I saw this column recently and it pretty much sums up my own ideas/opinions. I realize I may have NOW camping on my front lawn and picketing me for this, but IMO, if chivalry really is dead, I believe it's because feminism killed it.
Yeah, I said it.
I was always quite content with being a woman while letting a man be the man and reaping the benefits of that arrangement. I'm not offended or angered by a man's gentlemanly behaviors, I enjoy them. (In fact, I insist on them if my attentions are being requested.)
My husband treats me like a precious treasure, does everything within his power to see to my safety and my happiness. He prefers I don't work outside the home, as that's his role. My role is to take care of the things inside the home, so that after he's gone out and faced the world for me to earn money (a.k.a. "hunting and gathering"), he can come back into his "castle" knowing he can relax because I've done my job while he's done his. His dinner is ready. His home and his clothes are clean. The internal affairs are seen to without him having to worry about them. I take care of him and he takes care of me.
"A woman is not a piece of property!" If a man has chosen to seriously follow all the rules and I've become his wife, I am his property in a sense, and I still don't see there's anything wrong with that. This is not to be confused with a "submissive attitude", it's simply fact. I chose to become part of his household, of which he is the head. I take his surname, which makes me his. He puts my needs before his, which means I'm well taken care of. In return, I put his needs before mine and he's taken care of. All needs are met selflessly and everyone is happy. I'm proud of being "his"...because he's mine.
The original issues that begat feminism per se have been dealt with. We receive equal pay (although now women whine because since they entered the work force, they don't have "enough time" to have a career and take care of the household. Rly? Ya think? But that's a whole 'nother subject called "PICK ONE OR THE OTHER AND QUIT YER BITCHING" for those whose career is a choice, not mandatory). We vote (for all the good that does, since presidents are put in office by the electoral college rather than popular vote. The principle of the matter was still attained, FWIW). Men get put in jail for physically hurting us (provided we actually roll him over and then stick to our guns and testify against him). What else are we needing..? (Excuse me, "what else are we wanting" would be more apt.)
So there aren't any good men left out there, I keep hearing. There are...when we treat them like men and let them treat us like women without fear of us glowering at them and verbally slapping or shutting them down.
Yeah, so here's the column that caused my ventage. If you can read it with an open mind, perhaps you'll see why it triggered me:
A column from Dr. Gilda:
__________________________________
"From his genetic memory of hunter and protector, the male provides food for his female, and she instinctively knows she's being wooed. Analyzing more than 500 seduction scenes in literature, the Aphrodisiac Growers Quarterly found that 98% of them began with a meal. The unexpressed wish is, "I'll take you to dinner . . . if you promise me breakfast." All in the name of "courtship."
"Anthropologists describe the ritual as a perseverance test, allowing women time to decide if a man will commit, pass on good genes, and protect them from harm. The more time we spend rehearsing, the more wisely we choose. But many of our "liberated" sisters have blurred the gender roles. It started in the 60's when feminists argued that gentlemanly behavior reinforced women's inferior status. The sweeping belief was that courtship challenged feminism. The forgotten reality is that it also discounted femininity.
"So today, women ask men out. They bejewel themselves at benefits with trophy men. They tackle the waiter for the check or split the bill. They renounce door-opening and other considerate gallantry. They pay for opulent vacations, give expensive gifts, and court them. At first, the guys enjoy the attention. But woman-as-aggressor strips the hunter of his primal needs, and the smart men leave skid marks. Lloyd apparently jump-started Barbara's engine on their blind date, but she made his prostate go prostrate. Yet, she kept calling him. On his birthday, she sent him a Tiffany money clip. When he lost it, the value he had placed on it--and her--were obvious.
"The Beatles warned, "Can't Buy Me Love." Guys need to retain their hunter role. God realized this and gave them a remote control with 100 channels to hunt with. Even our mothers said a guy wouldn't buy the cow when he could get the milk for free. These days, by the time men leave the pasture, they're lactose intolerant. The payoff is the question, "Why won't he commit?" The answer is, "Why should he?" Psych 101 teaches that whatever comes too easy is deemed worthless. A hunter unable to hunt goes limp. Pushing harder to get a rise from him (no pun, here), the desperate and the dateless try the opposite tact. But "playing" hard to get and scheming with pre-designed "rules" doesn't do it either.
Healthy love is built on honesty, not games. Honest women acknowledge a hunter's nature. If we return to our basic instincts, we've got a better shot at having our "skin hunger" fed naturally."
