Search Results for 'chivalry'

[ConstantineParticipant]

Oh God yeah.

Women don’t want equality, they want convenience. They want to be treated like men when it suits them. As soon as they notice a side of equality that sucks (the draft, criminal accountability, paying for things), they whinge about whatever happened to chivalry. We’ve all seen many, many times when a girl would say, “Just think of me as one of the guys.” Doing so would eventually trigger, “How dare you, I’m a lady!” Sometimes it takes longer than others, but it always happens.

Remember the meme.

EQUAL RIGHTS!
EQUAL RIGHTS!
YOU CAN’T HIT ME!
I’M A GIRL!

To see what is in front of one's nose requires a constant struggle. -Orwell

I know I’m unlovable
Untouchable
Inedible

No-one to hold me tight
But I’ll be alright
It’s inevitable

I know what they say
“There’s eremite”
Keep my lips sealed tight
I’ll be alright

My futures
Looking bright
No-one picked on me
Today

However
The past causes
A blast
Of
Corrosive delay

Enzymic
The clock
Continues to tick
At night
I’ll be alright

I know I’m unreachable
Unimaginable
Intangible

A sore sight
But
I’ll be alright
It’s manageable

My right cheek is still
Meek
From all the turning

My ears yet burning

My heart continues yearning

In spite
But I’ll
Be alright

I’m versed
In all 73

Rehearsed the pain
At Calvary
Through
Chivalry

But it’s just me

But I’ll be alright
But I’ll be alright
I’m alright
I’m alright
In my plight

[Joey AlfioParticipant]

Secret Agent MGTOW wrote:

the natural male inclination is to help others in trouble because the majority of guys believe in the golden rule.

But that’s what eventually leads to white knighting, and inevitably, gave men enough confidence in women by allowing them to vote. For men being so helpful and caring as you say, we expected women to follow in the same manner and look what that brought onto us. I’d rather men stay truthful and not give a f~~~ than reminisce about the good old bulls~~~ days.

Secret Agent MGTOW wrote:

Gynosociety is destroying this. Because women. You cant know if they are going to screw you over when you are trying to help them.

Then let it. What is worth saving these days? Chivalry? Women? The State? Corporatism? Let it all crumble.

Δεν υπάρχει τίποτε αδύνατο γι’ αυτόν που θα προσπαθήσει. - Μέγας Αλέξανδρος

[BrainPilotParticipant]

Somebody pin the appropriate medal on this Magnificent Bastard while I go buy him a case of the beer of his choice!

Having demanded, and received, every possible unearned advantage assignable to ‘equality’, women are in NO POSITION to expect ANY measure of ‘chivalry’.

VV, compared to what you and those other men would have done if a man (an actual equal) had done what she did, that bitch got off way easier than she deserved. I don’t condone violence either. But we all know damn well that actual men have gotten their asses beat by other men for doing the crap that she did.

Look, it's not my fault that tornado dropped a house on your sister. Now get back on your broom and get your ass out of here... and take your monkeys with you

[JustAnotherGuyParticipant]

hdvrod wrote:

It was, in modern times, adapted as a chivalry gesture to show women “respect”. But it’s origins are far from today’s intent.

Oh my god, that is the most based thing I’ve read this week.

Cupcakes are Cold. MGTOW is Absolute Zero.
“Let us wait a little; when your enemy is executing a false movement, never interrupt him” –Napoleon Bonaparte, 1805

[hdvrodParticipant]

TaxGuy wrote:

Dude, don’t you know? Women and children first! And for the record, that’s not “Children and women” first. Even in that equation women come first. Where do you think the entitlement comes from?
I’m sure when she tells that story to 100 people at work for the next two weeks she’ll conveniently leave out the part where she cut in front of 6 men in line. Because…vagina.

What’s really ironic, and women today have no f~~~ing clue about this, is that the origin of letting a woman enter through a door first comes from medieval times when men would never walk into an unknown place for security reasons. The custom where women were shuffled through the door first served to use them as guinea pigs to see if there was an ambush waiting on the other side. It was, in modern times, adapted as a chivalry gesture to show women “respect”. But it’s origins are far from today’s intent.

