dare I say privilege.  The idea that one person may have anything which is superior is offensive to the Left.  But superiority is a natural consequence of life and very useful too.  Among the military ranks, must there not be those who are superior, whose experience and leadership is used to command the others?  How does a large military exist and coordinate and even function if all members are of equal rank?  It can’t, this has been tested and it is well established that a ranking is needed.  And those at the top are typically those with the most experience, the best connections(which are useful), or the most talented.

The same goes for a corporate setting, or anything really.  Now, if we accept that superiority is a consequence of efficient management, does superiority also exist at a lower level, such as one person having a superior running speed, or a superior height, or superior intellect?  Of course, this is just life.

But these things must be eliminated by the Left.  Rather than commending and using superiority, they condemn it.  In order to do away with the notion of superiority, but still keep its efficiency, they must use code language to nullify any attributes that imply superiority.  House Master, a straightforward term, is now Faculty Dean, a non offensive title which conspicuously lacks any meaning or conveys any information.  In fact, this is generally what they do.  Any term fraught with superiority, conveying leadership or success or talent or authority, must be nullified into something which conveys nothing so that it doesn’t offend.

So back to our story about the house master.  In the article, it actually specifically says the administration could find no connection between the title of House Master and slavery.  So one was invented, and since the owner of a slave might have been called a master of some sort, the title House Master, is now evil and connotes slavery.  So it must be destroyed.  Soon enough, the trend will spread, and the “anachronistic and outdated” title of master, used in many schools still, will be outlawed and replaced with titles such as “committee member for student excellence”, or “student body administrator”, or some other such bland term.  And so, information is destroyed about the superior and authoritative nature of any sort of master.  The intimate and well known term of “master” coming from “magisterum” will be gone from our language and the evil ones win again.

Of course, the Left knows perfectly well what it is doing.  The goal is to destroy those that are superior in something and to wreck a tradition they feel they aren’t a part of.  Superior usually doesn’t mean generally superior by the way.  A superior isn’t necessarily superior in all things, we all know this.  But the goal is to destroy it nonetheless because the Left are sadists who get a sick joy from ruining others.  The proof is as simple as noticing that it is very clear that House Master has no connection to slavery, yet they actively chose to interpret it that way anyway as if that made any sense.  Perhaps all farm owners should be banned, or homeowners, or hiring servants of any sort because these vaguely resemble something a slave owner once did.  This isn’t done to create an atmosphere of diversity, it is done to destroy something that is good.  Don’t let the language fool you, the goal is to change the colourful, the authoritative, and the superior, into the boring, bland and dull.

Reverse Dowries

A dowry is a payment or transfer of wealth from the father or family of a bride, to that bride’s husband to more or less help the groom be able to provide for his wife and any children they might have.  In some cases, the dowry could be quite large and it may have made that man very wealthy.  Regardless, it was rooted in practicality and perhaps at least implicitly acknowledges that marriage is not easy for men.

The practice of giving a dowry died out at some point.  With the rise of stupidity and primitive behaviours under the title of ‘modernity’ came women seeking to do more independent things.  More women than ever attend university, many of them taking on debt to pay for it.  They are getting degrees in things like psychology, sociology, and communications and paying quite a sum for it.  Of course it is a fiction that anything is being learned when one acquires one of these fake, but easy to get degrees.

Women are also more susceptible to credit debt than men are.  So women in the ‘modern’ era are putting themselves into debt.  Relating this to marriage, the cost of a wedding is also similarly rising.

In the modern era, it is immoral and socially awkward for fathers to meddle, interfere, dole advice, make suggestions, or attempt in any way to alter one’s daughters choice in relationships, style, or career.  As a result, fathers have backed away from involvement in their daughter’s marriages.

The middle classes will, as a result, experience a vast transfer of wealth from young men marrying debt laden women, to the father’s of these women.  How is this a wealth transfer?  Well, it is not exactly, it is actually a debt transfer.  These young up-and-coming men will now be paying for their wives’ credit and school loan debt unburdening fathers from it, which creates an even stronger death spiral of relations between daughters and fathers as fathers feel relief from the debt they might have had to pay.  Not only this, but young men will be contributing substantially to the cost of the marriage itself.

So what we have is a situation where young men will be given more debt, will be told to pay more for the wedding, and will get less out of a marriage with a ‘modern’ woman.  This to me seems like the opposite of a dowry.

The implication of this is that men in the middle classes will probably begin to educate themselves less so as to save money.  Men will also put off marrying until older age, pushing the average age of first marriage ever higher.  But of course, people won’t be saving themselves for marriage until their thirties, so marital bonds will be weaker.

To reverse this, what is needed is sincere criticism of the way that women take on debt, debt being most harmful to the middle classes.

