Chivalry and power in contemporary marriages

Chivalry and power in contemporary marriages

The code of chivalry associated with the medieval institution of knighthood emphasized bravery, courage, honor, valor, justice, military skill, generosity, a readiness to help the weak, and courtesy to women.

The term “chivalry” originates from the term for horseman in French, because the horseman (later the “knight”) had to be self-disciplined to take care of his horse, his fellow man, and his king. His caretaking was manifested by his willingness to go to war, but at least as much by his willingness to take care of all others who did not have the strength to take care of themselves. (Wiki mentions the widow, the child and the elder. Other sources add “the woman” to this list.) Many women need men for a certain type of care, but not because they’re helpless, but rather because they want to grow in certain ways through their relationship with men.

While we can argue about what the term “chivalry” originally meant and how it has been used in the past, in current popular usage it refers to courteous—and to some, old-fashioned—behavior of men towards women. Chivalrous men open doors for women, give a woman their coat if the woman is cold, and protect a woman from harm, for example, by blocking the path of a drunken man on the street bent on accosting the woman. The chivalrous man is a man of honor.

To some, chivalry implies that women are the weaker sex and in need of male protection. Women aren't supposed to need men, and women who love chivalry and willingly and proudly agree that they need men are deemed to be beneath contempt. Feminists refer to women who need men as “damsels in distress” because they wrongly assume that women who desire strong men do so because they are intellectually weak and thus unable to think and act for themselves. Some feminist critics of chivalry despise chivalrous men on the grounds that the chivalrous men (allegedly!) prefer weak women, or are trying to keep women weak and helpless through their chivalry. Chivalrous men are paternalistic oppressors, harming women by being courteous and kind to them and by protecting them. What man other than a weak man would prefer a weak woman or want to keep women weak, they ask.

But feminists have this wrong. Imagine saying to a noble knight of yore that he is weak because he is willing to die for his country or to protect the widow. When you cannot immediately change your irrational instinct to avoid personal harm at all costs (and so your instinct is to act selfishly), a willingness to nonetheless sacrifice oneself in defense of moral probity is no weakness, it is the highest virtue. It comes from determination, strength, and will. Chivalry brings the kind of tenacity that leads soldiers to fight in noble wars and less glamorously but no less importantly husbands to do whatever it takes to ensure that their wife is cared for and that their marital relationship is nurtured, regardless of the vicissitudes of his or her immediate feelings.

Many women love a modern knight who embodies this steadfast tenacity to defend what is good, for example, in the marriage relationship even when things are tough. Taken In Hand is a modern day celebration of the man who puts his wife and their relationship first and dares to set things right in his family when there is a problem.

That’s why life in a Taken In Hand relationship is precisely not difficult and indeed is downright enjoyable and fun. If you are willing to put in the effort required to make your marriage a Taken In Hand one, you too will find that your marriage will become more fun, more passionate, and a source of more joy. A tuned car is a joy to drive.

According to some authorities, men tend to feel more love for their wife the more they do for their wife. Some in the manopshere warn against chivalry precisely because of this. Being in love with a woman gives her power over you, they say. Be desireless, and you have more power. Feel indifferent, and you have more power. Don't do things for a woman, because it will make you love her more, and if you love her more, you will be in a weaker position. Bring her down so that you are relatively stronger. Diminish her power to give yourself relatively more power.

There is some truth in such contentions. Weaker men might indeed feel the need to protect themselves by taking action to diminish their love and reduce the power their woman has over them, but at what cost? Those who know the intense pleasure and contentment of passionate love for the good woman who is their wife would laugh at the absurdity of the idea that they would be better off if they were not in love with their wife.

It may be easy for me to say, as a strong man who is both passionately in love with my wife and firmly in charge my my wife, but I think that weak men would be better advised to make a concerted effort to work towards becoming stronger themselves rather than taking the negative, dishonorable path of diminishing the good things that give their woman a little power. The power you give her through your chivalrous actions, by being in love with her and through your fidelity, can be balanced and easily exceeded by being her lord and master, taking and keeping her firmly in hand. A strong man does not need to diminish his wife or his love for his wife. A strong man can be chivalrous, passionately in love and faithful to his wife and still have enormous power over his wife.

Devote effort to making yourself stronger if necessary. If you choose instead to avoid chivalry, fidelity and passionate love, you will actually be weakening yourself as a man and diminishing your pleasure, passion and enjoyment in your marriage, and sooner or later you will become dissatisfied in that barren wasteland.