Anyway communication, real open communication, is not wanted or even required in a relationship. Women cannot handle fully open and honest communication, plus most perceive it as a weakness on the part of a man. All that is required is catering to her whims, and even then nothing is certain. There is no way to be sure of having a successful relationshit with a woman. MGTaoist

[ConstantineParticipant]

If I saw a man and woman fighting in public, I would ignore it – and have before. There’s no way in hell I’m risking my own safety for some lippy c~~~ who probably wouldn’t even be grateful. I believe in minding my own business anyway, it’s not my place to make assumptions about something that doesn’t concern me. Especially when, regardless of how the scene appears from the outside, she’s not helpless at all. She has the entire advantage over him. If not physically, then socially. There are dozens of people who would intervene if things got violent, and as many guys on here have said already, there’s always the three failsafe numbers she can dial.

But if I saw a woman drowning, burning up in a crashed car, or about to fall off a cliff, I would do something. But I’d do that for anyone, not just a woman. I don’t think of it as chivalry, it’s basic decency. I admit I hold a lot of grudges against women and never intend to get involved with one of them again, but I still want to be a good person. I have a conscience and would feel awful if I let someone die. But it would have to be a pretty extreme situation – something where death would definitely happen if I didn’t act.

If it’s not a matter of life and death, then I’m going nowhere near it. So if a woman’s car breaks down, she’s struggling to lift something, or she’s fighting with her boyfriend in some public area, tough s~~~.

To see what is in front of one's nose requires a constant struggle. -Orwell

[BrainPilotParticipant]

you can pay a woman equally, but you will not get equal work from her. What you will get is a demonstration of the ‘performance gap’. No matter how ‘equally’ you treat them, they will still demand chivalry in addition to the equality they’ve already received, and this will be clearly evident in the difference in performance relative to pay that will manifest as soon as pay is equalized.

Look, it's not my fault that tornado dropped a house on your sister. Now get back on your broom and get your ass out of here... and take your monkeys with you

[SpiderHerderParticipant]

No more chivalry.

Save worthy people first.

Then women and children. lol

[sidecarParticipant]

Anonymous wrote:

the men followed chivalry and let the women and children in the life boats first.

Meanwhile the women were crying “ladies first” (and to hell with the children).

Which is why children had a higher mortality rate on the Titanic than women.

[Anonymous]

Those guys weren’t throwing themselves in front of you like human shields. They were just rushing the door in front of you to get out and pushed you to the back. The one dude that actually helped her she didn’t have much nice to say about. She has to have men dying for her to get sufficently wet for a night of vibrating cats.

There is no rule that women get saved first on boats or anywhere else. More and more men are taking their rightful place in lifeboats, shootings and other dangerous situations.

On the Italian vessel that sunk a few years ago, the Costa-Concordia, showed men pushing women and children to get in the life boats. A few people died on that boat.

When passengers board a cruise ship they are assigned to a specific lifeboat according to the location of their cabin. People mobility issues – unable to walk or blind assigned to a specific one – are the only people who get priority and they are assigned a special lifeboat to access. Once they’ve been allocated their lifeboat that’s the limit to their legal protection. We would expect people to help others who need it, but that’s difficult to mandate in law.

People could be anywhere on the ship. If you got into a situation of children being forcibly evacuated without their parents that would be problematic. These things have to be left to the good sense of people on board. It would be immaterial to write guidance for people who are in an extremely traumatic and tense situation. These are difficult times and you’re relying on people’s characters rather than what the rules say. The most straight forward way of approaching this is for people to go to their prearranged station and where people with family groups will know whether they are there. To move to a different scenario would cause even more confusion.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/jan/16/costa-concordia-women

From a very detailed article on the titanic and dealing with sex differences in survival. The conclusion is that class was more important than sex in who survived. First class survived much better and second or third. But, it seems that in every class, the men followed chivalry and let the women and children in the life boats first.

The Magina’s that will remembered forever as the simps they were.

