Well, if you’ve been around the gendersphere, you’ve probably seen the word privilege used in a very different way than the dictionary definition. In my observation, it just seems like a dirty tactic to shut down debate. “Oh, your SOOOOO privileged, check your privilege at the door.” All by some bigoted assh*le who hasn’t walked a day in my shoes but thinks they know everything and my life experience is nothing. How do they empirically know that I am better off in an anonymous forum? Granted, I may be better off, I may just be harder working. They seem to assume that they own truth and justice.
So, the next thing we’ve gotta ask is chivalry incompatible with equality? So, now, let’s go to the great wiki to define it:
“The Knight’s Code of Chivalry was a moral system that stated all knights should protect others who can not protect themselves, such as widows, children, and elders. All knights needed to have the strength and skills to fight wars in the Middle Ages. Knights not only had to be strong but they were also extremely disciplined and were expected to use their power to protect the weak and defenceless. Knights vowed to be loyal, generous, and “noble bearing”. Knights were required to tell the truth at all times and always respect the honour of women. Knights not only vowed to protect the weak but also vowed to guard the honour of all fellow knights. They always had to obey those who were placed in authority and were never allowed to refuse a challenge from an equal. Knights lived by honor and for glory. Knights were to fear God and maintain His Church. Knights always kept their faith and never turned their back on a foe. Knights despised pecuniary reward. They persevered to the end in any enterprise begun. The main vow from the knights was that they shall fight for the welfare of all.“
Interesting that. It’s not just men protecting women but the powerful protecting the weak. Seems like the modern definition of chivalry moved away to men protecting women. This seems to sum up many modern males frustration: “Men are faced with a double standard where they know women want to be swept off their feet, and want and expect men to make the first move, but at the same time, they preach that they are strong and can be single for the rest of their lives.”
Well, now, I don’t really know where “good manners” end and chivalry begins. I’ve had old ladies and women with dogs hold the door open for me when I had my hands full with groceries or my mountainbike. I’ve always tried to follow through with a smile and “Thank You.” I remember one time when I got in an argument with a feminist about the draft and Selective Service. I stated that the fact I was legally obligated to sign up for Selective Service was proof of my lack of privilege. She countered that it was benevolent sexism that women weren’t even allowed into combat roles in the first place.
Read some manosphere blogs and you might get the idea that we live in a dystopian sci-fi movie. Even if you think that worldview is a bit pessimistic, it’s hard not to argue that culture is in some state of free fall and no one can quite predict where we’ll all end up. I suppose one can live by one’s own code of honor.
So what do you call it when a bigot like Hugo Schwyzer defends a woman’s right to
murder a fetus, um, have an abortion but dismisses the fears of a man who is uncertain of the paternity of his child? So what do you call it when the burden women’s safety is putt in all men’s hands and all men are viewed as potential rapists? So what do you call it when a bully tries to shame men for not living up to a certain standard of masculinity and then tries to pretend they are being cute by putting the ™ logo behind it? Well, I’ll call it Privilege 2.0.