Chivalry and Feminism

"I. To live one's life so that it is worthy of respect and honor by all.
1.Fair Play
Never attack an unarmed foe.
Never charge an unhorsed opponent.
Never attack from behind
Avoid cheating
Avoid torture

2.Nobility
Exhibit self-discipline
Show respect to authority
Obey the law
Administer justice
Administer mercy
Protect the innocent
Respect women

3.Valor
Exhibit courage in word and deed
Avenge the wronged
Defend the weak and innocent
Fight with honor
Never abandon a friend, ally, or noble cause

4.Honor
Always keep one's word of honor
Always maintain one's principles
Never betray a confidence or comrade
Avoid deception
Respect life

5.Courtesy
Exhibit manners
Be polite and attentive
Respectful of host, authority, honor, and women

6.Loyalty
To God, Sovereign, Country, and the codes of Chivalry
Always respect and obey the law unless the law is wrongful
Always be kind and never cruel
Give mercy to those that ask for it
Always be truthful and never lie
Defend the Law of Good, and seek to stop injustice
Have compassion to the weak, frail, and oppressed, and seek to help them in any way
Be charitable to others and give to those in need
Always succor women when they are in distress
Love your country, family, religion, and uphold them in any way
Always put the needs of others above the needs of yourself
Live a pure and noble life."


I think that the family is the core of society, and chivalry is the core of the famliy. But modern feminism is now about teaching women, and men as well, that men are neither needed or wanted. I think feminism in that manner is getting way out of hand. There's plenty of single parent families, which is hard on the mom and the kids, because men are no longer taught the responsiblity that is their due. It's like ppl don't have their dignity any more...

So called "roles" in the family are getting turned around to where the woman is the worker, and the man stays at home. While I'm not 100% aginst this idea, I think that it isn't a woman's responsibility to perform that kind of role. Why? If anyone hasn't figured it out yet, men and women are different, and they are built to perform diffrent tasks that the other COULD do, but wouldn't necissarily be suited for. Of course the majority of women are capable of everything their husbands are, but does it mean that they should? Of course not. It just wouldn't be as productive. Sure, you can drive a nail in a wall with a wrench, but does that mean that it should be used like that?

What're everyone else's oppinions on this? Are any of you feminists that are aginst men being merciful to women just because they are women? Or are you gentlemen/ladies that are more accepting of this?

>>76
What about the women who carry those "dirty" genes?

What about them?

Given a choice, men will screw as many women as possible. After all, the point is to propagate their genes. They don't have as much to invest in bearing a child, so they don't need to worry about the perfect mate.

>>81
In nature the males would be the gene testers. All men and women would be screened for genetic disease, if they have a the markers of a genetic disease, then the embryos they produce will be tested also to make sure the disease has not been passed down to them. Healthy embryos will be grown.

Obviously men and women with genetic disease have both allelles and would not be able to bear any offspring. Men in this situation would compete nonetheless. The women would live out their lives, but not have any children of their own genes.

>>83

Ever see Gattaca?

Correct me if I'm wrong guys, but men and women are, and should always be different... But that don't make them unequal.

It'd be like saying that every culture in the world should act the same because our differences make us unequal. I mean over the years, isn't it a culture of sorts that has developed as 'gender roles'? Sure the roles have been created from society, but so have many of our most important values.

So what if some of us are at home raising our family? So what if some of us are out having careers and getting jobs? And so what if on average women are more productive doing the former, while men are better at the latter? There should be seperate roles in our society, BUT we shouldn't be forced to assume a cirtain role. Only one that workes for us INDIVIDUALLY.

Everyone should stop the hate and get along with each other, IMO.

>>84
no what is it?

>>83
alternatively you could simply not allow men and women with both allelles to reproduce and only pick embryos with one allelle and missing the other so that any superior genes they do have can be passed on

>>86

It's a movie. That's neither here nor there, really. The point is: Eugenics leads to facism. There's no way you're going to control who breeds or not, who has babies or not. Sorry.

>>88
And who forces people not to implement eugencis if they have been persuaded to? Who prevents parents from having children if they know there is a way to prevent diabetes, but won't have anything to do with it? If the child grows up and has diabetes, isn't that akin to grievous bodily damage, seeing as it could have been prevented and the parents chose not to?

Inferiority exists and is very real and it is fascism to force people to ignore the facts which prove otherwise, especially if you are one of those facts that needs changing.

>>89

See all that? That was rationalization. You, the individual, don't have the right to violently enforce (psychologically, socially, culturally, physically) anything on another individual. Any laws of ethics or morals that are being "broken" in the practice of eugentics require too much rationalization for any true anti-facist to take seriously.

You can, by all means punish the choice in a variety of ignorant way and no doubt will, but there must always be choice.
Facism is Facism.

>>90
So you admit you think it's ok for parents to intentionally give their children disease? This isn't justice infringing on liberty, liberty and justice go hand in hand. You can have no justice without liberty and no liberty without justice.