WOMEN AND CHILDREN FIRST?
In simple terms, almost all of the women and children in First and Second Class survived, while most of the women and children in steerage died. In contrast, most of the men in First, Second, and Third Class died.
The “Women and children only” rule was applied on the port side of the ship. It is not clear whether or not the “Women and children first” rule was applied on the starboard. Men comprised the majority of passengers aboard the First Class starboard deck lifeboats, but there was testimony that the men did wait until all the women present and willing had already boarded.
First Class women and children were about 6% of those aboard the Titanic, but constituted 20% of the survivors. In contrast, steerage passengers were a third of all aboard, but only one fourth of those saved.
At least three of the four women in First Class who perished had the opportunity to board a lifeboat but elected to stay with their husbands and/or family. When they initially made their decisions, most passengers still believed that the Titanic would and could not sink and may have been fearful for the safety of the lifeboats and the boarding process itself. There were several
Over half of the women in steerage perished.
All of the lifeboats launched from the starboard First Class Deck had more men than women aboard.
Who was a child was relative depending on class. For example, 14 year old Lucile Carter in First Class was considered a child, but a 14 year old Annie McGowan in Steerage was considered to be an adult. The only child in First Class to go down with the ship was Lorraine Allison. The Allison family was separated from their infant son. The Allisons refused to board a lifeboat until they could find their missing baby. Since the child’s nurse had already been taken him on board a lifeboat, the rest of his family never found him and died together.
It may be statistically insignificant because of low numbers, but children from Second Class were the only members of a group to have a 100% survival rate.
Less than a third of the children from steerage survived.
Although half of the Irish women (defined as women boarding in Queenstown) survived, only one of the six Irish children survived (and I am including 14 year old Annie McGowan, whom some do not).
ADULT MALE PASSENGERS
Honor and shame ruled society in 1912 unlike they do a hundred years later. Gentlemen were expected to be honorable and feared being shamed. Men aboard the Titanic, especially those among the upper class, had to weigh their own survival with doing what society would deem the right thing. To survive but live in shame was a risk some men would not take. Different men, dispite which class they belonged to, made different decisions. Famously several of the wealthiest men, John Jacob Astor, George Widener, and Isodor Strauss, refused to board a lifeboat on grounds of honor, even after it was clear that the Titanic would sink.
Men in First Class had no better than a one in three chance of surviving, so compared to women, even women from steerage, they fared poorly. Compared to men from other classes, they did remarkably well. At the time when most of the lifeboats from the First Class decks were launching, it was not certain among the passengers that the Titanic was doomed, and many of the men from First Class who could have gone aboard a lifeboat (those on the starboard side) elected to remain behind.
Even though some men had no trouble boarding lifeboats, there was a report that the wealthiest man on the Titanic, John Jacob Astor, attempted to board the lifeboat with his wife, but was rebuffed by Second Officer Lightoller, who told him, “Women and children, only, sir.” Other accounts are differ, however, including one that he was seated in a lifeboat, but gave up his seat at the last minute. Another is that Astor chose to stay behind to encourage William Carter to get on board, promising the boy that he would take care of his dog.
An adult male in Second Class had only an 8% chance of surviving. Even adult male steerage passengers had a better chance of surviving than that. Without supporting evidence, it is hard to say that the men from Second Class gave up their seats to women from steerage, but if it was true, they were more gallant by far than the men from First Class.
Men in Second Class had no physical barriers to pass, so honor and resignation may have reigned high. However, more compelling than a sense of good manners and gentlemanliness was probably the stigma of shame and cowardice that would be attached to many adult males who had the audacity to survive the sinking. As a result, adult male survivors had compelling reasons for their defensiveness and inventions of excuses for boarding a lifeboat.
Panic and confusion may have been an even greater consideration for the loss of life by many men. As Lawrence Beesley, a Second Class passenger, reported in his 1912 book, The Loss of the SS Titanic, a false rumor that men were allowed to board lifeboats on the port side caused many men to cross over to the side of the ship where they had a much smaller chance of being allowed on board a lifeboat.
A high percentage of the men in steerage who got to lifeboats reached them only by leaping onto them after they were launched or by scrambling aboard the two emergency lifeboats as they floated off moments before the Titanic finally went down.

http://www.icyousee.org/titanic.html

[Vajra VarahaParticipant]

