Tuesday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Tuesday, October 27. 2015

Has Feminism Killed Chivalry?

Rick Moranis isn't retired

Take a Bow, Human Species

Windows 10 shares your files with the internet... here's how to turn it off

Alice Bows-Larkin’s plan for Green Economic Ruin

"No one is forcing anyone to accept 'one wife, many husbands!'" said the Chinese economics professor, proposing a solution...

Texas’ subpoena of Medicaid records from Planned Parenthood shows why government shouldn’t be involved in health care.

Popular liberal policies in NYC pay off benefits in form of more rapes, murders

Harris-Perry: Be ‘Super-Careful’ About Using Term ‘Hard Worker’ Because of Poor Moms

Hating Free Markets Means Hating Freedom

Classic Liberalism

PC Mayhem at Wesleyan

Gee, Do You Think Democrats Will Use Dr. Carson’s Plan to ‘End Medicare’ Against GOP in a 2016 Election?

Turning Alinsky On His Head With Rules For Republicans

Z-man:

The modern GOP pol is one step from groveling to these people on camera. It’s unmanly and disgusting and that’s why no one takes Rubio seriously. He looks and sounds like a little boy being corrected by his teacher. But he is the modern GOP. The only thing they are missing are guys with neck beards and ear gauges, perhaps a few trannies thrown in to make the pathetic freak show complete.

Streisand Effect – Cornell shuts down Jesse Watters on air during student interviews

Refugees will freeze to death, warn EU heads - Leaders warn the continent was "falling apart" trying to deal with
the migrant crisis

Airbus Chief: Germany Must Open Labor Markets to Help Immigrants

The myth at the heart of Palestinians’ dilemma

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 06:10 | Comments (24) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Re: Has feminism killed chivalry

Wasn't that the idea?

#1 mudbug on 2015-10-27 07:59 (Reply)

It's chivalrous to recognize the desire of women for greater equality, and to be taken seriously in her aspirations. It's also good manners.

QUOTE:

Guess Who's Paying for Dinner

Starring He & She
-----------------

He: Check please!

He: I've had a wonderful time. Please allow me to pay for dinner. {She senses I'm shallow.}

She: That isn't necessary. I'd be happy to pay my share. {Listen to me. What a jerk.}

He: Oh, please. It would be my pleasure. {I wonder what she looks like naked.}

She: Okay, but only if you let me buy dessert at the drug store down the street. They have an old fashioned soda fountain! {He probably thinks I'm a yo-yo.}

He: Great! {I sound like FM radio. Relax.}

She: {God, I hope he doesn't turn out to be a schmuck like the others.}

{Fade to black.}

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLblwVUEHyw

#1.1 Zachriel on 2015-10-27 10:58 (Reply)

He (opening the door for a woman)

She: Do you think I'm incapable of opening a door! Cretin!
-------
He (pulling out a chair at a table)

She: I can pull out my own chair! You chauvinist!
-------
A man and a woman have finished dinner. The waiter gives the check to the man.

She: Stop being sexist! Why do you assume the man will pay?

#1.1.1 mudbug on 2015-10-27 11:20 (Reply)

Of course, that almost never happens outside the imagination of right-wing schlubs.

If a person has their hands full, man or women, opening the door for them is considered polite. Normally, you make eye contact with someone before opening the door, so as not to create an awkward situation. These sorts of everyday signals are important for any chivalrous person to master.

#1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2015-10-27 11:25 (Reply)

Z: the imagination of right-wing schlubs.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

#1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2015-10-27 11:46 (Reply)

Z: Of course, that almost never happens outside the imagination of right-wing schlubs.

Maybe you're (or all of you are) too young to remember that simple chivalrous, manners were lambasted not on the basis of choice (I'd like to treat you this time), but because they were characterized as being demeaning to women and evidence that society was patriarchal. Simple things like opening a door for a female (let's not get into the 'lady' thing') were only to further the notion that women were too weak to do those things themselves and that they needed a man.

