Medieval Pedestalizing/Simping

#Catholic #courtship of #nuns. From Perry: Gender and Disorder in Seville. pic.twitter.com/kemOlPc2FG

— Ulrich L. Lehner (@ulrichlehner) November 23, 2020

Whit Stillman's Metropolitan

How did I miss this ??? https://t.co/ExZYdyokjZ

— University Bookman (@ubookman) October 11, 2020

In light of what has been published in the manosphere, I'll have to reconsider Stillman's body of work. Perhaps they work as portraits of naive blue-pilled men looking for love.

Chivalry and Courtly Love

Too bad Dalrock's blog is not still active -- he could have posted this link.

Imaginative Conservative: Chaucer & the Heresy of Courtly Love by Mitchell Kalpakgian

Chivalry Has Been Dead for Some Time

The Catholic military orders have been tamed for some time.

1P5: The Knights of Malta and the Death of Chivalry by Steve Skojec

On May 1, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, which has just gone through one of its most tumultuous and troubling periods in its 900-plus-year history (see our coverage here), conducted its Chapter General. The purpose: to elect a new …

Be a Churl

Dalrock: White Knights vs. Churls

OEM

"Drunk Girl"

The song may appeal to those "traditional" (i.e. social conservative) Americans who love chivalry and to women and feminists who love chivalry but is it too blue pill? Does a man have an obligation to help a drunk girl get home? Why isn't it the obligation of the university or college (if she is a college student) or of her dorm RA? I suppose they wouldn't want such a responsibility, and even claim that they don't have it. But isn't it their job to prevent rape (or regretful consensual sex)? Maybe he should call her parent/guardian. But what if he/she/xe is not living in close proximity? Perhaps every drunk woman should have a tag with the contact info of a designated friend who will take her home.

Would Chris Janson really raise a daughter who engages in such risky behavior?

I find it funny that another of his recent songs is "Fix a Drink."

Fra' Matthew Festing

Post by Vatican Radio - English Section.

No comment.

Crusading and Chivalry

Crusading as a knightly deed

Crusading as a knightly deed: How far do the works of Jean of Joinville and James I of Aragon depict crusading as an integral part of chivalry in the thirteenth century?

By Stephen Bennett

academia.edu

To Treat Them Like Children

Being calm in the face of the emotional woman, who needs a man to be self-control, restrained.

But if women are "like that," should men take offense when other person cannot control themselves, start yelling, etc.? If a woman loses her temper or has an emotional outburst, are men likely to excuse, unless it is unjustified or over a minor matter? Should women be held to a higher standard, rather than letting them give in to their anger? Yes, but I think the "red pill" men in the androsphere agree. Instead of giving in or cowering before a woman's rage, a man needs to let a woman know when she has crossed the line and enforce consequences.

A woman's lack of self-control should be distinguished from a genuine sh*t test?

Does a woman lose respect for a man who engages in a shouting match, rather than shutting the argument down with a firm command or a statement that such behavior is intolerable? Can he even engage her in an argument? What would a typical woman think of a man who refuses to engage her and just leaves (without explaining way)? If he goes into "hiding"? Rather than just avoiding her, while maintaining his presence and authority? It seems to me that there is a difference between the two; it's not just semantics.

Vox

Catholic Masculinity

The eighth annual Napa Valley Catholic Men's Conference will be taken place on April 20. It is sponsored in part by Ignatius Press, which is unfortunately promoting the movie Courageous in the flier for the conference. (The movie of course is listed in recent IP catalogs as well.)

Does this indicate the direction of the thinking behind the conference? Since I've never been to one, I do not know, but someone should say something to IP about it. Dalrock's critique of the movie should be cause for rethinking whether such a movie should be promoted and sold. Then again, the infiltration of "conservative" Catholicism by feminism is rather complete. Will someone clue in Bishop Vasa, who will be present at the conference, on the problems of Catholic feminism?

In previous years, I believe Jesse Romero has spoken at the conference. This year the speakers include Patrick Coffin and Charlie Aeschliiman, "a former Navy SEAL and trick basketball handling champion." Being in the military is no guarantee that one understands, much less is able to advocate, patriarchy. Relating properly to other man and the community and the Church - one must also relate properly to one's wife and other women. What well-known Catholic laymen/apologist can give such a robust defense of patriarchy? Dalrock has a post on something germane to this point: What we need is more chivalry!

Here is an example of the cultural wisdom that has been lost with the latest revolution in culture and mores: Advice on love and physical attraction, 1920s-style.

Related:
Oz Conservative: Left-wing woman criticises feminism
Vox: Societal Devolution


CBS is broadcasting another NYPD cop drama - Golden Boy. I think it was Vox who wrote something recently about LEOs and the popularity of cop shows in light of the alleged corruption of LAPD. CBS alone has Blue Bloods and the cancelled NYC 22, both located in NYC. Why is NYC such a popular setting for cop shows? Third Watch (which also had FD paramedics), Brooklyn South, there are many others as well.

I may watch the first episode, but since it's on CBS it will be PC. I am surprised that no major female characters have been put on display in the promos so far, but the series wlll probably have a feminsit bent.




Do we look up to law enforcement officers too much? It may be understandable for boys to do so, but what of adult men? Some may live vicariously through cop shows, but how many of us have a rather suspicious attitude, or worse, towards police officers? While the sheep of the megapolis have no understanding of what it is to defend themselves and their loved ones, those who believe that being a warrior is part of the obligation of a citizen can appreciate the work that is done by police officers while not giving them some sort of special social or moral status.