He became a white knight to ensure his mother’s approval. You’ll have to flip the script slowly otherwise it’s a threat to the identity he’s already formed. Kids learn by copying when younger than his current age. You aren’t at a good place cause at 14 he’s old enough to recognize the conflicting beliefs but doesn’t have the frontal lobes yet to really get it. So go very slow. Shift his white knight hero complex slowly away from serving women to serving society and himself. Use this as an intermediate stage. While reframing chivalry as manly, use it to build up physical activity. Outdoors. Mechanics. Labor. Crafting. Science. Whatever. And video games to develop healthy aggression and competitiveness. Say women like those and they make you attractive. Which is true. But the intent you will shift over time. As he comes around, shift his views on women slowly to let him know they are like flowers. Beautiful to look at but relatively useless and can become a stinking mess rapidly. Encourage female contact. You won’t overcome the hormones cause he’s now looking for a replacement mom strongner than ever. So he will have to likely learn the hard way. Get him active in dating as soon as possible so he can get thru the rejection And guide him that AWALT. Then when he starts to ask about women’s behavior. Slowly introduce the concepts. Don’t try to steer him away. He has to come to that himself. Otherwise you’ll just end up with an angry INCEL and none of us want that. You’re looking at years of work brother. Patients, love, and slow teaching.

[Eric LauderParticipant]

Carnage wrote:

Eric Lauder wrote:

Carnage wrote:

I wont say sorry, f~~~ you tim and MRA, im ok with the law as they are, im ok with divorce rape, im ok with single mom parasites, im ok with male suicide.

The new laws that are coming are going to affect even MGTOW, just few examples:* New rape laws (Sweden and Spain) are gonna threatening MGTOW who like pump & dump* Misogyny is to be classified as an hate crime in UK.* Spain is revising the penal code to make it “gender sensitive”: it could end even in men being responsible for NOT helping unknown women attacked by other men. I’m not joking: “gender sensitive” modifications is codeword for “enforcing chivalry/white knighting into law”.

1) i dont pump and dump.2) i got a passport, i get the f~~~ out.

Sure, but many MGTOW still pump & dump.
The above laws and policies are likely gonna spreading in the whole western world within about 10 years.

The main flaw in MGTOW is that quite a lot of men seems to think that being a MGHOW makes them untouchable: nope, it makes a man much less likely to be catched, not totally untouchable.
Furthermore this attitude could even fuel an attitude about not caring about law changes: this is very dangerous, being MGTOW doesn’t mean that we should close our ears and eyes. Men’s ignorance is among the main weapons of gynocentrism.

MGTOW is like a sixth sense, but having a sixth sense doesn’t make us bulletproof.

SUPREME LEADER KIM JONG-UN'S FASHION STYLIST - if you want a new look or if you're a very beautiful trans you can call me, phone number +85079255312 / mobile 01921421211. The worth of a man isn't the usefulness that women get from him. Avoiding living with a woman, a man isn't rejecting a lot of sex: he's rejecting sexual starvation. MGTOW IS TACKLING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CONVENTION OF ISTANBUL: http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/090000168008482e --- Article 4, Section 4 "Special measures that are necessary to prevent and protect women from gender-based violence shall not be considered discrimination under the terms of this Convention". WHAT I LEARNT FROM A GENDER STUDIES CLASS IN LUND, SWEDEN: every time feminists accuses men of doing something, odds are likely either them or persons associated with them are doing the exact same thing but a lot worse. WHO I'M RIGHT NOW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1okpAj7Fhw Basically my former life have been a conflict between this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz_RQVkvke4 and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFIMeyTK-sU That's, more or less, all about me.

[CarnageParticipant]

Eric Lauder wrote:

Carnage wrote:

I wont say sorry, f~~~ you tim and MRA, im ok with the law as they are, im ok with divorce rape, im ok with single mom parasites, im ok with male suicide.

The new laws that are coming are going to affect even MGTOW, just few examples:
* New rape laws (Sweden and Spain) are gonna threatening MGTOW who like pump & dump
* Misogyny is to be classified as an hate crime in UK.
* Spain is revising the penal code to make it “gender sensitive”: it could end even in men being responsible for NOT helping unknown women attacked by other men. I’m not joking: “gender sensitive” modifications is codeword for “enforcing chivalry/white knighting into law”.