Giving children disease just to satisfy some perverse urge to transfer your genes is not liberty or justice. I don't care about your paranoid delusions about eugenics, it was national SOCIALIST liberals who fucked it up, not conservatives. You fuck everything up, you took over the civil rights movement fro mthe libertarians and to this day racism stil lexists. You fucked up welfare, hundreds of people make welfare a living instead using it to educate and improve themselves and their children.

You fucking suck, get the fuck out of politics you god damn annoying piles of shite.

>>91

The liberal/conservative meme is for teenagers. You can read as deeply into what I said as you want, my fanatical friend. Doesn't change the fact that if you go into eugenics under the basis of giving the government the power to fundamentally control the one thing no government (liberal, conservative, whatever) has business controlling - the way people reproduce- that will be percieved as facism...and rightly so.

The only thing that social eugenics will bring about is segmented societies. Effectively, two seperate human races. If that's what you want- some sick Gundam Seed situation playing out...then by all means.

>>92
What the hell?  More of this "YOU'RE A TEENAGER" crap?  Anti-chan, is this you?

>>92
Of course fascism is wrong and discrimination. I am saying you are discriminating against people who will exist in the future because they don't exist yet. If a simple medical procedure will stop your children from developping diabetes and you refuse to take it and your child gets diabetes, you have intentionally committed grievous bodily damage and you should be punished as a deterant to people who wish to give people disease.

Sorry if I was calling you a liberal, but I see this shit all the time. Liberals are ok on some things, but the extreme liberals are complete assholes who think we should abort children that can live outside the womb and let people into university in plas of people who have better grades than them despite supposedly being against racism. In my view this inhumane outlook on the world makes the communists and racists more liberal than liberals make out to believe.

Wow, waaay off topic...

chivalry -> women -> reproduction -> eugenics

not far off

>>94
germany is the only ones who could make it look so SEXY.
Fascism for Germany, nobody else. There, solves one problem.

QUIT FUCKING WHINING YOU SELFISH BITCHES AND GET ALONG WITH EACH OTHER

Feminists have gone all overboard about the rights of women. Just because of centuries of persecution, they now think they can rule the world the way they see it.

Look at some news now where women in the workplace file sexual harrasment suits AND yet they will not blink an eye to use their sexual prowess to move up the promotion ladder (think it was in the Daily Mail in UK).

And just one thing I don't like with ultra feminists (who also happen to be lesbians as well), they look freaking ugly. I mean its one thing to not want to conform to men's standard of beauty but for freak sake at least conform to a decent standard.

And just one thing I don't like with ultra feminists (who also happen to be lesbians as well), they look freaking ugly.

Haha, signed.

>>94

Right and this is why I said: "The liberal/conservative meme is for teenagers." Why don't you just tell us how old you are, already? You didn't suggest a "medical procedure", you fucknut. You're suggesting that in the some faux-utopian future that certain people shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. The only kind of state or society that would allow this is the kind that Hitler used to wipe out the Jews. Totalitarian. Facist.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck...then it must SHOVED UP YOUR ASS BECAUSE YOU ARE GAYER THAN RICHARD SIMMONS' ASSHOLE.

So...seeing as how mankind's evolution shows evidence of moving AWAY from that...it's not going to go happen. SOWWY.

women love to be slapped around from time to time. If they say no, it really means YES YES!

>>101
If you think liberals act like kids, then stop acting like a liberal!

P.S. It seems you have some other issues to sort out aswell.

>>102

I agree.

Wimminz R pretty. I'm gonna go masturbate now.

know what i don't get?

feminists that hate lesbians

i mean, they hate men, and they hate lesbians, so where do they get their sexxors from?

>>106
whoa!!! Thats the first time I heard of that. It is so.....just mind shattering. It doesnt make sense. But then again girls never make sense with their thinking.

>>103

No, I don't think liberals "act like kids". Other way around: People are intellectually immature result to bi-polar methods of thought. The typical: Us and them scenario.

I think the entire idea that you can reduce any argument down to "he's just a liberal" or "he's just a conservative"...is very, very childish. And it's the bastion of those that- quite frankly- don't have anything else to add in the way of debate.

If you think I'm wrong- fine- show me how I'm wrong. But sitting here and trying to paint someone as liberal or conservative just because you have no way around what they're saying makes you look like a fucking baby.

>>108
Actually this is more of a we are correct and you are incorrect situation and you are using the ol' "U R A PART OF A CULT LOL" argument in a desperate attempt to cling on to your own cult.

Fact the facts, you are wrong. Admit this and either kill yourself or admit you are wrong and get on with the rest of you life. You don't have to admit this to me if you don't like losing, just admit it to yourself, AT LEAST.

>>107

do i sense a hint of sarcasm?

>>110
"I am a faggot."

Wow.. Great.. Are you going to counter-argument or what?

