I came across this article from some feminist who, according to the little blurb at the bottom, has written for “Jezebel, The Frisky, The Huffington Post and The Good Men Project.” In it she complains of the incivility of men in public:
It’s a drizzly Friday in Chicago and I’m leaving a bar with my roommate sometime after midnight. We’re on a quest for tacos and we’re discussing the finer points—Should we get pork or beef? From where? How many?—when you decide to make our conversation your business. You’ve been loitering outside the bar with your friends, but you hear the word “taco” and soon you’re in lock step with us, asking us about our “tacos,” laughing, hooting back to your friends. We push past—literally shoving you—and continue on our way.
Here are some things you should know about my week: I’m on the phone with my mom on my way to yoga when a guy leans out of a doorway, drags on his cigarette and gestures with his pelvis how much he is enjoying my yoga pants. I’m walking home from the grocery store and a middle-aged guy, maybe high, maybe drunk, yells at me, “Get back here, girl!” I’m waiting for the bus when a carful of bros whips by; one leans out the passenger window, points at the girls waiting at the bus stop and yells, “Yes, Yes, No…Yes!” After work, I’m walking from the train to my apartment and four teenagers are trailing me, discussing my body, guessing measurements; they know I can hear them.
This behaviour causes her to feel unsafe. This is understandable as she is a young woman and these men are quite obviously under-civilized brutes; rape or violence would not seem to be an impossibility in some of these situations and given the inherent physical inequalities between the sexes there is little she could do to defend herself (excepting carrying a gun, which someone who writes for Jezebel is unlikely to do).
This is not my issue with what she has written. The incivility of modern times sometimes irks me as well, although, as a tall, broad-shouldered man with confident bearing, I rarely worry for my physical safety.
Rather, my issue is that, as feminists are wont to do, she blames “the patriarchy” for the incivility of ruffians.
She, of course, being an miseducated feminist is oblivious to the twin facts that:
1) Men being uncivil is not “the patriarchy”, it is the breakdown of the patriarchy. It is men being freed from the constraints which the patriarchy put upon them.
2) The left-wing feminist politics she advocates are the primary cause of this breakdown.
Because of this her analysis, such that it is, is flawed.
****
Men’s sexuality, absent civilizational constraint, is naturally aggressive and promiscuous. These men laughing at a woman’s “taco”, grabbing ass, and doing pelvic-thrusts, are acting out their natural sexuality.
At one point in our society, this would have been unacceptable behaviour. Under the old order, lovingly referred to as the patriarchy, but probably more accurately referred to as civilization, civility towards woman was standard; it was called chivalry.
Men raised under this order would have been loath to issue even a mild oath in the presence of a woman, let alone crassly harass a woman over her “tacos”. Had a man been uncivilized enough to harass a woman in such a way, he would have suffered immediate consequences in the form of violence from other honourable men, and more permanent consequences from a loss of social status.
As an example of the sort of man the old order raised, we can use one Samuel Proctor, who tipped his hat towards a woman. When said woman asked what that meant he replied:
Madame, by tipping my hat I was telling you several things. That I would not harm you in any way. That if someone came into this elevator and threatened you, I would defend you. That if you fell ill, I would tend to you and if necessary carry you to safety. I was telling you that even though I am a man and physically stronger than you, I will treat you with both respect and solicitude. But frankly, Madame, it would have taken too much time to tell you all of that; so, instead, I just tipped my hat.”
A man raised in the old order as Mr. Proctor was, would never have even considered joking about a woman’s “tacos”.
Civilization was used to control men’s natural sexual aggressiveness to create men like Mr. Proctor, who acted civilized and would control their aggressive sexuality for the betterment of society and the safety of women.
Some decades ago, a cabal of dissatisfied women under the label of feminism and a small, but vocal minority under the banner of affiliated progressive ideologies decided they did not care for civilization and its constraints. They rebelled against it and fought a long, hard ideological war to destroy it.
They won.
This cabal destroyed the old order and with it the control it had over men’s sexuality.
Men are now free to be uncivil brutes. Civilization no longer holds full sway over them.
Hence, “tacos.”
