It has been my personal experience that women do take that sign of chivalry for granted. There have been two examples over the past few years that came to mind as I read this article from the The Spearhead..

Example one came up when I was in a accessories store looking for a book stand of some type and came across a narrow pathway in the over stocked store, there was room for only one person to go through at a time. At the same time two women approached, one quite elderly and one who must have been her granddaughter. I strolled through without even stopping and even though it left them room to  not impede their progress. It did not stop granny from making the obvious snide remark of "You're obviously not a gentleman", I stopped turned around and commented that if she expected chivalry, it is too late as you have killed that..

The response was worth a thousand words but I did not have a camera with me. So the "take that for granted" attitude is widely dispersed among women as they feel within themselves that they are worth more and they should be automatically given abeyance regardless of the situation. I use to in the past, but now I no longer bother as it is indeed taken for granted. My door opening days for women is over,  as they have killed that as well and I only demonstrate manners to those I know, like family and friends, the rest can open their own damn door. As for carrying weights, same thing. I have seen a few struggle and obviously totally pissed as there look, their desperate, hopeful stare, attested, I smile..

The next example came when I passed a car parked on the side of a busy access road at peak hour and noticed a women standing in front of the car, just staring at it, wondering I suppose, what to do next. As I passed I saw her edge to the side of the road and wave for help to passing motorists..
The following day there was a letter to the editor "Letter of the day" which stated that it was her who was stranded on the side of the road and she bitterly complained that no one stopped and had to call the road service club to help. She failed to state ofcourse that there would have been women who passed her as well but blamed the men for their thoughtless behaviour. I was quite surprised when the next day there was a response which stated "You wanted equality, you got it", kinda made my day..

The gift transformed into a debt.
from The Spearhead by Dalrock

Blessed is he who expects no gratitude, for he shall not be disappointed.

– W.C. Bennett

Back in 1852 the troop ship HMS Birkenhead sank in shark infested waters off the coast of South Africa. There weren’t enough lifeboats to save everyone, and the captain made the extraordinary decision to reserve them for the women and children aboard. The crew followed the captain’s order even though it meant his and many of their own deaths. This incredible example of men sacrificing for others has made what otherwise would have been an obscure shipwreck a famous event in history.

Even a century and a half later, women still understand the meaning of the profound sacrifice made by those brave men:

Men owe us.

A similar event occurred in 1912 when RMS Titanic struck an iceberg. Well over a thousand men stood aside and died so that mostly women (and a lesser percentage of children) could survive. Women understood the meaning of that sacrifice as well:

You got off easy. The women who survived are the ones who had to suffer. We didn’t ask you to do this for us anyway.

And of course: Men owe us.

One of the videos I saw after the sinking of the Costa Concordia had an overweight American woman with a short haircut complaining:

It certainly wasn’t women and children first!

She said this in the form of an indictment, with the obvious expectation that all listening would see it as proof of an outrageous dereliction by the men on the ship. She and countless other women believe that since some men have volunteered to die in shipwrecks in the past, all men will forever have an obligation to do so. What men in the past did was an incredible act of graciousness; it has been met with an equally incredible lack of grace in return.

I’ve searched the web looking for a copy of the video to share, but unfortunately I couldn’t find it. What I found instead was even more powerful however. Sheila Gregoire wrote a post/syndicated column shortly after the Costa Concordia went down titled: Women and Children First? A Feminist Tragedy (emphasis mine):

In the comments I’ve been reading on the news reports, people seem to agree that children should be given priority, but there’s a heated debate about the women. We’re equal, so why should a man lose a place to a woman? Why should a man have to help a woman when he’s in danger, too?

And, as disgusting as I find that question, it makes sense. In 1912 it was a different world. Personal responsibility was still the main ethos of the day. People took care of their neighbours; they did not wait for government to do it for them. And people had a code of honour that included helping others when you could.

Somehow we have lost that. It is no longer about honour and what we should do for others; it has become what others should do for us.

I assume the irony is lost on her that her response to men having shown incredible selflessness is to be upset that men might at times elect to take care of themselves instead of focusing on people like her. As I have written before, making chivalry mandatory or expected destroys the very concept. It isn’t just feminists who destroyed chivalry, but feminist-lite women who view themselves as traditional.

