There are two ways to condition behavior. Positive and negative. Carrot and stick.
You're talking about positive reinforcement. They have chosen negative reinforcement. Rather than praise men for doing this, they will shame men who do not.
That is the self serving decision so it is easy to see why they pick it. Rewards mean they have to give something. They don't want to do that. Punishment requires nothing of them, only from others. That sounds better to them. "I don't have obligations, you do, be better".
Not to be way too blunt about it, but that is the current state of play.
I didn't comment on it in the article, but I thought about that and rolled my eyes reading this line from the lady in the New York Post, "I want equal pay and men to follow the Titanic rule of women and children first."
The idea that women don't get equal pay has been debunked so often it's basically just a way to flog men or to call for overpaying women, but she also wants men to put her ahead of their own interests. What will she offer to men in return for that? Absolutely nothing but grief.
If a man is awake, isn't thoroughly downtrodden by the way men are perceived by feminist women, he will be grateful that such a woman has been transparent and will politely pass her by as not worth the damned trouble, and certainly not his life!
Yeah, your article and some of the X comments are variants of, "make up your minds ladies, what do you want?" but they don't think that way, do they?
Sort of like how many women feel it's important to stop men competing against them in sports (because they always lose), but don't generalize this to "why do men in sports earn more than us?" - the level of analytical rigour required just isn't there. Perhaps because it's not rewarded. When was the last time you heard of a woman getting fired from her job for being irrational? Rationality is the most basic attribute companies need of their employees, but I bet if you fired a woman by saying she was being irrational you'd be washed out by employment courts within a week. So why be rational? There are rewards to not being so, and no punishments for it, so of course it's the behavior you get.
Absolutely. That hit so hard it was impossible to finish the article. “I want men to adhere to traditional themes but I want to hit them over the head with false shibboleths while I do that.” A man will only do that for a hot girl until he gets sick of her and moves on. Otherwise she is SoL.
i once saw a man open a door for a woman, and instead of showing any gratitude or even accepting the gesture silently, she proceeded to yell at him that he shouldn't open a door for her just because she was a woman. He replied, "Oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't opening the door for you because you're a woman. I was opening the door for you out of respect for your age."
This is a man's world - damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. No win. No fair. Feminists deserve what they get, or don't get, but it's a terrible shame that men also pay the price.
"I want equal pay and men to follow the Titanic rule of women and children first." That is, I want all the rights and privileges and deference that a man gets, and then in addition I also want to get special treatment and favors because I am a woman. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. You can be treated exactly like a man. Or you can give up some privileges and get others. But you can't be treated just like a man and then also get special treatment for being a woman. That's a logical contradiction. And if you get all the traditional benefits of being a man, you can't expect men to be interested in then also giving you all the traditional benefits of being a woman. You can be a strong independent warrior who fights with men on equal terms. Or you can be a sweet innocent damsel who looks to men to provide for her and protect her. But you can't combine the benefits of both.
At first, as a lifelong and competitive athlete, I objected when men began competing in women's sports. This culimated with the Olympic boxer who beat the living crap out if the other women. As you'll recall, anyone who raised a voice tgr was loudly condemned... by women. Of course, after it was recently verified the boxer was indeed a man, women started screaming about misogyny for allowing it.
I went to pick up dinner today. A young boy, about 8-9 yrs old was coming out the door with his hands full. He tried to hold the (only) door open for me but was a little confused how to do so. I held the door and told him thank you. He tried! Kudos to him and his parents.
I've always been respectful and chivalrous. 45, never married, no kids, but plenty of rejection. I don't stop trying but I sure am frustrated and confused!
That being, “People do what they’re rewarded for doing and cease doing things that have no payoff.” - however thats not how it *should* work. How it should work is that we have the humility to "not be a dick", and do the "right thing" not because we must but because we want to do it. I mercilessly hold doors for even the most obvious rampant antimale feminists although I will admit a little disingenuousness in that regards. Many of the societal problems we see today are because we are failing to transmit why "not being a dick" is important. It means picking up litter for a nicer environment, it means occasionally standing while someone else gets to sit, it means respecting other people on the off chance more people will respect each other, it means when we go to the country taking our litter home with us, making sure our dogs are under control and the gates are shut. We are failing societally to transmit these simple concepts of respect, delayed gratification and occasional self sacrifice and that vacuum is filled with the hedonistic cult of 'I' and personal rights with zero responsibilities to those around us. It shows up in how we treat each other on social media, on the bus, and in how clean our streets are. The fix to failing to transmit the societies positive norms and practices is civics classes from primary school, sanctioning those that repeatedly refuse to be responsible (cancel visas, community service, loss of benefits etc.) and also applying criminal law equally. In the meantime can *everyone* please just try harder at not being a dick.