If you are as yet unmarried, again, my advice is to make yourself the strongest, most morally, honorably powerful man you can be, so that you will never have to diminish or mistreat women to give yourself the toxic, empty, and ultimately unsatisfying power of pseudo-strength. When you have the steadfast strength to love a woman passionately and faithfully and to master her firmly and decisively, only then seek the woman who will be your Taken In Hand wife.

The physical manifestations of taking a woman in hand are overtly sexual but for moral purposes. In the context of a marital commitment of husband and wife, neither can refuse the other for long the transcendent moments of sexual intimacy that anneals the bond between them, because each must be open to the other. And yes the man will enforce this intimacy with no more swagger then he exhibits when tuning his car. It just makes the marriage run smoothly.

The confidence that both have in each other—because of the noble steadfastness of the modern knight—allows his wife to relax and the man to drive.

Men who take their women in hand are very well aware that their women can be physically strong and even more frequently intellectually vigorous. They wouldn’t have it any other way. Like the country he is also willing to protect, she’s the best. A woman of valor worthy of her knight.

The concept of chivalry includes the concept of courtly love, involving a marriage of spiritual discipline and erotic desire in the knight who possessed it. According to Wiki's citation of Francis Newman, it is a love that was “illicit and morally elevating, passionate and disciplined, humiliating and exalting, human and transcendent.” That is a good description of the love in a Taken in Hand marriage. Indeed, Taken In Hand has improved on the old idea of courtly love, by bringing the eroticism firmly into the marriage, annealing the marital relationship with the white hot fire of erotic passion.

Caleb

Taken In Hand Tour start | next

Comments

Romance

A feminist myself, I'm very fond of chivalry and puzzled by some people's offense at it. Until I read some manosphere comments, I hadn't realized it was controversial. My husband would run into a burning building for me. Peculiarly, some people would think less of him for that.

The manosphere absurdly portrays female desire for male dominance as a revelation—a secret to be discovered. But professors teach this secret in introductory psychology courses at your local university, and my nephews (all under eight) are entirely familiar with the alpha male ideal and anxious to measure up. That some women desire discipline is taught less often, so it's understandable some men miss those notes.

Taken in Hand is different not for its celebration of male dominance (common enough) but in its respect for a husband's conscientious, thorough love for his wife, his noblesse oblige.

Um

Rescue And Risking One's Life A Weakness? Huh?

Um sez " My husband would run into a burning building for me. Peculiarly, some people would think less of him for that."

Say what? I can't wrap my head around that. Your husband loves you. The loss of your life would be more devastating than the loss of his own life. I don't understand why some folk would have a negative opinion of him saving you, which, in turn, would save his own life.

Um sez "Taken in Hand is different not for its celebration of male dominance (common enough) but in its respect for a husband's conscientious, thorough love for his wife, his noblesse oblige."

My interpretation of "Taken In Hand" is that the Man places the life of his Woman above his own. He views his life as worthless without her. With this in mind, why wouldn't he risk his life to save hers? Chivalry is all about a man of honor getting what he wants whilst honoring the woman he desires. If her life is at risk, then True Love dictates that he does all he can to protect her from the Ultimate Misfortune. The lore of Chivalry is filled with such tales of distress and rescue. In every case that I have seen, the Defender viewed his life as worthless if he failed mission of rescue.

--
Mick McCleod

Chivalry

Chivalry has never meant a lot to me, I've never had any particular desire to have doors opened, coats taken off etc. I don't regard it as having anything much to do with Taken In Hand, these are just slightly old fashioned courtesies that some men observe and some don't. It is about what they have been taught to do mostly I think rather than any particular alpha-ness.

Courtly love meant a man obeying the every command of the woman he loved, no matter how capricious or unreasonable the demand was. That idea is rather at odds with the Taken In Hand idea of the husband being in charge.

I don't know what to make of very young boys being ambitious to be alpha males: small boys are not normally very chivalrous.

Louise

Different Emphasis

Holding doors for your wife and giving her your coat when she is cold are outward manifestations of an inward predisposition.

The outward behaviors could be different and surely are in those non-Western cultures that also have a tradition of males behaving in a noble way with respect to women. The specific behavior is not what's relevant.