Even so it wasn’t Sheila’s blog post which really startled me, it was the comments from many of the women who read her blog. Several of the women understood the issue and why men made different choices on that wreck than on certain shipwrecks in the past. But others took an attitude of incredible entitlement, assuming that men in general exist to serve them. Commenter Rachel started by explaining that men owe this to women because women’s lives are worth more than men’s:

Women and children do not go first because they are weaker; they go first because lets face it, you need more women than men to keep the population going (men can make millions of babies in a day, women can only make 1-2 per year at best and our fertility is limited)and children are our future to continue the human race.

She then describes how she rudely bumped into a man recently in an elevator because she assumed he would understand that she has a special right to exit elevators first, even though of course she is his equal:

That being said, I was just thinking of this topic last night. I was sharing an elevator with a man about my age. When the elevator stopped, I automatically started to get off and he almost ran into me! I am so used to men letting me get off the elevator first, it hadn’t occurred to me that he wouldn’t. Once I righted myself, I got thinking about it and why would he let me off first? I am his equal. I started to think if there was a scientific reason, and I could not come up with one. In fact, I thought maybe the man should go first to let him see if it’s safe (I’ve watched too much late night drama and seen too many people get attacked getting off elevators).

Even though the uppity man in the elevator didn’t know his place, she graciously suggests that there are times when it is acceptable for a man to enter a lifeboat:

The thought process led to thinking about the “women and children first” policy and I do still think that applies, unless the child who is getting on the life boat is only accompanied by his/her father. I think then the dad should be able to get on the life boat with his child(ren).

I want to back up and remind you that before 1852 there was no such expectation that men should stand by and drown in order to save women who in most cases are strangers. The sense of entitlement so many women now have because of acts of incredible selflessness by men in the past is astonishing.

Another commenter named Britiney who writes a blog called Consider the Lillies read Sheila’s post and it reminded her of a time recently when men she didn’t know failed to snap-to and be her personal unpaid valet. It happened when she exercised poor planning while taking her computer in for repair:

Along the same lines and under the heading of “Chivalry is dead” I had to take my computer to the repair shop last week. I took it to the Apple store in our local mall and, not knowing that there was a “secret” entrance close to the store, I lugged it all the way through the parking lot, and then all the way through the mall and then BACK because I decided to take it somewhere else. I don’t know how much it weighs, but by the time I got all the way back to my car I was nearly in tears because it was SO heavy and I was SO frustrated. And here’s my point: I cannot even tell you how many able-bodied young men I passed while I was carrying something that was OBVIOUSLY too heavy for me. When I finally got to my car I called my husband and told him that my boys will NEVER pass someone who needs help and not offer to help them. I was so disgusted that not one single man offered to help me! So so so sad. I can’t influence any of the men who passed me by, but I can certainly influence the 3 young men God has entrusted to my care and if I have ANYTHING to do with it, they WILL put women and children first!!!

It reminded me of a comment Hestia made on a previous post on this topic about a woman who saw a group of servicemen returning from active duty, and was upset that they didn’t volunteer to carry her load for her:

Basically here is a group of largely men who have been sacrificing on behalf of the nation (or so the story goes) who haven’t done enough for this pampered princess. So it seems to go not only with soldiers in particular but men in general when it comes to chivalry.

One thing men need to understand is that in the event that they make the kind of sacrifice women are demanding, not only will it lead to even more entitlement, but many women will still detract from the noble nature of your choice. Commenter Amanda wrote:

Not to undermine your point, but when the Titanic sank, women and children were NOT put first. Sure, they started the evacuations like that, and there were men of honor, but there were also the men who locked the doors to the third class section so that those people wouldn’t take up lifeboat space, and the coward who pushed women and children aside in their haste to get into a boat.

After Sheila challenged her on the historical accuracy of this claim, Amanda replied with:

Well, it’s been a few years since I did all the reading I did on the Titanic, but I was pretty interested as a youngling, and the picture I got from the books was one of polite, subversive cowardice slowly escalating to outright anarchy and panic.

Understand that if you sacrifice yourself for women you don’t know that most women will simply take your act of ultimate selflessness as proof that men owe them. A significant number will also deny the bravery of your dying act.

Note: This post first appeared on my blog.

The Spearhead is a reader-supported site, so if you enjoy our content please consider a donation to keep us online now and in the future. Thank you, your support is appreciated.

Link to the Spearhead..

Concordia from Space.