1) i dont pump and dump.
2) i got a passport, i get the f~~~ out.

To those following me, be careful, I just farted. Men those beans are killers.

[Eric LauderParticipant]

Carnage wrote:

I wont say sorry, f~~~ you tim and MRA, im ok with the law as they are, im ok with divorce rape, im ok with single mom parasites, im ok with male suicide.

The new laws that are coming are going to affect even MGTOW, just few examples:

* New rape laws (Sweden and Spain) are gonna threatening MGTOW who like pump & dump

* Misogyny is to be classified as an hate crime in UK.

* Spain is revising the penal code to make it “gender sensitive”: it could end even in men being responsible for NOT helping unknown women attacked by other men. I’m not joking: “gender sensitive” modifications is codeword for “enforcing chivalry/white knighting into law”.

SUPREME LEADER KIM JONG-UN'S FASHION STYLIST - if you want a new look or if you're a very beautiful trans you can call me, phone number +85079255312 / mobile 01921421211. The worth of a man isn't the usefulness that women get from him. Avoiding living with a woman, a man isn't rejecting a lot of sex: he's rejecting sexual starvation. MGTOW IS TACKLING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CONVENTION OF ISTANBUL: http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/090000168008482e --- Article 4, Section 4 "Special measures that are necessary to prevent and protect women from gender-based violence shall not be considered discrimination under the terms of this Convention". WHAT I LEARNT FROM A GENDER STUDIES CLASS IN LUND, SWEDEN: every time feminists accuses men of doing something, odds are likely either them or persons associated with them are doing the exact same thing but a lot worse. WHO I'M RIGHT NOW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1okpAj7Fhw Basically my former life have been a conflict between this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz_RQVkvke4 and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFIMeyTK-sU That's, more or less, all about me.

[Eric LauderParticipant]

Branched off wrote:

Eric Lauder, I think you are being a little harsh when you suggest I might be retarded.
If a state makes something illegal, they are sending a signal to the people about the general public sentiment around it -that it is not a good choice.

Using the law as an educative tool to force a social agenda is a feminist concept: the law is meant to avoid actual harm to society.

Branched off wrote:

It is then possible to turn a blind eye to it when it comes to enforcement. An example would be the possession of cannabis in several countries.

But this sends another message: “the state is inefficient/corrupt, that’s why laws aren’t being enforced”

Branched off wrote:

There is a huge difference between turning a blind eye to something and promoting it. The moment you legalise what has been illegal you are promoting it.

No.
Example being Putin’s Russia: homosexual sex isn’t a crime, while homosexual propaganda is a crime.
Example number 2 being mgtow.com: a member can be openly gay/bisexual, what he can’t do is to promote gay sex as “a tool to fight against gynocentrism” – because the latter it’s clearly a scam (feminists do it with lesbianism) while the former is a feature and nothing more.

Branched off wrote:

Look at your TV screen on an average Saturday night and see how many homosexuals are all over it. Are there more or less than when Obama legalised homosexual marriage? Are there more or less homosexual couples on TV shows?

That’s because it’s a new thing and therefore perceived as trendy.
It’ll become boring to the general public when the trend will pass: a *yawn* is immensely more powerful than blame and harsh criticism.

Branched off wrote:

The legalisation has become a sort of promotion.

Nope.
You’re talking a about a recent trend following legalisation of homosexual marriage, we’re discussing about decriminalization of homosexual sex: sodomy laws were abolished in USA starting in 1962 and most states had already abolished them by 1985. Therefore the trend you see in TV is unrelated with decriminalization of homosexual sex.

Branched off wrote:

In the end homosexuality is a reproductive disability -it makes it harder to reproduce because you seek sexual gratification from men and they can’t give you children.

Homosexuality make impossible to reproduce, not just “harder”.

Branched off wrote:

Some people are born homosexual, others are born swinging both ways and can be nudged into one life or the other depending one the reinforcement they get from early sexual experiences. It is not an ideal life.