****
So, in finale:
Dear Feminist,
This is the world you desired.
You and your ideological kin spent decades ruthlessly destroying the old order which kept men civilized. You smashed the patriarchy which kept men’s naturally externalized sexuality healthly internalized and productively directed.
You denigrated the institutions which controlled men, smashed the civilization which ordered men, and have created a generation of brutes and half-men.
You asked for sexual license. Men are now free to express their sexuality without consequence.
You asked for freedom to pursue hedonism. Men are now pursuing hedonism.
You asked to be freed from the rules of civilized conduct. Men are now freed from these rules as well.
You rejected your role as a lady. Men are rejecting their role as gentlemen.
These rules were made to protect you, dear woman. The patriarchy was made for your benefit. The old order existed to serve you.
You desired, nay demanded, them destroyed, and destroyed they have been.
When you destroy civilization, incivility will be the order of the day.
You have got what you asked for, enjoy it.
Regards,
A Traditionalist
My answer is shorter. The behavior of other men is not my problem, you wanted equality, you’ve got it.
“Men raised under this order would have been loath to issue even a mild oath in the presence of a woman, let alone crassly harass a woman over her “tacos”. Had a man been uncivilized enough to harass a woman in such a way, he would have suffered immediate consequences in the form of violence from other honourable men, and more permanent consequences from a loss of social status.”
I detect a not-so-subtle white knighting in this post. Why is it necessary to use force to respond to words?
Furthermore, this sort of “chivalry” is not the true traditionalist viewpoint. Rather, it is the modern imagining of a narrow segment of Victorian-era society. The real question for a traditionalist is, why were these women at a bar in the first place? Besides, if you go to a bar, then you should not be surprised if you encounter unpleasant interactions.
It seems that Free Northerner is still pining after some sort of fairy-tale chivalry. I am all for the revival of patriarchy. However, I have no sympathy for this type of white knighting, and I believe most men would feel the same way.
@ matt: Also a good view of it, but that wouldn’t make for much of a blog post.
@ Anon: It’s not white-knighting. White-knighting is defending a women for no reason, simply because she has a vagina. See my earlier post on chivalry linked in the post. Under the old order, women were protected because they were worthy of protection; they submitted themselves to the leadership of the men in their life, and leaders protect those under their care. It is a mutually beneficial relationship.
In this particular post, I am defending no one, I am simply pointing out the consequences of destroying civilization to the oblivious.
But yes, I do pine for some sort of “fairy-tale chivalry”.
Damn good post
Well, I agree that there were benefits to chivalry, but I believe that threatening violence just because a man made fun of a woman’s “tacos” is taking things too far. Being a bit uncivilised is part of the ritual of men getting drunk. If a woman goes to a bar, then she should be prepared for that. (And that was why traditionally women who do go to bars were invariably “bad women”.)
Besides, it is not as though all women were saints or worth defending back in the old days. Men kept women on a shorter leash back then, and so women kept their worst excesses in check. However, some defining characteristics, such pettiness and a certain recklessness with regard to truth, were probably still common to the fairer sex, and most men understood this. Varium et mutabile semper femina.
In my view, a man only has the obligation to defend women related to him by blood or marriage. (If a woman is not related to him, then he should leave it up to her family to defend her.) Even so, a man should always be wary of committing proxy violence on a woman’s whim. Justice, which includes proportionality, ranks higher than a woman’s demand for retribution based on real or imagined slights.
FN:
GOod post.
The best part is the letter at the end.
Couple of things:
1. The authoress would not have written the piece had the men ogling her and making catcalls at her been attractive men. You wouldn’t have heard a word of this had the men acting like this looked like Bradley Cooper, Channing Tatum, Brad Pitt or the ubiquitous George Clooney.
Women complain only about sexual conduct by men they find unattractive; not about men they are attracted to. If women complain about sexual conduct by attractive men, it is a form of projection and “sourgrapes” that those women cannot partake in what is on offer.
2. Women want to live by two sets of rules: Women’s rules, in which the only rule is that whatever a woman chooses must be made safe by men; and men’s rules, in which men must live by 1950s chivalry codes.