That liner hitting the ocean floor was always going to be controversial, apart from the fact that the majority of the passengers survived, well over the 4000 mark and yet we have this ongoing finger pointing just because a couple of females failed to comprehend that they caused that whole "chivalry" thing to disappear and thereby encouraging alternative behavior to replace it..


Personally, I think the majority of people on board that ship helped each other out as much as possible and the odd few got their noise in a twist because they were not treated the way they assumed they should have been..

For feminists and those left wing lunatics to run around now and claim denial or any responsibility indicates their typical cowardly behaviour. They refuse to comprehend or admit or confess to making anything worse as they are actually of the opinion that everything now is a whole lot better or could be improved. Those same morons are in and included with feminists and their brainless, mindless deconstructionalist malarkey that they have dreamed up.

Reconstructionist Theory..
Let deconstruct a human being, set about to destroy his/her own sense of self and self-worth, then let's replant them with something else.........

Erm.. We're not quite sure what that will be yet, but I am sure we will think of something later..


They are answerable to no one and yet they are allowed to continue.

There should be a court set up to handle those destroyers of society..

What Hath Radical Feminism Wrought?
January 18, 2012
Link to That Mr G Guy's Blog..
Smitty of The Other McCain made an observation this morning after quoting Cassandra from Villainous Company;

I’m far more in agreement with Cassandra over at Villainous Company, emphasis original:

Wow. Just wow. Six dead and 29 missing in a tragic accident that (so far as I can see) is attributable to the cowardice, negligence, and poor example of the captain and crew – note carefully: to *some* men, not *all* men – and the reaction is, “Up yours, feminists/women – you got what you deserved”?

If a little boy is elbowed aside by an able bodied man and drowns as a result, has he “reaped what he sowed”? Alternate form of the implied argument is, “It’s not the man’s fault – those horrid feminists and their mind control rays made him do it!” Allow me to riff on the ubiquitous Heinlein quote:

Any society that allows morality to be defined down to the lowest common denominator will not long survive.

The morality of the crew members is between them and the Almighty. What is going to matter is that they have behaved unethically in abandoning their duties. The Admiralty Court, affectionately known as “the long green table” is one of the closer brushes you can have with the judgement seat of God while continuing to draw breath. They’ll build a timeline and rake those Italians over coals in slow motion, pointing out every single error of training, maintenance, and judgement. Or not; maybe the Italian court is as capsized as the Costa Concordia herself, but I doubt it. The amount of money involved in crewing, maintaining, and operating ships is such that they are Just. Not. Fannying. About.

I also especially like this paragraph;

In contrast to the radical feminists.

We enjoy tossing the entire Postmodern exercise in idiocy that is radical feminism under the bus around this blog, and then backing up over it several times, just to test the steering. Radical feminism is so risible that it really serves no use other than mockery. Trying to hang any sort of excuse on these bimbos is an act of auto-beclownment.

Here is a comment by Pathfinder’s Wife that pretty much sums it up. Read especially the last sentence and think about it;

It wasn’t just the feminists that created this mess — sorry, but a lot of men were more than happy to go along for the free love and the no commitment thing (after all, that’s a young man’s dream isn’t it? being a man is a responsibility and work, and sometimes you fail and get called on it — this released them too, now didn’t it?).

Women were stupid to have let this go from “equal in the eyes of our Creator, equal in the eyes of the law” (which is the only amount of equality anyone is lucky to get) to this other crap;both men and women sold their souls to have a little dirty fun (aka. we don’t have to act like adults all the time anymore, yippeee!).

Now both are bitching because it has essentially ruined the society they live in, ruined them personally as well, or their families. But instead of being rational about it, many are just swinging back in the opposite direction — sheer reactionary will and passions; it won’t turn out well.

We owe our children many apologies, and we do not deserve any forgiveness for what we have done to them (and are still doing).

Then the resident radical feminist basher of TOM, Stacy, jumps on the band wagon and expounds a little further;

A deference to feminism has taken hold that is almost never noticed: Anyone who writes about feminism except to praise it is presumed to be ill-motivated, and even most critics of feminism feel obligated to soften their crtiticisms by including disavowals of any intent to condone “discrimination.” But if we cannot discriminate between men and women — if we cannot say that male and female are distinct qualities involving differences significant enough to deserve recognition and accommodation — we are forced into maintaining the pretense of a phony “equality” that exists only in the minds of ideological fanatics.