Chivalry does not involve obedience to women. It involves obedience to higher moral principles. This obedience can mean sacrifice to avoid selfishness if one is unable to rapidly change one's self-serving inclinations, but this is obedience to principles not people. Chivalry at one point did involve obedience to the king, but only because it was (sometimes mistakenly) thought that the King possessed a higher morality that was bequeathed to him by God.

Obedience to higher moral principles does involve helping a woman get what she wants, as long as what she wants genuinely helps her (and so doesn't hurt the relationship). And doing so creates an emotionally richer, a more intellectually sophisticated, and more satisfying woman to dominate.

Caleb

Chivalry and Courtly Love

Chivalry as such did not involve obedience to a woman, but the code of courtly love did. A man was supposed to obey any command from the object of his adoration, no matter how capricious.

Running into a burning building to save somone you love doesn't strike me as particularly chivalrous, it's a spontaneous desire to save the object of your love. I'd run into a burning building to save my children for instance, but I don't regard that as chivalrous particularly.

As for boys under eight wanting to attract women, I must admit this notion surprises me somewhat. I didn't realise that some boys were interested in that sort of thing so young, my own sons as far as I can remember were mostly interested in Lego at that age, and Pokemon.

Louise

Character and Will Create Happiness

There are many interpretations of "courtly love" because the term is a recent invention. I can see how it can be confusing.

I am referring to the type of courtly love in the Middle Ages that Edmond Reiss (cited by Wikipedia) associated with "caritas", Christian love.

According to Wikipedia,"the love that is caritas is distinguished by its origin, being divinely infused into the soul, and by its residing in the will rather than emotions, regardless of what emotions it stirs up. According to Aquinas, charity is an absolute requirement for happiness, which he holds as man's last goal."

Caleb

Chivalry

Oh, I'm not saying my nephews are chivalrous although they can be sweetly so sometimes. I'm saying they know that the tough, quick, smart man in charge attracts women. Grown men on Athol Kay's blog act like this is news. Were they raised by aliens?

I agree with you, Louise, that a man can be in charge without being chivalrous, but I disagree with the manosphere sentiment that chivalry weakens a man. Also, I think of chivalry as encompassing more than the courtesies—I connect it with my husband's protection and physical care for me. My husband is not always polite with me in his speech, and I can sometimes beat him to the door.

Um

Actually...

@ Um

Quote: "I'm saying they know that the tough, quick, smart man in charge attracts women. Grown men on Athol Kay's blog act like this is news. Were they raised by aliens?"

Actually, it seems it's you who live in the outer space. Don't you watch films? The mantra of society is that the soft, considerate guy gets the girl.

Maybe your nephews have strong role models in their family? In my family it was women who ran the show, not counting me being beaten into submission as a child by my elder sister and female cousins. Therefore such concept was indeed alien to me.

Quote: "I agree with you, Louise, that a man can be in charge without being chivalrous, but I disagree with the manosphere sentiment that chivalry weakens a man."

Chivalry means that men put women on a pedestal, thus lowering men's value. Women want to look up to men, not down. If you look at the kind of men women fall for in their youth, you can easily see that chivalry doesn't buy men anything. Even worse, the manosphere is filled with reports of aloof players who get laid behind the back of women's chivalrous boyfriends. Hence you better forget chivalry in your detoxing process of burning the doormat you were taught to be, or you will never make it. Chivalry is a luxury for high-status men. This is what the manosphere teaches, and they are right.

Quote: "My husband would run into a burning building for me. Peculiarly, some people would think less of him for that."

Because you won't do the same for him, would you? Hence he's seen as a sucker.

Love and Chivalry

“Chivalry is a luxury for high status men.”

Well yes. A man who believes that he is weak and (more importantly) acts as if he is will not attract women by being chivalrous. But chivalry does not weaken the man who is already strong. It merely strengthens his relationship.

I sometimes hear the same type of hatred from parts of the manosphere (against women) that one hears from radical feminists (against men). Women don’t consider strong, decisive, take-charge men to be doormats just because they also happen to be gentle. One does not have to put women down to be successful. And any success that comes from hurting your lover ultimately destroys you, too, because both of you have less to work with.

Relationships are not a zero-sum game such that if one is better then the other is worse. And even if it has always seemed that way, men who don’t know how to create relationships can learn how to do so.

