Chivalry Isn’t Dead, It’s Just Schizophrenic
I was watching the latest Travelbum video, where he was in Iceland, and he said something that I found interesting.
Now, just for a bit of background, Travelbum is a video series that was created by former Natural Lifestyles Coach Andrew Lindy. I believe he calls himself a “non-duality” coach, whatever that is.
Anyway, he’s put together this video series that outlines his journey around the world exploring what femininity means in different parts of the world. And he also fucks a bunch of chicks and talks them into posing for nude photoshoots along the way.
I really enjoy this series, his videos are really polished and well-edited, but I usually tend to view them as just light entertainment.
However, on this latest video, he said something that really stuck with me.
“Chivalry isn’t dead, it’s just schizophrenic”.
So, what did he mean by this?
I wanted to explore this concept further, because, I’ve experienced this problem in my dating life too. Some girls really like you opening doors and pulling out seats. Some others are wary that if you do this kind of stuff, you’re going to feel like they owe them something, and that’s certainly fair enough, considering some of the experiences some of the girls have told me they’ve had with men over the years.
And some others just considered it some form of oppression by the patriarchy. “what? Are you saying I can’t open my own door? That’s so sexist!”
So, where should we begin? Well, I think firstly, we need to define what exactly “chivalry” is.
Chivalry, or the chivalric code, was a code of conduct developed in the middle ages that medieval knights adopted as the principles that defined living a moral and noble existence. Nowadays, it’s been adopted to define men acting supposedly courteously towards women, such as holding the door open for them, giving them your jacket when it’s cold, all that sort of stuff.
Now the conduct associated with chivalry is supposed to be undertaken simply because it’s morally the honourable way to act. You don’t do it because you expect to be rewarded in any way, you just do it because it’s the right thing to do. And that’s it.
But the problem is, there’s a bunch of guys running around out there who think that if they put on this act of chivalry towards a girl, they should immediately be rewarded for their behaviour with sex. It’s quintessential Niceguy behaviour. They’re treating girls like vending machines, “If I deposit enough “niceness” coins into this girl, sex will eventually come out”.
I think most girls have come across a guy that acts this way some time in their dating experiences, as this behaviour is unfortunately really common nowadays. And it creates a level of weariness in females because they associate any act of chivalry or kindness with caution nowadays.
So, I totally get where these women are coming from. They’ve been conditioned by the men they’ve dated to look at any seemingly unwarranted act of kindness with suspicion.
Now, if you’ve got these “nice guys” acting in a way that they think is going to get them laid at one end of the spectrum, at the opposite end is this other strange thing that I’ve observed some guys doing.
When these other guys talk about being chivalrous, what they are actually trying to do is force a girl to act a certain way so they can maintain the illusion that the girl is this perfectly virtuous human being.
Let me explain.
It usually happens when a guy has oneitis, or he’s fixated on one particular girl because of his perceived lack of options.
He’ll then, under the guise of being gentlemanly or “chivalrous”, hold off on sleeping with the girl, even if the girl was totally ready to jump on him after the first or second date.
He’ll say things like “I respect you too much to sleep with you”. And volunteer to “hold off until we know each other better”.
And it creates this weird, untrusting vibe in the girl.
“What are you doing? Why won’t you fuck me? I want you to fuck me!”.
But what’s really going on in this situation is, when he says “I respect you too much to sleep with you”, what he means is, “I don’t respect you for who you really are, which is a promiscuous woman, so I need you to act like someone else”.
This isn’t chivalry either. It’s forceful manipulation. When you do this, you’re not allowing the girl to act like her authentic self. You’re trying to turn her into something she’s not. You’re essentially trying to turn a hoe into a housewife. Because of your lack of options, you need this girl to be the right one for you.
But what I would say is, if you’re looking for someone to be in a long term relationship with, wouldn’t it be better to see her as she really is instead of trying to convince yourself that she’s something else? And, if she is used to being sexually promiscuous, then that’s just who she is, and it's better to channel your energies into meeting other women who aren’t so “easy”, than trying to change this one particular girl.
So, I guess the reason why chivalry seems schizophrenic, or more to the point, why some females reactions to chivalry may seem schizophrenic, is probably due to the fact that most women’s experiences with chivalry wasn’t actually chivalrous at all.