Chivalry the culmination of man’s virtuous behavior is its own reward. We proactively engage in chivalrous behaviors because that is the right behavior for the right reasons probably appreciated only by women that have a good soul.
If that woman cannot appreciate the gracious effort then she may not have as good a soul as she hopes or if an adherent of the latest stages of feminist ideologies refuse to admit she has a soul to lose at all.
It's not chivalry, it's common sense. Women wear uncomfortable shoes more then men do, it's part of their "uniform" and they look nice when they do. So as an appreciative gesture men give up their seats for them. Women often take longer then men to get ready to go out and they look nice when they do. So men hold doors for them and let them go ahead so they can get places faster and on time. Things are heavy and generally designed to be lifted with upper body strength which men generally have more of then women (although this one seems to be changing, I see a lot of noodle armed men and jacked women now) so men carry/lift things for them so crowds can keep moving. Stop calling this "chivalry", it's just practical.
Lol, none of that has anything to do with chivalry. The word chivalry originally meant something like "the code of honor of knights". Knights: men who could defend women from other men. When men were holding open doors, or lifting heavy things, or giving up seats, they were sending a classic message: "I will make myself uncomfortable to provide for you, so you will feel secure in becoming my wife and mother of my children".
Nowadays women are taught not to want the protection of a man, and frequently do things that deliberately increase the danger from men, so the message chivalry was meant to send has no real point.
I don't put on a tux to dunk on other men, do you? Whatever, I'll give up my seat for the ladies, no prob. Especially the cute ones that get dressed up. You can be mad, sitting there.
Do you think there’s a connection of this with the phenomenon on the Internet of men sneering at/mocking other men for “white-knighting” online? I recognize that “white-knighting” isn’t strictly the same as “chivalry” but your article made me consider if there’s a link.
Chivalry is bunk. Women know the best way is to have your own and do it yourself. There is no substitute for your own power, your own way and choices and being beholden to no one.
At the risk of stating the obvious.
There are two ways to condition behavior. Positive and negative. Carrot and stick.
You're talking about positive reinforcement. They have chosen negative reinforcement. Rather than praise men for doing this, they will shame men who do not.
That is the self serving decision so it is easy to see why they pick it. Rewards mean they have to give something. They don't want to do that. Punishment requires nothing of them, only from others. That sounds better to them. "I don't have obligations, you do, be better".
Not to be way too blunt about it, but that is the current state of play.
I didn't comment on it in the article, but I thought about that and rolled my eyes reading this line from the lady in the New York Post, "I want equal pay and men to follow the Titanic rule of women and children first."
The idea that women don't get equal pay has been debunked so often it's basically just a way to flog men or to call for overpaying women, but she also wants men to put her ahead of their own interests. What will she offer to men in return for that? Absolutely nothing but grief.
If a man is awake, isn't thoroughly downtrodden by the way men are perceived by feminist women, he will be grateful that such a woman has been transparent and will politely pass her by as not worth the damned trouble, and certainly not his life!
Yeah, your article and some of the X comments are variants of, "make up your minds ladies, what do you want?" but they don't think that way, do they?
Sort of like how many women feel it's important to stop men competing against them in sports (because they always lose), but don't generalize this to "why do men in sports earn more than us?" - the level of analytical rigour required just isn't there. Perhaps because it's not rewarded. When was the last time you heard of a woman getting fired from her job for being irrational? Rationality is the most basic attribute companies need of their employees, but I bet if you fired a woman by saying she was being irrational you'd be washed out by employment courts within a week. So why be rational? There are rewards to not being so, and no punishments for it, so of course it's the behavior you get.
Absolutely. That hit so hard it was impossible to finish the article. “I want men to adhere to traditional themes but I want to hit them over the head with false shibboleths while I do that.” A man will only do that for a hot girl until he gets sick of her and moves on. Otherwise she is SoL.
As I just posted, there are three genders:
- Males
- Females
- Feminists
The last one is responsible for much of the unpopular social and political chaos we are experiencing.
i once saw a man open a door for a woman, and instead of showing any gratitude or even accepting the gesture silently, she proceeded to yell at him that he shouldn't open a door for her just because she was a woman. He replied, "Oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't opening the door for you because you're a woman. I was opening the door for you out of respect for your age."
This is a man's world - damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. No win. No fair. Feminists deserve what they get, or don't get, but it's a terrible shame that men also pay the price.