If you know in your heart that there has to be a better way to be respected by a woman than bringing her down (and you also know about Taken in Hand), you start by taking charge in small ways. Women who don’t seem to like men who do that can be safely ignored. They are not Taken in Hand material.

But there are women who will enjoy your making small decisions for her. Such women can be encouraged with even more decisive behavior. But make sure you have thought about and know what is best for the both of you when you make your decisions. Then act on them.

When you see a twinkle and respect in her eyes, you are succeeding. You know that your behavior is drawing her to you because she knows that you will not tolerate anything that does not help both of you to improve. She needs to know that you won’t tolerate her treating herself badly, just as surely as you will not tolerate her treating you badly, and just as surely as you will not treat her badly. Find the strengths in the woman you care about and nurture them and insist that she does too. Take charge by enforcing ethical behavior in your home. When you do this, you gain her respect: You gain it not because you are putting her down, but rather because you are raising you and her up.

Even if you were taught to be a doormat (as a boy) by important women in your life, you do not have to subject yourself to this any more as an adult. The opposite of a doormat may be an angry player in the manosphere, but either horrible role denies the possibility that a relationship between lovers can grow and enrich them both.

Radical feminists and those woman-manipulators in the manosphere need to understand that when you keep fighting over a fixed pie, it can only lead to more fighting about less pie. Good relationships are creative and grow, with potentially infinite opportunity for both.

Chivalry is a consequence of being in charge in a healthy way, not a cause of it. It is the protective love that you feel toward your wife because you have mastered her well and so see the respect and joy and admiration in her eyes, and you just never want to let her down.

Offering her your coat then seems to be such a small thing to do...

Re: Actually... (@Zephyr)

Zephyr wrote:

Don't you watch films? The mantra of society is that the soft, considerate guy gets the girl.

Not being a chick flick lover, I don't see that in films. Which do you have in mind?

I do hate the way men are depicted in TV ads though. I hate cynical, humiliating jokes about men/husbands too.

In my family it was women who ran the show, not counting me being beaten into submission as a child by my elder sister and female cousins.

Gulp. That explains why you seem so bitter towards women. In my family it was my father who was the head of the household, not my mother. But Zephyr, you really can't judge other women by those in your family. Women, just like men, are individuals. Making negative gross generalisations is a mistake. Having this bitter attitude towards women is likely to poison your relationships with women, resulting in bad experiences that you would not have had if you did not have a chip on your shoulder.

It seems such a shame that so many men and women are going around feeling cynical about and bitter towards the other sex instead of feeling more positive. It makes good relationships impossible.

Chivalry means that men put women on a pedestal, thus lowering men's value.

It means nothing of the sort. Indeed, feminists complain that chivalry is an aspect of patriarchy, and that it puts women down and victimises them by implying that they are incapable of opening the door themselves, etc. Both victim feminists and victim masculinists are wrong about this. It may make those in these groups feel devalued, in which case, ok, if, for reasons I can't fathom, being chivalrous makes you feel less valuable as a man, don't do it, or if you are a woman who feels offended and victimised by chivalry, presumably you will want to ask men not to be chivalrous with you. But in both cases I might wonder why you would feel like this, and wonder whether your feeling like this is good for you, or whether it might be better for you if you were to rethink your ideas about chivalry and be a bit less upset by the idea.

You think it is obviously true that chivalry involves putting women on a pedestal, and feminists think it is obviously true that chivalry carries the victimising subtext that women are less capable can't manage trivial tasks without help from men, but at least one of those two positions must be mistaken. In fact they are both mistaken.

The grain of truth in your position, Zephyr, is that there are men who do unwisely put women on a pedestal, who are chivalrous as part of that. But in that case it is not the chivalry that is the mistake, it is the putting women on a pedestal that is the mistake. My father has always been very chivalrous and believe me, he is the master of his house. My grandfathers were the same.

There is even a grain of truth in the feminist position, namely, that women who are a bit psychologically fragile and who do not feel quite sure of themselves as effective individuals in the world, do in some cases experience chivalry negatively, as though the chivalrous men are saying to them that they are incapable of opening the door themselves etc. But the reason they feel thus victimised is, in my view, that they themselves do not feel sure of themselves as competent, effective individuals—they are still trying to convince themselves that they are worthwhile competent persons.

When one feels more sure of oneself these fears are absent. And when these fears are absent, chivalry can become a way of drawing attention to, and acknowledging, the fact that one of the persons is a man, and the other is a woman. For some of us, that is erotic.