And what no one can ever say is that feminism is an ideology of selfishness, which tells women that their ambitions, their desires and their grievances are more important than those of men. By embracing feminism, a woman becomes entitled (at least in her own mind) to deferential favoritism, with an entire political/legal movement standing ready to unleash hell on any poor bastard who dares dispute her “right” to anything she covets.

And then, the piece de resistance of the article is the last paragraph;

The appropriate answer to this ridiculous ideology is not a counter-ideology; we do not need a “man’s movement.” Rather the appropriate answer is to expose feminism as the dangerous folly it is, and to show courage in doing so. Too many men are afraid to denounce feminism directly and comprehensively, and the scent of fear only incites the feminists to more furious attacks. But let us acquit ourselves as men, and not abandon ship like Capt. Francesco Schettino.

What a fine screed against the scourge of Mankind, radical feminism.

Before I married the love of my life, I used to date a feminist,( I know, what the hell was I thinking, right?), and she used to get so upset at the littlest things. One thing that always set her off was when I’d open a door to a building or her car door for her. “I’m perfectly capable of opening the damn door myself”, she’d say. That lasted about six months…thank God I came to my senses.

Why do some women get so pissed off that a man would treat them like a lady.

Update; Bob Belvedere of TCOTS has a much better take on the story than I. Here’s an excerpt;

He was inspired to write the essay after reading Smitty’s post of early this morning on the same subject, wherein he seems to be saying that, if the Captain and part of his crew are to blame, it is through their individual failings as Human Beings [please correct me if I'm wrong, Chris].

I do see these cowards as symbolic. They are the products of Leftism and their actions are the result of a lifetime’s worth of constant indoctrination into Leftist Thinking. And Feminism, which is a subset of Leftism, therefore, is only partly to blame.

The Triumph Of Leftism via it’s successful marches through all of our institutions has led to the men of The West spending their whole lives being told in every venue that they are not positive contributors to Society, that they are inherently Evil and possessed of a strong desire to impose patriarchy, that they contribute nothing unique to Society ― this is the Feminist part of the Triumph. The other factions of the Left have also been at work, telling both males and females that there is no Absolute Truth, that we may have evolved, but we have never overcome being ultimately animals, that individual Human Life does not mean much because the Collective is all, that Free Will is probably a myth [that one's getting pushed more and more these days], that Traditions mean nothing, and that Reason is definitely a myth.

The Captain and those of his men who failed to do their duty must be punished to the full extent of the law [one hopes that Italy will hang the Captain], but we must also recognize that they are the products of the vile disease called Leftism which has devastated more lives than all of the outbreaks of The Black Plague through-out history combined.

Interesting comments as we witness the rage increasing against feminists, feminism as a whole and also radical feminism which I with quite a few other have exposed. That monster is now being assessed and identified. It not be long before we find the right tolls to bring it to it's knees and delivery the death blow. Hopefully sooner than later..

H/T to Mr G Guy..

The Costa Concordia event appears to have opened a few eyes to the truth of the day. It also would appear that there will never be an opportunity missed to try on a new level of male bashing when the opportunity arises.
The recent articles stating that men pushed women aside is really "feminist gold", it's akin to the "See, what they are like" type hysteria (we came across on that radical feminist site), the issue they prefer to raise rather than trying to explain the ingrained, automatic actions of human survival, instead they pinpoint the reactions and responses for denigration purposes..

In the past, it has been those very same male haters, those feminist journalists who have taken any opportunity to malign and denigrate males, such was the case when fantacising about all those "Millions of Hookers" that failed to appear at the Football World Cup in Europe or at the Super Bowl. Those professionally presented exaggerations whenever there is some demonstrated evidence, however minute. It is their bread and butter,  if there is any indication that "women are victims", on the bandwagon they ride..

The obvious response would be "You got what you wanted, your very own version of equawlitee", just live with it. No more preferrential treatment granted, as was taken for granted and assumed to be the case in the past, even now. Reminds me of that tune, "Don't know what you got till it's gone". The irony lingers, it so magically sums up that entire situation..

To demonstrate how that whole scenario panned out without any assistance from the MM, just standard responses from men and women around the world regarding that ocean liner keeling over, a few automatic, natural responses that reflects the general tone of all involved..