“Some decades ago, a cabal of dissatisfied women under the label of feminism and a small, but vocal minority under the banner of affiliated progressive ideologies decided they did not care for civilization and its constraints. They rebelled against it and fought a long, hard ideological war to destroy it.
“They won.”
Well, the dissatisfied women want civilization, but they want unattractive beta men to create, maintain and sustain that civilization with their money, sweat, time, labor and lives if necessary. Those women want those unattractive betas to stay away from them and out of sight; other than to change the oil in their cars, sell them their Absolut at the convenience store, serve them their Big Mac meals, fix their house’s plumbing and electrical, and carry away their garbage.
To those women, we have a problem when those beta men start getting uppity and earning money and thinking they might want sex and all that. Unh unh, no way, betaboys. Nope. You just shut up, do your jobs, head on back to mom’s basement, play your video games, and wack off to internet porn. Know your place. Don’t be thinking you’re gonna get any of this.
Those dissatisfied women wanted the freedom to fuck like men, and to have sex with alpha studs without marriage, without consequence and without judgment.
Men are the embodiment of authority.
Women are the embodiment of manipulation.
Authority is far more powefull than manipulation.
Conclusion: the rise of the rule of women will always result in a dramatic loss of discipline, both public and private.
Source: observing todays schools in comparison to the same institutions a couple of decades ago.
Prediction: as women need order far more than men do, they will beg (crying and down on their knees) men to take over again.
Wake – In patriarchy I trust
A great post on the consequences of feminism and taking down ‘the patriarchy’. It makes me sad to learn there’s a jezebel writer in Chicago. Luckily I avoid drunk 2 am tacos
I agree that the old chivalry wasnt white knighting. If theres an equal contract between the sexes that is actually kept to there’s fair reason for such behavior. At this present moment the social contract is so broken I dont even bother holding open the door for anyone but the elderly or handicapped
Reblogged this on Morticia's Musings and commented:
I liked this post as it touches upon several of the themes I discussed in the New Feminism posts.
@ Anon: I don’t think so. I think a threat of low-level violence for uncivil behaviour (ie. the concept of honour) keeps society civil. Women are incapable of threatening this low-level violence, so the men in society need to provide it for them. On the other hand, women (and men) who don’t want to be the object of uncivil behaviour should avoid places where uncivil behaviour is acceptable (ie. bars).
There are very few saints, but under the old order most women held to some level of public decorum and submission to those men in authority over them and most men reciprocated with public decorum and decency towards women.
@ deti: Glad you liked it. Women desire to have the best of both worlds; they desire rights without the corresponding duties. Sadly, this is not uncommon nowadays from either men or women, although, in the realm of inter-sexual relations, women do seem to have the greatest desire for privilege.
@ Wake: What can not go one forever, will not go on forever. A society that denies the natural order will eventually stop functioning and return to the old ways.
@ Leap: Exactly.
@ Morticia: Thanks.
When property, women and children is owned by the father in the case of marriage and family. So shall patriarchy be.
When people refer to their old family homes as my Father’s house. There we have civilisation.
But Free northerner. Why has patriarchy fallen to feminism so quickly and easily, do you agree with this guys analysis that patriarchy always manages to end in feminism?
Race.
https://80proofoinomancy.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/we-have-a-winner/
If this is simply a lack of civilization, a lack of rituals of language to hide what one truly thinks or to express it while causing the least amount of possible insults, why don’t they treat her like they treat each other? They don’t behave like gentlemen to each other, I’m sure – but they do consider, and therefore treat, each other as equals, as persons, not as background decoration or as tools.
Carrying a gun would not be enough; defense would at minimum require being faster at the draw than all attackers. Otherwise, they would – understandably – feel entitled to defend their own lives with violence; at best, they’d take her gun away and be a lot angrier than before; at worst, they’d shoot her with their own guns. An armed society may be a polite society, but it is in a precarious balance.
Exactly. That’s a large part of the point.
Oh, the patriarchy has done both. It has both given men the idea that women are not actually people, and put the mentioned constraints on them – constraints that have always fallen off at the first opportunity, in particular when additional power imbalances were involved. Knights have been mentioned; wasn’t it a pastime of theirs to, as they called it, “deflower virgins”? Wasn’t “rape and pillage” a normal part of warfare in those days?