____________________________
Finis. 😀
Yeah, I said it.
I was always quite content with being a woman while letting a man be the man and reaping the benefits of that arrangement. I'm not offended or angered by a man's gentlemanly behaviors, I enjoy them. (In fact, I insist on them if my attentions are being requested.)
My husband treats me like a precious treasure, does everything within his power to see to my safety and my happiness. He prefers I don't work outside the home, as that's his role. My role is to take care of the things inside the home, so that after he's gone out and faced the world for me to earn money (a.k.a. "hunting and gathering"), he can come back into his "castle" knowing he can relax because I've done my job while he's done his. His dinner is ready. His home and his clothes are clean. The internal affairs are seen to without him having to worry about them. I take care of him and he takes care of me.
"A woman is not a piece of property!" If a man has chosen to seriously follow all the rules and I've become his wife, I am his property in a sense, and I still don't see there's anything wrong with that. This is not to be confused with a "submissive attitude", it's simply fact. I chose to become part of his household, of which he is the head. I take his surname, which makes me his. He puts my needs before his, which means I'm well taken care of. In return, I put his needs before mine and he's taken care of. All needs are met selflessly and everyone is happy. I'm proud of being "his"...because he's mine.
The original issues that begat feminism per se have been dealt with. We receive equal pay (although now women whine because since they entered the work force, they don't have "enough time" to have a career and take care of the household. Rly? Ya think? But that's a whole 'nother subject called "PICK ONE OR THE OTHER AND QUIT YER BITCHING" for those whose career is a choice, not mandatory). We vote (for all the good that does, since presidents are put in office by the electoral college rather than popular vote. The principle of the matter was still attained, FWIW). Men get put in jail for physically hurting us (provided we actually roll him over and then stick to our guns and testify against him). What else are we needing..? (Excuse me, "what else are we wanting" would be more apt.)
So there aren't any good men left out there, I keep hearing. There are...when we treat them like men and let them treat us like women without fear of us glowering at them and verbally slapping or shutting them down.
Yeah, so here's the column that caused my ventage. If you can read it with an open mind, perhaps you'll see why it triggered me:
A column from Dr. Gilda:
__________________________________
"From his genetic memory of hunter and protector, the male provides food for his female, and she instinctively knows she's being wooed. Analyzing more than 500 seduction scenes in literature, the Aphrodisiac Growers Quarterly found that 98% of them began with a meal. The unexpressed wish is, "I'll take you to dinner . . . if you promise me breakfast." All in the name of "courtship."
"Anthropologists describe the ritual as a perseverance test, allowing women time to decide if a man will commit, pass on good genes, and protect them from harm. The more time we spend rehearsing, the more wisely we choose. But many of our "liberated" sisters have blurred the gender roles. It started in the 60's when feminists argued that gentlemanly behavior reinforced women's inferior status. The sweeping belief was that courtship challenged feminism. The forgotten reality is that it also discounted femininity.
"So today, women ask men out. They bejewel themselves at benefits with trophy men. They tackle the waiter for the check or split the bill. They renounce door-opening and other considerate gallantry. They pay for opulent vacations, give expensive gifts, and court them. At first, the guys enjoy the attention. But woman-as-aggressor strips the hunter of his primal needs, and the smart men leave skid marks. Lloyd apparently jump-started Barbara's engine on their blind date, but she made his prostate go prostrate. Yet, she kept calling him. On his birthday, she sent him a Tiffany money clip. When he lost it, the value he had placed on it--and her--were obvious.
"The Beatles warned, "Can't Buy Me Love." Guys need to retain their hunter role. God realized this and gave them a remote control with 100 channels to hunt with. Even our mothers said a guy wouldn't buy the cow when he could get the milk for free. These days, by the time men leave the pasture, they're lactose intolerant. The payoff is the question, "Why won't he commit?" The answer is, "Why should he?" Psych 101 teaches that whatever comes too easy is deemed worthless. A hunter unable to hunt goes limp. Pushing harder to get a rise from him (no pun, here), the desperate and the dateless try the opposite tact. But "playing" hard to get and scheming with pre-designed "rules" doesn't do it either.
Healthy love is built on honesty, not games. Honest women acknowledge a hunter's nature. If we return to our basic instincts, we've got a better shot at having our "skin hunger" fed naturally."
____________________________
Finis. 😀