Women want to look up to men, not down. If you look at the kind of men women fall for in their youth, you can easily see that chivalry doesn't buy men anything. Even worse, the manosphere is filled with reports of aloof players who get laid behind the back of women's chivalrous boyfriends.

It is not because their boyfriends are chivalrous, it is because their boyfriends have failed to take charge, and the women concerned need masculine dominance in order to feel sexually aroused. But just as some men are capable of fidelity, so are some women. But when you have the right woman, to make fidelity easy and thrilling for her, take charge, keep her in line and be sure that you yourself wear the trousers in your marriage.

The Boss

Late reply but not least.

The Boss wrote:

Not being a chick flick lover, I don't see that in films. Which do you have in mind?

I'm not a chick flick lover, either, hence I can't remember any film title. It's likely that I deleted them from my memory, where they were using up undeserved space. However, many chick flicks revolve around a woman who has to choose between a thug—possibly in jacket and tie—and a sweet guy, and after getting burnt—but laid, before it—by the thug, she falls into the arms of the sweet guy. Another common plot is the thug tamed by the lady: he was not a thug, just a troubled man needing her to rescue him. Wait! Now that I've thought about it, a title has appeared in my mind: Bridget Jones. I'll better become more thorough in my brain cleanings.

Gulp. That explains why you seem so bitter towards women. In my family it was my father who was the head of the household, not my mother. But Zephyr, you really can't judge other women by those in your family. Women, just like men, are individuals. Making negative gross generalisations is a mistake. Having this bitter attitude towards women is likely to poison your relationships with women, resulting in bad experiences that you would not have had if you did not have a chip on your shoulder.

I'm not bitter towards women, not at all. And the women in my family are actually positive role models for women, in my opinion. I'm not bitter, only I've turned cynical and numb to the thought of a relationship with a woman beyond sharing a bed or an entertaining evening together.

It seems such a shame that so many men and women are going around feeling cynical about and bitter towards the other sex instead of feeling more positive. It makes good relationships impossible.

I do agree. I've read a lot of bitterness from both halves of the sky.

It means nothing of the sort. Indeed, feminists complain that chivalry is an aspect of patriarchy, and that it puts women down and victimises them by implying that they are incapable of opening the door themselves, etc.

Feminists - modern feminists, I mean - know nothing.

You think it is obviously true that chivalry involves putting women on a pedestal, and feminists think it is obviously true that chivalry carries the victimising subtext that women are less capable can't manage trivial tasks without help from men, but at least one of those two positions must be mistaken. In fact they are both mistaken.

Nope. Mine is truthful. Indeed, many women thrive on misunderstood chivalry. Heck! We've got laws to enforce chivalry, so to speak.

The grain of truth in your position, Zephyr, is that there are men who do unwisely put women on a pedestal, who are chivalrous as part of that. But in that case it is not the chivalry that is the mistake, it is the putting women on a pedestal that is the mistake. My father has always been very chivalrous and believe me, he is the master of his house. My grandfathers were the same.

We agree on this.

There is even a grain of truth in the feminist position, namely, that women who are a bit psychologically fragile and who do not feel quite sure of themselves as effective individuals in the world, do in some cases experience chivalry negatively, as though the chivalrous men are saying to them that they are incapable of opening the door themselves etc. But the reason they feel thus victimised is, in my view, that they themselves do not feel sure of themselves as competent, effective individuals—they are still trying to convince themselves that they are worthwhile competent persons.

Modern feminists know nothing, I said it already.

When one feels more sure of oneself these fears are absent. And when these fears are absent, chivalry can become a way of drawing attention to, and acknowledging, the fact that one of the persons is a man, and the other is a woman. For some of us, that is erotic.

I see what you mean.

It is not because their boyfriends are chivalrous, it is because their boyfriends have failed to take charge, and the women concerned need masculine dominance in order to feel sexually aroused. But just as some men are capable of fidelity, so are some women. But when you have the right woman, to make fidelity easy and thrilling for her, take charge, keep her in line and be sure that you yourself wear the trousers in your marriage.

The harsh truth, the sad reality, The Boss, is that behaving like a thug gets a man laid. When I behave like a thug, women warm up to me. It's sick. Sure, being a strong confident man will get you laid as well, but becoming such a man takes a lot of effort. Is such an effort justifiable? In my opinion it is not. No woman is worth it.