The patriarchy puts women on a pedestal and makes damn sure they stay up there and don’t move. When they move, they’re punished; and when men want a particular woman down from that pedestal and think they can get away with it, it happens very quickly, and it is immediately blamed on the woman. I wouldn’t want to be on a pedestal. Would you?
Oh, some men’s is. Some women’s is, too. Other people have a calmer and/or more monogamous demeanor, even absent any civilizational constraint.
I don’t have numbers on this any more than you do. However, the existence of sexually aggressive and promiscuous women, and the existence of men who don’t feel constrained by the cultural expectations you mention, makes me think that the patriarchy imposes a constraint on women and again a double constraint on men – being aggressive and promiscuous is widely considered something to brag about, being insufficiently so is sometimes considered grounds for shame, but this is not mentioned in polite conversation.
That’s not the problem.
She rejected her role as a lady – and they rejected her role as a human being. That is the problem.
This is a myopic look at the situation.
Exactly. In a patriarchy, there are many things that women are not allowed to do, simply because they’re women. When one does them anyway, she ends up punished one way or another, and even the people who think the punishment may have been a tad harsh agree she brought it on herself. The victim is blamed, again and again and again.
Is that healthy?
…So you recognize that you’re pining for a “past” that has never been. Why then call it a past? Why do you call yourself a traditionalist when you actually want to boldly go where no man (heh) has gone before?
*eyeroll* In my view, and in that of the law where I come from, everyone has a duty to defend everyone against dangers to life & limb to the best of their abilities, and the same things are allowed in immediate self-defense as in the immediate defense of others.
Honor is for Klingons.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Not if she felt threatened, which was clearly the case. If anything, them looking attractive and then turning out to be assholes would add the element of disappointment.
1) Did you seriously believe it’s some kind of objective fact whether you’re attractive or not? People’s tastes differ. Brad Pitt has been mentioned; every time he shows up on the TV, my sister turns away and retches, and she only ever spits his name. (…Her reaction to the young William Shatner as Cpt. Kirk is quite different.)
2) You’ll never get any sex. That’s because sex isn’t a thing that can be given or taken, let alone one that anyone is entitled to receive. It’s an activity. It can be something that two (or more) people do with each other and for each other, or it can be a (usually paid) service; but it’s not a thing, and you can’t get it.
LOL. Never mind women – how many men do you actually know? :-)
OK, let’s wait. :-)
Would you very much mind putting a timeframe to it, though? I’m sorry, but I’m reminded of all those religious predictions that the world is going to end “soon”… I prefer testable hypotheses. :-)
~:-| Strange. I hold the door open for everyone who isn’t too far away.
(Apparently the patriarchy wants me to slam it into men’s noses. I guess “patriarchy hurts men, too” is supposed to be literally true.)
I think it keeps it murderous and makes it inclined to blame the vast majority of victims.
Again, it’s for Klingons.
David M.:
Patriarchy isn’t a wrongheaded cultural system. It was actually a series of compromises between the male imperative/super-norm and that of the female. Males want polygyny but when unrestrained it leads to warfare and deadly competition. Females want serial monogamy. When unrestrained it leads to cultural breakdown. Both unrestrained imperatives/super norms lead to many male sexual have-nots, which is a bad thing for any civilization. (Do we really want upwards of 10 million or 15 million men with no legal or societally sanctioned sexual outlet other than internet porn? Well I think we’re about to find out what such a society looks like.)
“Not if she felt threatened, which was clearly the case. If anything, them looking attractive and then turning out to be assholes would add the element of disappointment.”
Wrong. A Channing Tatum wannabe who turns out to be an a**hole is a bonus for such a woman. Not only is he hot, he’s “troubled” and “needs the love of a good woman”.
“Did you seriously believe it’s some kind of objective fact whether you’re attractive or not? People’s tastes differ. Brad Pitt has been mentioned; every time he shows up on the TV, my sister turns away and retches,”
Yes. Physical attractiveness has objective characteristics. Brad Pitt is classically good looking: Square jaw, V-shaped torso, muscular definition, slim/trim yet muscular build. Not to mention confidence and dominance — the man has acting chops. The fact that one person whom you know doesn’t really tingle for him does not mean that he is not attractive.