How about these quotes from noted feminists:

QUOTE:

“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” – Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor

“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” -– Valerie Solanas

“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” — Andrea Dworkin

“Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” — Susan Brownmiller

“The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men.” — Sharon Stone

“In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” — Catherine MacKinnon

“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart

“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” – Catherine Comins

“All men are rapists and that’s all they are” — Marilyn French
“Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release.” — Germaine Greer.

#1.1.1.1.2 mudbug on 2015-10-27 12:26 (Reply)

Sharon Stone? Really?

Sure, there are radical feminists. There are radical masculinists. There are radical baseball fans. This has little to do with the everyday occurrence of opening the door for someone, or treating a date to a meal. Most people have long adapted to the new reality that women don't wear hoop skirts and can't reach the doorknob.

#1.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2015-10-27 12:57 (Reply)

Yeah, the editor of Ms magazine is a radical feminist. Riiight! So if somebody shows you how individual feminists think, then they are radicals. Pretty handy. Maybe you can cite some prominent masculinists. My spell checker has never even heard of the word!

#1.1.1.1.2.1.1 mudbug on 2015-10-27 14:19 (Reply)

mudbug: So if somebody shows you how individual feminists think, then they are radicals. Pretty handy.

The question concerned everyday life, not the extremes of opinion. In any case, chivalry has been dead since Cervantes.

#1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2015-10-27 16:22 (Reply)

Females with that mindset vibe: loser

#1.1.1.1.2.2 chasmatic (Link) on 2015-10-27 23:40 (Reply)

Then there's this fun link: http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/07/chivalry-vs-kindness/

#1.1.1.1.3 mudbug on 2015-10-27 12:38 (Reply)

Feminism has seriously enhanced the population of lonely single-female cat owners.

#1.2 Jim on 2015-10-27 16:59 (Reply)

And all their male cats are gelded.

Strangely, not their Great Danes?

#1.2.1 John the River (Link) on 2015-10-27 18:29 (Reply)

Refugees

Probably from: 1611, King James Version of the Bible, Epistle to the Galatians, 6:7

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

I reckon that same goes for nations.
.

#2 chasmatic (Link) on 2015-10-27 09:19 (Reply)

1. Thank goodness I was sitting down when I watched that Harris-perry clip, because incidental to the linked subject, Harris-Perry actually praised Sarah Palin!

2. Re: the EU "urgently needs solutions" in the linked story. Too bad because that organization does not seem to be in the 'solutions' business but rather in the BAU (business as usual). Two immediate ideas that may contribute to solutions present themselves: first, going forward immediately revise refuge policy to woman and children only. Second, find some abandoned land or factories or warehouses and immediately put the men migrants to work building shelter - stop the lame donations of water and blankets and find donations of building materials

#3 Jayne on 2015-10-27 09:54 (Reply)

Jayne, those are excellent thoughts.
One of the major objections to allowing refugees and caring for them was the disproportionate number of young seemingly healthy men. Um, as in warriors, not poor fathers schlepping their families around looking for shelter.

Think: Trojan Horse.

GWTW: unfortunately the gates were left open, strange cats sneaking in with the wretched innocents. My question is where's all the money coming from? the EU is headed for bankruptcy rather soon.

As the last parts of reduction of forces will be the military they might be able, chase the refugees out but then the problem of where to send them? a joint effort would be necessary but I don't see the countries of the EU agreeing on anything except what's for lunch.

That brings us to the final solution of get rid of 'em dead or alive, and nobody's hopping up be the first to start that. The scary part of that is we have the same problems here and the best solution would be get rid of 'em dead or alive and we'll wishy-washy that and end up throwing money at the problem.

#3.1 chasmatic (Link) on 2015-10-27 11:18 (Reply)

chasmatic: That brings us to the final solution of get rid of 'em dead or alive

Whatever problems the Jews refugees brought to Europe, it was dwarfed by the final solution.