Will the United Kingdom Change Policies in Response to Trump?

The Tories won the last election, thank God, and with radical leftist Jeremy Corbyn elected Leader of the Labour Party, I think it is quite likely that Tories will win the next election too, given how fringe the Left has become.

The two most likely candidates for the next Prime Minister are Boris Johnson and George Osborne.  The Right Honourable George Osborne is the more likely candidate of the two.  Which means that in all likelihood, he will be the next prime minister.

George angered Tories when he strongly supported gay marriage.  He is socially liberal.  I admire his fiscal acumen, but his leftist leanings are distasteful.  I recall him saying that the reason Mitt Romney and the Republicans in America lost the last election was because of their socially conservative policies and ideas.

There is some truth to that, I recall the rhetoric of the War on Women, and I recall its importation to the UK during the last election.  However, I don’t believe his notion that conservatives must adopt socially liberal stances in order to survive and compete now.

If anything, I would say that most people have shifted towards socially conservative stances after witnessing what happens when socially liberal people gain power.  People have had enough of the pink and blue haired lunatics, the violent immigrants, the removal of centuries-old Christian traditions from public life, the stifling political correctness, and the taxpayer funded handouts for everyone and anyone.

I wonder if George Osborne will take notice of what is going on in America right now.  He claims people shifted away from traditional stances, yet right now it seems that Trump is winning with a traditional-conservative platform.  He wants to end open borders, which is the issue of our time, and at least personally seems to be opposed to gay marriage which was a much larger issue a few years back.

Last time around, George Osborne said conservatives must shift to the left socially, and now that things are shifting to the right, will he say that Conservatives must shift to the right, or is it his own personal leftist bias and not a political reality that conservatives must ‘adapt’ and ‘modernise’ by shifting leftward?

I very much doubt he will renounce any socially liberal positions.  But politicians would do well to note that the future isn’t necessarily a leftist one.


So Called Smart People Are Generally Stupid

We know that the educated, urban, middle class tends toward progressive thought.  They hold as virtues rationality, democracy, equality, the scientific method, and the defeat of our abhorrent past (perhaps in the year 1968) as self-evident truths.  They are enlightened, intelligent, intellectual, and they have shed their gender and replaced it with purely rational smart-think.  They have an “us versus them” mentality, wrongly and ironically believing themselves to be unique, special snowflakes in a violent blizzard of stupidity which is the other.  Unaware of their group-think, and unwilling to accept they are neither original, nor very clever, they have become a dangerously stupid group.

The belief they share is simple.  They are smart, and everyone else is dumb.  For them, masculinity is like a peacock’s colours; useless and lacking in substance yet pompous enough to be dangerous.  Only the stupid and emotional, those easily misled by sophistry and show, can believe it to be a good thing.  They have moved beyond the unscientific thought of the rest of humanity.  They are an elite minority that can solely know right from wrong.

They believe violence is the result of overzealous masculinity, forcing itself upon others.  Nationalism is an evil that can only lead to war, and in the past, people were stupider and more easily tricked by a group-of-men-up-to-no-good known as the patriarchy.

These people believe the smart set should be in charge and given all the power and it just so happens, in an incredible coincidence, that they are the smart set.  They will remove the concept of masculinity so that no one can ever enforce sexual norms again, and they will distribute wealth evenly by taking it from wealthy people who didn’t earn their money and giving it to the unemployed who did earn their money, and they will end war by granting brave terrorists each of their demands so that terrorists will hopefully, eventually run out of things to demand, and they will end the reign of archaic authorities by making sure that no one says anything offensive and if they do, they are put under arrest.

So committed they are to this belief in themselves, that they simply refuse to accept they could be wrong when the failures started piling up.  The smart set was more committed to being a rising member of the club for smart people than it was in doing things that it listed as its virtues; things like making observations, testing hypotheses, and gathering evidence.

As a result, the smart set became quite dumb, unaware that it displayed all the traits it abhorred in others such as jealousy, and pettiness and commitment to emotional beliefs that validated their own egos.

The smart set won’t pay attention to anyone’s advice but their own.  Apart from that they seem to be too busy provoking riots, and smashing things, and angrily shouting obscenities at people they disagree with to spend their time thinking anyways.  The reality is that they show all the worst traits of humanity and maybe this is precisely where arguments against progressive thought should be made rather than assuming progressives are just mistaken people.

Should Young and Female Immigrants Be Allowed Into Europe?

There are some voices out there that claim that we should have compassion for the many migrants that are presently arriving in Europe.  They may be disagreeable, but Europe can afford it and it is the right thing to do, they say.  These people claim the migrants, after all, have been more terrorised by ISIS than we have.  After all, we still have our homes, but theirs have been destroyed.  After the Paris attack, the wording shifted slightly, to suggest that we should screen them more carefully, and that the poor orphans and children were unlikely to do any harm, so let’s do this for the women and children.  How can we turn away poor orphans and widows after all?  Barack Obama suggests we are more afraid of these orphans and widows than we are of ISIS.  Hyperbole aside, I think orphans and widows aren’t necessarily innocent and the long term effects of just allowing them in should be considered.