“You’ll never get any sex. That’s because sex isn’t a thing that can be given or taken, let alone one that anyone is entitled to receive. It’s an activity. It can be something that two (or more) people do with each other and for each other, or it can be a (usually paid) service; but it’s not a thing, and you can’t get it.”
No one is entitled to sex. However, men can persuade women into sex or activate attraction triggers to move toward sex and make it more likely to happen in particular encounters.
Sex is a “thing”. It is a commodity, a thing of value. Like it or not, women trade on it, barter with it, use it, offer it, and withdraw it. It has differing values depending on the woman possessing it.
To David Marjanović:
“*eyeroll* In my view, and in that of the law where I come from, everyone has a duty to defend everyone against dangers to life & limb to the best of their abilities, and the same things are allowed in immediate self-defense as in the immediate defense of others.”
Well, I am not sure where you come from, but according to the common law, there is no duty to volunteer. In any case, it is a bad idea to “defend women” in general. When a conflict involves a man and a woman, it is not possible for an outsider to know what actually happened. There is his story, her story, and then the truth, which no one knows.
I would concede that “the same things are allowed in immediate self-defense as in the immediate defense of others”. However, “reasonable and necessary force” must be applied. This means, if Free Northerner picks fights with the “uncivilised men” mentioned in the article, he would be on the wrong side of the law every time.
I have dealt with “white knight” situations in my criminal defense days. Every time, the men were gullible fools, who never paused to analyse the truth of the situation. Equity, whether by law or morality, was not on their side. Look at this from another perspective: A good woman would not ask her menfolk to be “white knights”, because she would not want to endanger their lives. If she was truly aggrieved, she might call the police. If a woman asks you to fight some guy who “insulted” her, chances are she is not such a great girl herself.
To Free Northerner:
I will limit myself to one point at this time: It seems likely that back in the old order, there were as many false allegations as today. Possibly even more, because the more women were pedestalised, the easier it was for them to incite gullible men into violence on their behalf.
The fact is: A joke in bad taste may deserve a stern talk. It does not deserve “low level threat of violence”.
Besides, all of the examples which the authoress mentioned are ambiguous. Maybe the guy was really talking about tacos, rather than “her tacos”. Maybe the guy was simply switching positions rather than “gesturing with his pelvis”. Maybe the authoress simply made up these examples.
In a small town, your “low level threat of violence” basically means: The popular families rule the time, because their girls can point fingers, and people would believe them, (or at least pretend to believe them). The ones screwed over are poor men, whom no one likes anyway.
In an urban setting, picking fights with other men to defend women will get you in hot water eventually. He that lives by the sword will die by the sword.
I do not mean any disrespect to you or your blog, but I will take the opportunity to make this point, since you have been polite to me so far.
Correction: “rule the town”, not “rule the time”.
There were of course crude men in the past, too. Look up words like “masher” and “wolf whistle”. And there are chivalrous men today, though like anyone else who behaves himself we will never read about them in the papers.
“This behaviour causes her to feel unsafe. This is understandable as she is a young woman and these men are quite obviously under-civilized brutes”
Nope. This is not understandable, it’s ridiculous. The fact that she feels “unsafe” because of some losers who likely won’t do anything is just silly.
“Men’s sexuality, absent civilizational constraint, is naturally aggressive and promiscuous.”
It is naturally aggressive but not towards women. That aggression is usually used to PROTECT women and children, not to harm them. As for promiscuity, I have no issue with that. You seem to have the same view of men as many feminists and that is as evil sexual predators who need to be “tamed”. That’s bullshit. Men don’t need “civilizational constraint”, they can be civil on their own(hell, that’s how they built the civilizations in the first place!) much like women(who have their own naturally negative tendencies that don’t benefit men like men’s do women).
“1) Men being uncivil is not “the patriarchy”, it is the breakdown of the patriarchy. It is men being freed from the constraints which the patriarchy put upon them.”