You don’t know the dynamic at play.
Men who are bisexual are more or less equally attracted to both women and men, usually men who are bisexual tend to be more attracted towards women than to men (there’s a biological reason for that: women need just only to look fertile to be f~~~able, so it’s 80% women being attractive to them).
BUT
A lot, very likely most, bisexual men tend to become exclusively gay.
This isn’t due propaganda, this is due attrition: there’s such word as an “easy woman” but there’s no such word as an “easy man” because all men are easy compared to women.
Thefore bisexual men switching to full gay is just common sense in the long-run: a bisexual man who would be equally attracted to both women and men, and being himself average looking and average wealthy, is practically destined to become gay in the long run. The bisexual men who doesn’t switch to full gay are either much more sexually attracted to women than to men or they’re better looking/more wealthy than average, or both.

It isn’t about propaganda: indeed pure lesbians are extremly rare, and bisexual women tend to become straight.
Because for a woman it’s the very opposite, it’s easier to be straight: a woman just have to sit on her hands and wait for men making efforts to impress her. While being lesbian require them to do quite a lot of work, and furthermore lesbians do not have men to exploit for cash and prizes.

Branched off wrote:

If you want to see it being easier to be accepted as a bachelor then yes this is good news but it is rather selfish good news.

MGTOW is about self-preservation above all else, other thoughts come after self-preservation.

My idea is that old school ideas cannot save western society, because it’s exactly old school ideas who were exploited by feminists: in example feminism could never succeed without chivalry and men being ready to sacrifice themselves for women’s wellbeing.
Indian culture have similar weaknesses, and the feminists are already exploting it: in example in India it’s legal for adult women to have sex with little boys, while it’s a crime for adult men to have sex with little girls. Even if that’s unnatural and absolutely anti-biology: in nature a powerful adult man can provide for a whole harem of young women and even teens, and having a lot of healthy offspring, while an adult woman getting pregnant from a little boy unable to provide for her while pregnant would be a biological dead end.
The above behavior is fully unnatural, against biology, and yet there’s a similar attitude in the whole west, and yet in India it’s even enshrined within the law.

Branched off wrote:

I am a reluctant MGHOW. I do not like the world being all messed up. MGTOW is to my mind the escape pod from a burning culture, set on fire by liberalism and feminism (which is a child of liberalism). I never wanted our culture to burn. I don’t want India to burn either. I am not, however, Tuna.

MGTOW provide actual benefits, immediate benefits, compared to having legal duties towards women: the report of the bank account isn’t an opinion, it’s hard numbers.
On the other hand, society can’t be saved trying to keep to do the same, since it was the old attitudes who enabled feminism. It’s quite the opposite: “let it burn” is much likely to end feminism, because men not caring force women to deal with actual responsibilities and actual issues, and most women would rather wear a burqa than having actual responsibilites…

SUPREME LEADER KIM JONG-UN'S FASHION STYLIST - if you want a new look or if you're a very beautiful trans you can call me, phone number +85079255312 / mobile 01921421211. The worth of a man isn't the usefulness that women get from him. Avoiding living with a woman, a man isn't rejecting a lot of sex: he's rejecting sexual starvation. MGTOW IS TACKLING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CONVENTION OF ISTANBUL: http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/090000168008482e --- Article 4, Section 4 "Special measures that are necessary to prevent and protect women from gender-based violence shall not be considered discrimination under the terms of this Convention". WHAT I LEARNT FROM A GENDER STUDIES CLASS IN LUND, SWEDEN: every time feminists accuses men of doing something, odds are likely either them or persons associated with them are doing the exact same thing but a lot worse. WHO I'M RIGHT NOW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1okpAj7Fhw Basically my former life have been a conflict between this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz_RQVkvke4 and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFIMeyTK-sU That's, more or less, all about me.

[Secret Agent MGTOWParticipant]

Anonymous wrote:

Woman breastfeeding her infant on a train in the UK, no one will give up their seat for her. The BBC picks up the story (oh, and it’s a MAJOR ONE) and quotes her as saying “…not one person offered a mother carrying a small child a seat for three stops. I shouldn’t have to ask.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-45421266
Stupid c~~~, maybe if your gender weren’t falsely accusing men of “sexual misconduct”, or perhaps no one wanted to have you sitting next to them with two screaming brats ?