#3.1.1 Zachriel on 2015-10-27 11:21 (Reply)

Zach, after I typed those two words as a descriptive phrase I realized they might refer to The Final Solution of the Jews by the Nazis. Didn't mean that specific reference, meant only like first, second, third, final.

Handling the refugees should not be such a monumental task. gather them up and ship them back. Any resistance will be met by a superior force and they'll get shoved back rather than escorted. The only objections will be from other countries that don't want them any more than we do.

"Illegal" seems to have been dropped from the term "illegal immigrants." Refugees is a euphemism some clever commies brought up to wring sympathy from the problem. Refugees implies seeking shelter from some catastrophe, not fence-hopping moochers and jihadists.

Justification
We have no problem executing a heinous killer, baby raper, mass murderer, so forth; we have no problem killing an unborn child in mother's womb in the last trimester of pregnancy; we have no problem carrying a concealed weapon or having a weapon in the home to stop a threat to life and limb which usually leaves the perpetrator dead.

We have a problem, it seems, waging war on a radically psychopathic ethnic group that has killed, raped, maimed, enslaved, brainwashed and destroyed other people since oh, about 1200AD.

We have a problem administering the kind of military actions that will be decisive in eliminating the threat.
Think: Dresden, no problem there.
Think Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no problem there.

On a lighter note I think of Charles Martel and Vlad the Impaler. Those guys knew how to handle Muslims.
.

#3.1.1.1 chasmatic (Link) on 2015-10-28 00:15 (Reply)

"the gates were left open"
The house I grew up in always was unlocked even when no one was at home. I'm not even sure there was a key to the front door. That was NOT an invitation to people who had no business there.

"strange cats sneaking in with the wretched innocents"
Indeed, but I do not assume because someone is a wretched innocent that I must give up my house and my money to them. I have a choice to give them something or not and any pressure or violence to force me to do so is wrong and should be resisted with as much violence as necessary to stop it. In this case we are talking about a country not a home but the solution is the same. No entry, no arguing with my decision and if you choose to rush the border or use violence you will be shot. It does not matter to me if you are a "wretched innocent" or a "strange cat". If you come unwanted demanding free stuff you will be sent away by any means necessary.

"That brings us to the final solution of get rid of 'em dead or alive"
Get rid of them. They are free to leave the way they came. They can choose to ask for and accept help getting back to their home. Or they can choose to be violent an be met with violence. Either way they must leave, the choice as to how is theirs and theirs alone.

#3.1.2 GoneWithTheWind on 2015-10-27 13:41 (Reply)

My suggestions for the EU:
Do not accept refugees. This current refugee crisis is a scam and that should be obvious to everyone.

Treat them exactly as you would if they had never been classified as "refugees" and you discovered them trying to sneak into the country. That is arrest them, incarcerate them and over time repatriate them to their own country.

There will be some "refugees" who will resist these efforts or choose to go on the offensive. Again treat this exactly as you would if any violent radical was trying to sneak into your country. Use the military and deadly force to repel the invaders.

"Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy."

#4 GoneWithTheWind on 2015-10-27 10:59 (Reply)

Key point in the Cornell video is the student who says, "I have friends who are Liberal Arts majors..."

It is the long ago debased liberal arts that are the real problem. Avoid those and one can get a decent education even at an Ivy.

The Liberal Arts, even the traditional Humanities now teach the servile ideology and promote the pre-modern condition as the postmodern. We really can't blame the current crop of ideologues, this process of undermining the liberal arts by removal of the classical studies has been underway since the 1840s.