There never has been a patriarchy in the colonized West. It was originally a Monarchy(ruled by a QUEEN), not a patriarchy. And, like I said before, men don’t need these “constraints”, they can constrain themselves on their own just fine. We’re not some apes who need to be tamed, moron.
David Marjanović:
Why don’t they treat her as they do each other? Because they don’t have to. There is less threat of counter-aggression from a weaker individual.
Every society is in a precarious balance. I would agree an armed populace is an unsatisfactory solution to the problem — a better solution would be a civilised authoritarian society.
It’s a normal part of warfare in these days too, or any days for that matter. At least the knights were expected to strive towards an ideal of self-restraint — “To protect the weak and defenceless, to give succour to widows and orphans”. You’d prefer a Viking berserker?
Like a china ornament. Thing is, china ornaments and women have one thing in common — they’re both easily broken by big strong bulls. The pedestal keeps them out of harm’s way. Remember your Thucydides: “The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must.” What can the strong do? They can aspire to be a Christian Knight or a Pagan Barbarian. You would have us believe there is a third option — the Starfleet Officer.
Sure it does, which is why the key words are “think they can get away with it”.
What’s “want” got to do with anything? “And which of you by taking thought, can add to his stature by one cubit?”
Well at least the conversation is polite. But the patriarchy put a check on male aggression and promiscuity.
They rejected her role as a human being because they rejected their roles as gentlemen because she rejected her role as a lady.
It’s not a question of “not allowing” women to hang around bars and “punishing” them if they break that arbitrary, oppressive rule. It’s a question of discouraging them from putting themselves in situations that have an intrinsic potential for danger and harm. Don’t stick your hand in the fire. As for ‘victim-blaming’, if a scantily-clad woman decides to walk down a dark alley in a big city and is raped, the moral blame lies with the rapists. The victim is guilty of nothing — except stupidity.
Ideals are always present. The past acknowledged certain important ideals that the moderns have rejected. The ancients and medievals may have failed to live up to those ideals — welcome to the human race — but at least they recognised them.
That way lies ‘making the world safe for democracy’, ‘nation-building’ and suchlike fantasies. Charity begins at home.
Klingons are real — they’re a type of person. So are Vulcans, although less common..
Enough Star Trek philosophy — here’s some B5:
– I’m an eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth kind of guy.
– So you support a system that would leave everyone blind and toothless!
– Not everyone. Just the bad guys.
Oh yes it is!
MAN is the embodiment of authority. (‘Man’ as opposed to ‘woman’, rather than ‘man’ as opposed to ‘beasts’.)
Maybe the world has already ended and you just haven’t noticed. : )
Very good article FN, though I’d say that it wasn’t “patriarchy” that kept people in line so much in the old days as it was the traditional western Judeo-Christian value system.
Funny, though. The traditional value system that kept women’s feral natures in check was called “patriarchy”, and now the destruction of that very value system which has freed men’s feral natures is… called “patriarchy” as well.
To a feminist, “patriarchy” is just a catch all term they use for anything they don’t like. (I suppose the opposite of “patriarchy” would be a utopia where women were free to do whatever they pleased without consequence, whlle men would always do as they’re told with no expectation of reward or benefit. )
@ Anon:
I accepted her at face value about the situation. It may be mistaken, but so it goes.
You are correct, crude jokes in themselves are not a cause for violence, but stern disapproval would likely end the incivility and the possibility of male violence would normally keep it from from escalating.
As for the rest, it’s not a perfect system and I never claimed it was, but with fallen man, no system is.
@ Sanity: True, but my impression of it is that civility was the rule, while incivility is now the rule, rather than the exception.
@ Mingtian: The key word is “likely”. There is still a chance. I’ve never been a woman, but I am given to understand that they worry a lot more about their physical safety than men. Which is understandable, when you are significantly weaker and unable to defend yourself.
@ deti & Alex & anon: Good responses to David.
@ David: I would respond, but most of what I would have said were said by either deti, anon, or Alex.
@ Retrenched: Exactly. Patriarchy seems to be a catchall for anything feminists don’t like. It’s used to end rational thought and is a poor analytical concept.