So being treated as an equal isn’t what women want…..?

Men as a general rule, don’t give up seats for other men. Other equals.

You cant just demand chivalry when you’ve been screaming your entire life for equality. F~~~ing c~~~s.

Women want everything, but want responsibility and accountability for nothing.

[KeymasterKeymaster]

Nags4Cash wrote:

Open the door for yourself you lazy falsely entitled c~~~s.

True story… it was 1993 – which was my very first experience with a “feminist” type. Never before did I meet a c~~~ who was so blatant. I was coming out of a downtown bank building, and this woman with two bags was approaching. Because of something stupid instilled in me, I actually backed up and held the door for her. Like a door man!

“I can get the door myself.”

I let it slam into her shoulder and carried on. It actually p~~~ed me off, and it damn near knocked it over. I even felt good about it. It stuck in my mind for years. A landmark moment, because that was the day my “red pill” attitude started to kick into high gear – without fully understanding why. I was seeing more and more of this s~~~ty attitude in women and I think her joyless expression had something to do with it.

—

A couple of years ago, a man was shot in a MacDonald’s by a white-knight piece of s~~~ who was p~~~ed off because this guy didn’t hold the open for HIS queen. That p~~~ed me off too.

I posted about it here and SWORE I would not hold the door for a woman for a full year – not even as a basic courtesy. I would make a deliberate ordeal out of NOT opening the door for any woman…. and I was hoping to run into one of these white knight assholes.

OFF TOPIC…..

Recently I encountered a white knight at a coffee shop when his skag was yacking on the phone as she was keeping a line of people waiting. I walked up to her from behind and said “You just about done on the phone yet?”.

Dude was like “OK no no no… you don’t speak to her like that. Not cool. That’s really rude.”

In a booming voice without blinking: “I just did. And “rude” is what she is doing. Which is MY point, so why don’t you teach her some manners instead.”

It felt terrific.

BACK NOW….

Women can’t seem to open anything correctly without a man’s help. A jam jar. A conversation. Potato chips. Nail polish. Their legs. Women have expected me to open all of those for them. So why would a door be any different? I don’t hold the door for her because I’m “nice” or “well brought up like a gentleman”. I hold the door because I know if I don’t, she’s gonna walk right into it and give herself a nasty bump on the head!!

When a woman makes a big deal out of it, says “thanks” or accuses me of being “chivalrous” …. that’s ^^ what I tell her. “I don’t like bruised peaches either. And that’s not chivalry. “

Chivalry –>> is when some poor schmuck has to put on his suit of armor to make sure his Tinderella isn’t whoring herself out on oldsnatchdotcom , facebook, tinder or any other dating websites.

( It festers in their minds all day. Sometimes for weeks. )

So yeah. I’ll still do it. But I will red-pill the s~~~ out of her.
Because I don’t want to get shot by some pathetic White Knight piece-of-s~~~.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[Secret Agent MGTOWParticipant]

Equality or chivalry. Can’t have both. They start hitting men, they are telling you they want to be treated equally like any other man that would hit you.

Women want everything, but want responsibility and accountability for nothing.

[ArcturisParticipant]

Knarley Bob wrote:

They are all convinced that they are a “Princess”.

It’s all conditioning – much like we’re taught to be the Prince that saves them. That sacrifices for them and gives them everything they need.

I don’t blame them anymore just choose to stay out of it.

We all know this, but EVERY WOMAN feels entitled to their ‘Brad Pitt’. Regardless of what they have to offer (which is nothing but vagina) every woman wants a 6ft man with a 6 figure income.

There’s no benefit to relationships nowadays. ‘Womanry‘ is dead so why should chivalry survive?

I’ll be dating myself for the forecoming years. Treat myself from time to time & take myself on holiday. Hey, I might even take myself out for a steak this weekend.

I encourage you all to do the same 🙂

Protect Your Sovereignty. Women WILL TRY To Manipulate You. #NOCONTACT #ICETHEMOUT