Ludwig von Mises writing in 1956:

QUOTE:

It is a fact that a hundred years ago only a few people anticipated the over-powering momentum which the antilibertarian ideas were destined to acquire in a very short time. The ideal of liberty seemed to be so firmly rooted that everybody thought that no reactionary movement could ever succeed in eradicating it. It is true, it would have been a hopeless venture to attack freedom openly and to advocate unfeignedly a return to subjection and bondage. But antiliberalism got hold of peoples’ minds camouflaged as superliberalism, as the fulfillment and consummation of the very ideas of freedom and liberty. It came disguised as socialism, communism, planning.

Mises, Ludwig von (2010-12-23). The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality

#5 JK Brown on 2015-10-27 12:15 (Reply)

I'm currently reading Mises 'Liberalism' (1927) in translation. It is a good exercise. Not only is he insightful, but it demands a cognitive effort since his use of the words "liberal" and "liberalism" are the classic definitions and diametrically opposite of the use of the words today.

I do like his characterization of the psychology of antiliberalism (today's liberalism) as being both resentment and a neurosis he calls, Fourier Complex. Resentment we see in the demands to take from the wealthy but resentment is vulnerable to reasoned argument that the attack on the wealthy also negatively impacts the antiliberal.

The Fourier Complex is like all neurosis not vulnerable to reasoning. The sufferer must come to terms with reality on their own. This complex is the refusal to accept of failure, for whatever reason, and getting back to work. The sufferer instead denies logic and seeks to overturn society on the promise that it is society that is keeping them from success. Basically, lack of maturity.

But we see this neurosis being spread through the participation trophy, the "official" efforts to aid college students to avoid responsibility for their contributions to the bad things that happen, such as drunken hook ups. And as Mises pointed out in 'The Anti-Capitalist Mentality', the status/servile society gives one a reason, status, for non-success. But in laissez faire capitalism, failure comes from ones own choices, abilities, even in the face of adversity. Again, it is an adult way of life, which many, especially in academia and the intelligentsia, refuse to mature into.

#6 JK Brown on 2015-10-27 12:30 (Reply)

Yeah, I know. Since the Clintons are above the law the IRS is likely to ignore this. After all, laws are for the little people.

From the article:

. . . the problems appear set to catch up with the foundation (now formally known as the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation), which has until November 16 to amend more than ten years’ worth of state, federal and foreign filings. According to Charles Ortel, a financial whistleblower, it will be difficult if not impossible for the foundation to amend its financial returns without acknowledging accounting fraud and admitting that it generated substantial private gain for directors, insiders and Clinton cronies, all of which is against the law under an IRS rule called inurement.

While inurement may sound obscure to the layman, it’s an ancient legal principle and the IRS is very clear that it is verboten. If you are familiar with it, it becomes immediately clear that Bill Clinton – and arguably Hillary and daughter Chelsea as family members and fellow Clinton Foundation trustees – could have big problems come November 16. So, too, could Clinton cronies like Ira Magaziner (see below) and Doug Band . . .

“It’s illegal to set up a foundation whose primary purpose is to create financial gain,” said Ortel – who helped expose massive financial fraud by GE, GM and AIG, thereby helping trigger the 2009 financial collapse. “That’s bright line illegal.” (Ortel wrote an article at Breitbart.com earlier which showed how “associates of Bill and Hillary Clinton may have attempted to monetize their participation in Clinton family philanthropic activities.”)

Ortel, a former managing director of Dillon, Read & Co, said that under New York law tax authorities don’t have to show criminal intent to get convictions against foundation officials, they need only show that the foundation filed materially misleading financial information and kept fundraising nonetheless. "The essence of what a charity does is take your money and show you how they spend it,” he told me. “The Clinton Foundation takes your money and obscures how they spend it.” (Note that the Clinton Foundation only started disclosing its donors in 2008, in response to years of pressure.)

https://www.byline.com/project/27/article/520

#7 feeblemind on 2015-10-27 13:39 (Reply)

feeblemind: "the problems appear set to catch up with the foundation "

The usual.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8zzimrIN-s

#8 Zachriel on 2015-10-27 15:36 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Tuesday, October 27. 2015

Tuesday morning links