"I want equal pay and men to follow the Titanic rule of women and children first." That is, I want all the rights and privileges and deference that a man gets, and then in addition I also want to get special treatment and favors because I am a woman. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. You can be treated exactly like a man. Or you can give up some privileges and get others. But you can't be treated just like a man and then also get special treatment for being a woman. That's a logical contradiction. And if you get all the traditional benefits of being a man, you can't expect men to be interested in then also giving you all the traditional benefits of being a woman. You can be a strong independent warrior who fights with men on equal terms. Or you can be a sweet innocent damsel who looks to men to provide for her and protect her. But you can't combine the benefits of both.
"That's a logical contradiction"
Thy name is woman...
At first, as a lifelong and competitive athlete, I objected when men began competing in women's sports. This culimated with the Olympic boxer who beat the living crap out if the other women. As you'll recall, anyone who raised a voice tgr was loudly condemned... by women. Of course, after it was recently verified the boxer was indeed a man, women started screaming about misogyny for allowing it.
I went to pick up dinner today. A young boy, about 8-9 yrs old was coming out the door with his hands full. He tried to hold the (only) door open for me but was a little confused how to do so. I held the door and told him thank you. He tried! Kudos to him and his parents.
Why would the seven dwarves of conventional manhood risk their lives to protect the maiden's honour?
Weirdly, I open or hold the door for anyone. Woman or man. Jeez, what’s wrong with me?
The day is coming that you will open a door for someone and they will tell you to fuck off. And you will.
I've always been respectful and chivalrous. 45, never married, no kids, but plenty of rejection. I don't stop trying but I sure am frustrated and confused!
That being, “People do what they’re rewarded for doing and cease doing things that have no payoff.” - however thats not how it *should* work. How it should work is that we have the humility to "not be a dick", and do the "right thing" not because we must but because we want to do it. I mercilessly hold doors for even the most obvious rampant antimale feminists although I will admit a little disingenuousness in that regards. Many of the societal problems we see today are because we are failing to transmit why "not being a dick" is important. It means picking up litter for a nicer environment, it means occasionally standing while someone else gets to sit, it means respecting other people on the off chance more people will respect each other, it means when we go to the country taking our litter home with us, making sure our dogs are under control and the gates are shut. We are failing societally to transmit these simple concepts of respect, delayed gratification and occasional self sacrifice and that vacuum is filled with the hedonistic cult of 'I' and personal rights with zero responsibilities to those around us. It shows up in how we treat each other on social media, on the bus, and in how clean our streets are. The fix to failing to transmit the societies positive norms and practices is civics classes from primary school, sanctioning those that repeatedly refuse to be responsible (cancel visas, community service, loss of benefits etc.) and also applying criminal law equally. In the meantime can *everyone* please just try harder at not being a dick.
Chivalry the culmination of man’s virtuous behavior is its own reward. We proactively engage in chivalrous behaviors because that is the right behavior for the right reasons probably appreciated only by women that have a good soul.
If that woman cannot appreciate the gracious effort then she may not have as good a soul as she hopes or if an adherent of the latest stages of feminist ideologies refuse to admit she has a soul to lose at all.
It's not chivalry, it's common sense. Women wear uncomfortable shoes more then men do, it's part of their "uniform" and they look nice when they do. So as an appreciative gesture men give up their seats for them. Women often take longer then men to get ready to go out and they look nice when they do. So men hold doors for them and let them go ahead so they can get places faster and on time. Things are heavy and generally designed to be lifted with upper body strength which men generally have more of then women (although this one seems to be changing, I see a lot of noodle armed men and jacked women now) so men carry/lift things for them so crowds can keep moving. Stop calling this "chivalry", it's just practical.
Lol, none of that has anything to do with chivalry. The word chivalry originally meant something like "the code of honor of knights". Knights: men who could defend women from other men. When men were holding open doors, or lifting heavy things, or giving up seats, they were sending a classic message: "I will make myself uncomfortable to provide for you, so you will feel secure in becoming my wife and mother of my children".
Nowadays women are taught not to want the protection of a man, and frequently do things that deliberately increase the danger from men, so the message chivalry was meant to send has no real point.
I don't put on a tux to dunk on other men, do you? Whatever, I'll give up my seat for the ladies, no prob. Especially the cute ones that get dressed up. You can be mad, sitting there.
Do you think there’s a connection of this with the phenomenon on the Internet of men sneering at/mocking other men for “white-knighting” online? I recognize that “white-knighting” isn’t strictly the same as “chivalry” but your article made me consider if there’s a link.
The word originally referred to the knightly system and code of honor, so white knighting and chivalry are closely connected concepts for that reason.
Chivalry is bunk. Women know the best way is to have your own and do it yourself. There is no substitute for your own power, your own way and choices and being beholden to no one.
Infinitely preferable. And less ick.