When discussing the suffering of refugees in Africa, she noted, with great emphasis on how much more women and girls suffer than men and boys, especially in poor and war torn areas, that “80% of refugees are women and girls”.

This of course raises the question of what happens to the men and boys in the villages from which all the women and girls are fleeing? Somehow I don’t think they stay behind and play nintendo and watch movies.

Does anyone want to guess?

Not a peep out of the audience.

She then describes a woman who escaped with her daughters to a refugee camp where she was raped by guards repeatedly, but how she eventually made her way to the U.S. where she and her children are now thriving. She points out that when she was driven from her village, attackers killed her husband in front of her.

Her anecdote provided the answer to the question left hanging in the air, and still, not a peep out of the audience.

Simply amazing.

Google doesn’t translate this term, Pelle. Does it roughly refer to those who are involved in gender studies?

In my daily commute to NYC, I see thousands of miserable looking women in their late 30’s, early 40’s. Why would ANY sane man want to attempt a relationship with such washed-up hags?

This the REAL truth of Sex and the City: Women in their 20’s and early 30’s who put off relationships with good, honest, hard working guys in their search for Mr. Right; ping-pong back and forth between mealy mouthed ‘Nice Guys’ and oily ‘Players’ during that period until they’re turned into psychotic wretches; ignore biological reality and choose their ‘careers’ until they realize that the joke’s on them and a job is just a job, and the terror-stricken looks on their faces when they realize that they’re going to be FORCED to go to these jobs five days a week for the REST OF THEIR LIVES because no man is going to choose to support them at that point.

The truth is that a great deal of Western women have become spoiled, narcissistic whiners that no real man would ever chose. When women learn how to cowgirl up, take responsibility for their own decisions and face reality, and stop blaming everyone else for their problems, they’ll be better off.

- THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH
- YOU CAN’T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO

As a single male in an American city, my experience with nearly ALL women (not just feminists) is that they want equality when it’s convenient, and chivalry when it’s convenient. They insists that gender differences are a social construct, and then ten seconds later insist that we adhere to biologically dictated, evolutionary roles. The fact that in doing so they are committing an intellectual and moral about-face within a ten second time frame is completely lost on them. It’s all about what they want, when they want it. Such an attitude is venal at best, suicidal at worst.

Feminism, like most Cultural Studies subjects of the postmodern milieu, rejects fact and logical argument and elevates extreme subjectivism in their place. Linear knowledge itself is scorned as a ‘patriarchal construct’: the search for truth is deemed an impossible endeavor. Is it any wonder, then, that the ‘truth’ consists of whatever a woman wants it to be in the moment, according to her ‘feelings?’ Is it far-fetched to conclude that a woman might not be able to see the TRUTH in front of her because the truth-seeking part of the brain has atrophied in a culture of relativism?

Thomas Sowell is right when he says that life is about Trade-Offs. if you want something Here, you’re going to have to give up something There. There is no such thing as a free lunch. But contemporary western women, fed on an unachievable Utopian diet of You-Can-Have-It-All feminism, have convinced themselves that there is indeed such a thing as a Free Lunch, which is why so many western women are miserable.

Feminism argues Equality, but it does not argue against the purchase of shiny, expensive baubles (read: engagement rings) for women to make them happy. It does not argue against government legislated chivalry like alimony, welfare for single mothers, or women only scholarships. It doesn’t acknowledge that 99% of workplace deaths are male. It doesn’t acknowledge that the wide majority of suicides are male. It doesn’t acknowledge the millions of men in dangerous or monotonous jobs who keep western civilization going, nor the conspicuous lack of women who line up for these jobs when there are openings. Instead, Feminism cherry picks its way towards ‘Equality,’ relying on its Marxist ‘All women are victims, all men are oppressors’ ideology. Feminism wants government legislated equality when its convenient, and government sponsored chivalry when its convenient.

It isn’t a mystery why this wide-spread, government sponsored chivalry trickles down into personal relationships. If it walks like a duck . . . well then, it’s a feminist.

When a man fought another man for a woman’s honor it was under the presumption that that woman could not defend her own honor (and when it came to combat chances are she could not because sexist presumptions kept her away from learning how to fight and pushed said man into learning how to fight). Hell the fact that she had some sort of “honor” that actually warranted a duel to the death to defend is a sexist presumption pushed on her and those men (unless the one that offended her honor actually committed some criminal act against her).

As you say if you strip out the sexist presumptions and practices and have a true level playing field between the genders then those things they do for each other are simply acts of kindness. If I chose to help someone in a fight regardless of gender then I’m just trying to help. If I’m depending on a gender check (as in if its a woman then I assume she needs help because she can’t fight and if its a man I assume he does not need help because he can fight) then I am indeed falling back on chivalry.

Now if they want to redefine chivalry (because feminists love redefining things that are not to their liking) great but its pretty damn sexist to men and women to want to try to incorporate chivalry as it traditionally defined into feminism.

From that article:
I think that some men may feel that being chivalrous is letting a feminine side show, and that they may not want to be teased by their male counterparts.
While I’m not certain of the writer’s gender (Jayme seems to be a woman’s name but I can’t be sure, it might be male or unisex) but this leads me to think that its a woman writing it. Among men performing kind gestures for a woman is something that we don’t tease each other about. Hell in many cases NOT performing a kind gesture for a woman can invoke teasing (namely having his masculinity questioned).

I believe that chivalry is still alive and kicking, it just takes a certain man who is okay with his sexuality and his identity to find it.
I can say that as a man in this day and age it doesn’t take that much security in my sexuality and identity as a man to perform chivalrous acts. The REAL challenge is not performing those acts and then having to deal with people (yes people as in men and women) trying to “call you out” for not doing them.

The writer of that article seems to me to be too hung up on labels (especially his/her label as a feminst) and is maybe getting a bit confused on chivalry. He/she wants to cherry pick from chivalry and dress it up in feminist (because you know that something is not valid until it is labeled feminist right?) clothing but he/she either doesn’t realize or doesn’t want to see that those behaviors are already a part of “equality” and “being nice”.