I'm not a woman hater. Believe me on this. I don't think women are worse than men. Just different. Nature made them that way, and for good reasons. But nature can't force me to deal with it. Why am I here, then? Well, I discovered this website some time ago, when I wasn't this detached. And I enjoy exchanging views with people who think differently.

If you write an answer and wish for a reply from me, please let me know at: egarrulo at gmail dot com.

Cheers.

Who be you?

"When I behave like a thug, women warm up to me. It's sick. Sure,
being a strong confident man will get you laid as well, but becoming such a
man takes a lot of effort. Is such an effort justifiable? In my opinion it is
not. No woman is worth it."

Being strong and confident takes work, inner work, the toughest kind. The effort is justified, not to get laid, but because it brings out the best me, which is not my inner thug! I choose to make the effort for me and the guy I shave in the morning.

JOE

Sorry, man.

Sorry, Joe, but being strong and confident won't get you laid on itself. This is something I missed in my original comment. Women have their own agenda when looking for a relationship, and "strong and confident" is just a slice of the cake. You can be as strong and confident as you want, but women may keep dismissing you. You are more likely to hit the sweet spot by acting like a thug. This is the wisdom of the seduction community. And they are right. They understand women better than women understand themselves.

Thug

One can be aggressive, be flirtatious, be sensual, be fun and sexual without being a thug or a jerk. I am interested in beauty, intelligence and sex with a woman not a little girl.

Besides, I am not a thug, don't care to be one and I can't and will not fake it.
JOE

I don't get it either, Mick

But the message of the mainstream manosphere seems to be that loving a woman with your whole heart is like shooting yourself in the foot. Granted, I haven't read much of it, but I've been more upset by the mainstream's attitudes towards women than by anything BDSM I've discovered. I am very grateful for my husband's love. I've just come to realize his love is very, very rare.

Um

Hopeful

I have spent the last 3 days reading nearly every article on this site. This one spoke to me the most. The gift of chivalry would be the most awesome gift I could receive.

I've read a lot of comments saying that they believe being a man of chivalry shows some kind of weakness. I feel just the opposite. Caleb has my upmost respect. Putting your wife and family first is in my mind is the bravest and most difficult thing a man can do. It is hard to step up every time to be the hero. It is a unselfish act, and I do not see why anyone would disagree with what Caleb has written. A women lucky enough to have her mate treat her the way Caleb strives to, is very lucky.

Tracy

Actually, Zephyr

Though the likelihood of a good outcome would be much lower if I were the rescuer, I think I would run into a burning building for my husband. I'm pregnant now, though, so I'm not as sure as I would otherwise be.

My husband is my first boyfriend, yet somehow I've fallen for him in spite of him giving me his coat when I'm cold, taking my hand in crowds, and objecting to my touching things vehicular, electrical, or plumbing.

Um

Chivalry Strengthens the Relationship

Thanks for a great post, Caleb. I wholeheartedly agree. Chivalry does not weaken the man, but strengthens the relationship.

When Mr Lucky is chivalrous, he is acting with honor and showing me his highest self. It increases my respect and admiration for him. Seeing him act this way encourages me to be the best I can be—towards him as his wife and also towards myself. When he is chivalrous, I feel compelled to match his “goodness” if you will. It makes me want to please him more and show him that I am worthy of his love.

So who has the power over whom?

When Mr Lucky is chivalrous, I melt. He melts when I melt...and so it goes.

Chivalry and honor

Very well said! I really love a man who acts with honor. It is the biggest turn on for me there is. It is a shame that it is no longer fashionable.

The Luxury of Chivalry

This may be obvious to all but the masculinists, but working-class men can be high status. My grandpa is working class, proud of it, chivalrous (he can afford that), loved by my grandma and respected wherever he goes. Women have not evolved to be attracted to men with big bank accounts. Women have evolved to be attracted to men capable of taking care of them prior to civilization.

Um

Chivalry is only dead if you let it be dead

I found this post about chivalry on Aleph One. He writes:

Game, properly understood, IS a modern version of Chivalry. Like the knight on a quest, the man who has taken the red pill must go his own way. Like the medieval man, the man who knows Game knows the weakness of women, and the need to protect them. Contrary to feminist rhetoric, you are stronger than your wife; or at least, you should be.

It's worth reading the whole post.

~ Gila ~