>>77
exactly why I advocated it.
lolreplyingtooldthread

>>100
I think it's because so many of them are Welsh.
I dunno why but lots of the ugly feminists come from here. :<

>>109

ok, prove you're *at least* at the drinking age then.
no?
that's what I thought

>>109

Ah, see but the thing is: You are, in fact, part of a cult mentality if you're sitting there defending an ideal that would take mechanisms of nazi-like nationalism, facism and totalitarianism to put into real practice. These are unavoidable facts- so to keep yourself from losing you resort to the "us or them"/"black or white"/"evil or good" bi-polarizing of thought. It a typical dividing tactic used by "liberals" and "conservatives".

Human thought evolved away from singularities and we are now evolving away from bi-polarities. This is why your argument is inherantly wrong, to me. Because I'm able to call bullshit on your entire approach to this subject from the get-go. It's indefensible- so you do is what all liberals and conversatives do-- claim the other is on the "wrong side". Reduce everything to philosophical, psychological and political fork in the road so as to frame and control the entire argument.

In the end, you never address the real issue or the point brought up: "You indirectly advocating facism through eugenics". Instead we get sucked into a conservative vs liberal debate. You can't help yourself- it's like you have zero control over your ability to reason.

If that's not cult-like, then I guess you guys(libs/cons) must've snuck in and changed the context and connotation of the word.

>>115
"Giving your children disease is a crime."
You cannot escape this fact and you are clinging on to the illogical notion that genetic medicine is fascist. Did I ever say we should bundle people into the gas chambers for having diabetes? I am stating that if you are going to have children, have the common courtesy to have a mouth swab and a blood test (blood tests are the norm for family planning anyway along with immunisation against certain diseases to prevent miscarriage and damage to the fetus, what's wrong with a mouth swab?) along with your partner to ensure your child is healthy and if your blod doesn't match or you have an allelle identified as a cause of disease, then take a procedure to ensure your child does not develop the disease. I agree that prosecuting parents because their children have diabetes or cystic fibrosis is a sensitive matter however, though in the future the world would be a better place if the only people at risk of genetically passed disease were those born from unexpected pregnancies.

This is the subject at hand, so explain to me why this is fascist. Otherwise you are just being a troll.

>>116

"Giving your children disease is crime" isn't fact. It's moral opinion. Fatal diseases are one thing- but diabetes is not the end of the fucking world.

Also, these are not mere matters of "immunisation"[sic] as you seem to suggest. What you said was: "Obviously men and women with genetic disease have both allelles and would not be able to bear any offspring. Men in this situation would compete nonetheless. The women would live out their lives, but not have any children of their own genes."

In order for your eugenics utopia to work, you have to regulate who reproduces. And most pregnancies are, in fact, "unexpected". The only government that would use these types of controls such as sterilization and enforcement of planned pregnancies would require a facist, super-nationalist system in place. One that fully exerts it's idea of "a better future" over those they govern and enforces said idea with punishments. If someone doesn't "get with the program" (hint, hint) they are subject to punishment by law for "doing greivious bodily harm". This isn't merely a "sensitive matter". This is facsism. 

You can impress upon everyone this "better future" tripe on everyone if you want- in effect going in circles. I don't care what benefits you think we can *possibly* all glean from it. Doesn't change the fact that it would take an inherantly totalitarian government to put this into practice.

Notice how I just keep repeating that? It's to keep you from posting another long sentimental paragraph like the one at the beginning of >>116.

Multiple benefits, zero benefits- I don't care. Eugenics requires facism and totalitarianism for it to work.

explain to me why this is fascist

That depends whether there's a "human right" to procreate. The government meddling in private affairs and all that.

This all strikes me as wankery though. We're approaching the era where we can fix issues like this with treatments that alter DNA. If you have a disease, won't you get it healed? Of course you will, and your offspring will benefit from it too.

>>118
Only religious asshats won't. (at least, not in public.) Hopefully we'll be done with them by the time it comes around.

as to the original post...

Chivalry, in the proper sense of the word, has nothing to do with women but everything to do with men and war. As a lifestyle it was about brotherhood to your fellow knights and respecting your enemies skill and, since the enemy at the time where other knights, the enemies honour.  The fact Saladin was considered one of the most Chivalrous knights of his time shows what chivlary was about, Saladin was a Muslim.

Here are the codes of Chilvary:
  1. Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches, and shalt observe all its directions.
  2. Thou shalt defend the Church.
  3. Thou shalt repect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.
  4. Thou shalt love the country in the which thou wast born.
  5. Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy.
  6. Thou shalt make war against the Infidel without cessation, and without mercy.
  7. Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they be not contrary to the laws of God.
  8. Thou shalt never lie, and shall remain faithful to thy pledged word.
  9. Thou shalt be generous, and give largess to everyone.
  10. Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.

In those commandments where does it mention anything about women? Women took chivlary and mutated it into a bullshit notation that it meant protecting women, it has nothing to do with women and everything to do with men.

Chivalry was never about the princess, currying the "lady's favour" was just about luck. ~Modi Thorrson

>>118

Nevertheless, what you say and what he says are too different things. Questions of: "Why not fix it?" are different than commands of: "You will not be allowed to reproduce if you don't. It's for the future of the nation!"