The orphans and widows won’t be contributing anything to European economies for a long while, if ever.  They will be permanent welfare fixtures, and they won’t assimilate either, they are Muslim after all, and Muslims view the West as evil for a variety of reasons.

The mothers will have more children, and then they will eventually be allowed to import their husbands legally, after all, the EU can’t keep families apart, how inhumane.

Research has shown that the more dense the Muslim population, the more likely that radical Islamic ideology will appear.  The West is at war with this element presently, so if the inevitable result of allowing orphans and widows into a country is, essentially, more of ISIS, then of course orphans and widows should be feared, as counter intuitive as it is to fear them.

I think this shows a feminist bias.  The belief that women are unrelated to terrorism is a false and pernicious lie.  Especially considering that there was a woman involved in the Paris attack.

Of course, it is written off as her being influenced by the evil men, she of course isn’t a heinous evil individual herself, only men are evil.  I have written about this before, that women that join ISIS or who are sympathetic to radical Islam are viewed as manipulated, weak, and innocent(quite contrary to how feminists wish women to be described).

The truth is that terrorism isn’t a male only problem.  Orphans and widows can indeed be a threat, and can easily make an area unstable.  You can’t separate the terrorists, Islam, their families, or their genders cleanly, contrary to how people wish to portray things.

It is my opinion that the immigrants, of any gender or age, do present a threat to the West in all time scales, from short to medium to long term.  If the West wishes to be compassionate, then it needs to go to the source of the problem, not endanger itself with inefficient and ineffective false solutions.

The Scourge of Human Resources

Practically every large and medium sized corporation has a human resources department.  The departments are almost always entirely made up of women, in fact, according to this study, they were 93% female.  This is a massive conflict of interest given that human resources will be tasked with the job of hiring, firing, and resolving conflicts between people but as well they usually are tasked with enforcing PC standards on employees.  So the problem is that all these jobs that human resources does will take on a distinctly modern, female character.  Human resources departments are nothing but a source of problems and obstacles for men in the workplace, and optimally would not even exist.  Human resources needs to be “disrupted”, as the tech crowd would say.

In that study, it was found that attractive women were less likely to receive a callback from HR departments and attractive men more likely.  The suspected reason is that women in HR did not want to invite female competition into the company.  As well, they seemingly viewed the attractive men as potential romantic partners.  So they were clearly biased towards serving themselves.

Normally, HR departments try to portray themselves as impartial but this study shows they clearly are not.  But not inviting attractive women to fill vacancies, and preferring handsome men, is not even the beginning of the problems HR departments cause.

Recently, someone I know told me about an HR training course he has to complete annually.  The course is about how to properly behave in the work place and what actions to avoid.  He said he had to sit through a video in which a ridiculous, caricature of a male would call one of his female co-workers “Princess”, and denigrate her for being female.  He threw out her work before looking at it because it was “done by a girl”, and would frequently announce that women are less capable than men.  He also expected her to work overtime for free, and to contribute to her charity that aids women less so she could work more.  Apparently, he also made the disgraceful act of “leering” at a female co-worker that was dancing.  No word as to whether provocative dancing is acceptable behaviour in the office.  The purpose of the video is to threaten men, and it suggests that men are the source of all conflicts and problems in the work environment.

I personally have heard other similar stories from people, and I very much doubt that anyone in any HR department is as free from bias as they think they are.  I think all the normal human incompetence and corruption are present there, and all the cattiness and resentment that you find anywhere else in the modern world, except that these people are in control of enforcing ethics and hiring and firing.

I recall overhearing a few women, all in HR, gossiping to each other on a train about what they disliked about all their coworkers, openly insulting them behind their backs.  I can’t imagine that these people can then advocate on behalf of someone they regularly trash.

Obviously, HR is as susceptible to human pettiness as anywhere else.  They obviously have a female-inclined bias, given women’s over representation and I doubt they can hire, fire, mitigate conflicts, and whatever else any better than if they simply did not exist.  Probably, they view things in terms of a modern feminist perspective and will seek to apply that lens to whatever issues they face.

Men need to be aware that HR is not on their side, and is probably completely incapable of advocating for them.  HR should be viewed as a department that exists to resolve minority and women’s unsubstantiated complaints in the work place at the expense of others, and as a biased group in charge of hiring and firing that does not place corporate interests above its own.  Beware when dealing with HR.  Human resources is not beneficial for men, it needs to go.