And so, that’s what I observe men doing wrong when it comes to chivalry. But what about women? I think some women aren’t able to receive chivalry appropriately either.
I think it’s every guys fear to be on a date and hold the door open for a girl, thinking that you’re being chivalrous and it’s just the nice thing to do, only to be ear bashed for being sexist. But I would argue that, if that actually happened to you, things should get really simple for you. The date should be over, right then and there.
I actually dated someone like this years ago, and it was a nightmare. She’d make these snarky remarks every time I did something like hold the door open in the car or pull her chair out for her, like “Don’t you think I can open my own door?” or whatever, but I just did this stuff naturally, not because I thought if I did enough nice stuff, sex would be my reward. I just wanted to do it because it made me feel good to do it. I would say to her “Even if you don’t like it, I’m still going to do it, so you’d better get used to it”.
Thinking back, it’s almost like she was shit testing me. And some girls may shit test you in the same way, to see if you’re doing this only because you think you’ll get sex at the end of the night, or you actually believe what you’re doing is morally the right thing to do, regardless of whether she approves of it or not. Because, if you’re only doing it to win her approval, you’re not being genuine with her, because you’re changing your behaviour to win her approval. And that’s what she’s very reasonably afraid of.
And finally, what about those girls who just think traditional acts of chivalry are some sort of oppression of females by the patriarchy and want to redefine chivalry and appropriate gentlemanly behaviour as something that fits their narrative better?
The problem these days with acting genuinely chivalrous, as I see it, is that some other women just want their cake and they want to eat it too. They want to act in a way that naturally and biologically repels men, but still be treated as ladies. They want to go out and get shit-faced, get into fights, and sleep around, and still be considered as potential wife material.
I found an article written by a Lourdes Duarte, who’s a contributing writer to the Huff Post, that illustrates perfectly the thought process of some feminist women:
"I don’t need a man to pull my chair out for me. But you know what I do need? A ride home in the morning and a McGriddle. Oh, and R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Because chivalry starts and ends with that little thing that Aretha Franklin demanded on behalf of all us ladies. I don’t think respect is the bare minimum either, I think it’s the most effing important thing there is."
In other words, “I want you to respect the fact that I am a promiscuous, EMPOWERED woman”.
Men are biologically repelled by promiscuous women. We have an inbuilt defence mechanism against them. We like sleeping with promiscuous women when we’re just horny, but we’re not interested in turning them into a long-term relationship. Because we, as men, don’t want to get sucked into looking after a child that isn’t biologically our own. And if she’s “easy”, then the chances of paternity fraud are greatly increased. Relationship-wise, promiscuous women completely disqualify themselves as prospects because of their behaviour. We, as guys, are just trying to look after our best interests by not wanting to be with them long term.
So yeah sure, we should probably afford a basic level of human respect to women who have chosen to sleep with us on a first date. But if you have chosen to act in a way that is disposable, you can’t then complain about being disposed of after the deed is done.
Because men aren’t going to respect and celebrate and reward a woman’s promiscuity with a relationship. That would be insane.
It’s very confusing for both men and women right now, where the rule is, there are no rules. Before, in traditional conservative western cultures, the hard and fast rule was the guy contributed to the relationship by going out and procuring resources for his family by working. The woman's role was to keep the home fires burning and to use the resources that the male brought home to nurture their offspring.
However, with traditional gender roles being usurped for gender equality, women have the opportunity more than ever to experience life independently if that’s what they want, never requiring a male to care for them. So, they act in a way that repulses most men during their younger years, until they hit 35 and suddenly wonder why no high-quality guys want to start a family with them anymore. The growing numbers of single people in society reflect this.
The problem I see is that modern feminism doesn’t value the traditional qualities of femininity, and therefore encourages women to act more like men. It’s sad, and it’s sexist and it’s misinformative.
Masculine men still want to feel like the leader in a relationship. Like the protector. It’s how they define themselves in a relationship. As the one who ensures their partner and family’s safety.
And I suspect most women still want to be treated like ladies, but the whole premise behind them being treated like ladies was based on the pretext or the predication that they were somehow less able to take care of themselves than men were. And therefore needed a man to protect and look after them, almost as you would a helpless child.
And there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s a system that’s worked well for humans for 100,000 years. The ability to carry and nurture a child makes women extremely vulnerable, and the only