As Joanna T. commented on her listing in the right hand column, concerning the rise of friction between the sexes, " what went wrong", that is a good question and that may have to be looked at in a little more detail..

From here, these are the first ten comments..

confused Posted at 10:35 AM January 16, 2012 I guess chivalry is dead then.Comment 1 of 92

Jack Off of Nanny State Posted at 10:38 AM January 16, 2012 Men pushing women aside? discrimination against men again, according to the women's Lib, we are all equal.Comment 2 of 92

Grumbleduke Posted at 10:38 AM January 16, 2012 Men pushing away women? So? It just shows that you have the equality you want. No need for men to be chivalrous about things anymore, you can push just as hard as the guys remember?Comment 3 of 92

The Green Eye of Western Australia Posted at 10:47 AM January 16, 2012 Such is life. Disgusting ain't it.Comment 4 of 92

nk of Perth Posted at 10:49 AM January 16, 2012 What does everyone expect? to start playing the Violin with your mates. This ain't 1912 & it is no the moviesComment 5 of 92

someone of Roleystone Posted at 10:49 AM January 16, 2012 yes chivalry is dead. Individuals equality has made sure of this. Sad factComment 6 of 92

Bert of Mandurah Posted at 10:53 AM January 16, 2012 Eat and be eaten.....Stay alive in the process applies for all of us.PS.As none of yours been on the ship and experienced what it is really like to fight for your life at that moment. SHUT UPComment 7 of 92

ME FIRST! of Perth Posted at 10:53 AM January 16, 2012 Welcome to the 21st Century people - era of selfComment 8 of 92

joan of fremantle Posted at 10:54 AM January 16, 2012 You want equality,, sounds like you got it! I wonder if these were men in gay marriages?Comment 9 of 92

M&M's of OZ Posted at 10:54 AM January 16, 2012 Well what do you really seriously expect in such a situation, after all the phrase > its every man for himself > wasn't coined for no reason!Comment 10 of 92

Yep, No chivalry Here, Move along..

Psychology Today does occasionally post an article worth mentioning and I have listed a few in the past. Most in the past have had a distinctive feminist odour which ofcourse meant just another male bashing opportunity. For a magazine or online site like Psychology Today to keep quoting the comedian Bill Maher is a bit of a concern as he is hardly regarded to be a Psychologist or an even an assumed expert in any areas of female Physiology or Psychology(he has a useless Arts Deg.) for that matter..

Not only does he wander from one thing to the next, he occasionally mentions feminist lunacy whenever it's convenient but comments the opposite the next. A bit taxing to say the least. It's almost like he is reminded by someone about "how dare he" state anything negative about feminastyism, the odd times he does and will make amends for doing so..

Once again, my personal hero Bill Maher captures the essence of female choice perfectly, when he quips:  “For a man to walk into a bar and have his choice of any woman he wants, he would have to be the ruler of the world.  For a woman to have the same power over men, she’d have to do her hair.”  In other words, any reasonably attractive young woman exercises as much power as does the (male) ruler of the world.

My first response was one of "what the hell.." but reading the article it would appear to be a double entendre, giving more than one meaning. The article can be viewed as being male bashing, which is about normal for the site or they were merely stating fact which they do occasionally indulge in as well..

Costa Concordia.

The other reason it was bought to my attention was because of that ocean liner going down in the Mediterranean over the last couple of days and the relentless moaning about men not lining up to sacrifice themselves at the expense of women. Here they were recommending, demanding stereotypical behaviour, confused yet..

Since when are men more expendable than women and since when or how did it come about that men should sacrifice themselves for the opposite sex unless related or if there were children or elderly involved . It may have well been the case in the past but purely because it was a decision made at the time by the men involved (think Titanic, choice or demand?) and it was in no way some command, demand or necessity. It is a well known fact that women murdered chivalry or in the case of the feminasties version "chauvinism", by doing so they also automatically ensured that we now have the opportunity of meeting our maker at the same time. That's real equality, it's what has been argued for so long and here it is and it's unacceptable..

GEE!!

They obviously did not get the memo..

'Forget women and children first, it was every man for himself': Cruise liner survivors describe nightmare scenes as people fought to escape sinking ship

This was the same claim made when 9/11 went down, each for their own and I for one cannot see the issue. It would appear that the Daily Mail is indulging in some more male-bashing as usual..

Here is one of the comments that would appear to express the general consensus..