A trailer for a movie from Magpul:

Breslau Rallye

BBC Choral Evensong: King's College, London (expires in 7 days)

NLM: The Great Fast

(mp3)

"Nice"

Dr. Esolen wrote the following about the origin of the word "nice" yesterday:

Beside the word nescient in Dr. E’s Imaginary Dictionary stands an illustration of a bureaucrat, smug and smiling benignantly upon an ordinary citizen. The cross-reference reads: See Expert. The word means what you’d guess: the property of knowing absolutely nothing. In Latin, someone in that state, let’s say a simpleton or a senator, is nescius.

That word, through Old French, entered English as nice, meaning stupid, silly, ignorant, foolish. It was not a very nice word. But then it underwent a transformation. By the time of Spenser and Shakespeare, it had come to acquire the ambivalent sense of a usually foolish preciseness, as in our word niceties, generally suggesting an annoying emphasis on the trivial. In this regard it seems to have walked the same track as the word dainty, which Spenser usually employs to refer to something delicately beautiful, but sometimes to refer to people who are fussy or persnickety or unwholesomely preoccupied with cleanliness. But nice, in Spenser, is always an insult: nice hands will not get themselves bloody to help a dying man.

The association with unreasonable fussiness gradually changed, so that someone with keen insight can make a nice distinction; if at first that meant a distinction without a difference, made by a fool, it now means a fine distinction that makes a big difference, which only a wise person can make. Taking the word in another direction, though, the ladies began to use it to refer to something decorated in a pleasantly fussy way: a nice hat, a nice ribbon. From thence it has come to denote kindness generally, “He’s a nice man,” but with the possibility of hollowness and triviality lurking around the corner.

C. S. Lewis understood the word quite well, which is why, in That Hideous Strength, the N. I. C. E. (National Institute of Coordinated Experiments) is England’s metastatic locus of evil. For, as Lewis says, the angels do not bow before the Lord, singing, “Nice, nice, nice,” but “Holy, holy, holy!”

Some comments:
Being nice is still associated with being a harmless idiot in the mind of some recipients (especially women); indeed, being nice may go being mere kindness, and is instead quasi-compulsive people-pleasing that lacks real fortitude and strength. Small wonder that it goes unappreciated and unrespected. Hence: "I may be the one who will have to put the nice guy to death, but you killed chivalry."

From the Editors at Ethika Politika

Is Chivalry the Natural Choice? Or Something Else?

They give some suggestions as to what needs to be clarified based on Smith's article in The Atlantic.

A critique written within the androsphere would be more illuminating.

A SoCon Defends Chivalry

Let's Give Chivalry Another Chance by Emily Esfahani Smith

Ah, but what definition of chivalry?

There is nothing novel to her argument.

The author leads with the sinking of the Titanic, contrasting the behavior of the passengers on that ship with what happened during the more recent sinking of the Italian ocean liner. I had intended to write something on this question, and the question of men's duties or obligations to women they did not know. I may still finish that piece, but for now I will write that the order of charity cannot be reduced to some Romantic notion of men dying for strangers simply because they are women.

At the time, Hanna Rosin noted that what these men did was "deeper" than chivalry. It was heroic. I agree. But heroism and chivalry share a basic feature in common—the recognition, a transcendent one, that there is something greater than the self worth protecting, and that there is something greater than the self worth sacrificing your own needs, desires, and even life for. If we can all agree that the kind of culture we should aspire to live in is one in which men and women protect and honor each other in the ways that they can—and not one in which men are pushing past women and children to save their own lives—then that is progress that women everywhere should support.

Writers in the androsphere will talk about the breaking of the "social contract" between men and women, and protest that men should not be held to older standards of behavior when women are not held to that same set of standards. I think that is a useful analytic tool in talking about expectations men and women have for one another, and the laws and customs that they advocate and follow. Nowhere in this article does the author repudiate feminism (in whatever form). She does think that men and women should be civil and respectful towards one another.

Chivalry is about respect. It is about not harming or hurting others, especially those who are more vulnerable than you. It is about putting other people first and serving others often in a heroic or courageous manner. It is about being polite and courteous. In other words, chivalry in the age of post-feminism is another name we give to civility. When we give up on civility, understood in this way, we can never have relationships that are as meaningful as they could be.

If women today—feminists and non-feminists alike—encouraged both men and women to adopt the principles of civil and chivalrous conduct, then the standards of behavior for the two sexes would be the same, fostering the equality that feminists desire. Moreover, the relations between the sexes would be once again based on mutual respect, as the traditionalists want. Men and women may end up being civil and well-mannered in different ways, but at least they would be civil and well-mannered, an improvement on the current situation.

But what about their duties within marriage and society at large? "Civility" is not enough, when we are talking about laws that treat men unfairly/unjustly.

Edit. The author is supposedly a liberal Muslim feminist, but she is associated with the Hoover Institute, The New Criterion, The American Spectator, and Ricochet, which are all "conservative" in some fashion.

No More White Knighting, Please.

CL's guest post at Sunshine Mary's blog, Why White Knights Are Worse Than Feminists

okrahead:

White Knight motivations I have observed (and some of which I engaged in before I learned better).
1) Thinking that if you let her cry on your shoulder eventually she will let you in her pants. In retrospect this is so pathetic I want to vomit.
2) Genuinely believing what you are taught in school and church, namely that women are innocent victims of predatory men, and that they need a “knight in shining armor” to save them from the bad guys they have between their legs. The women in question are, of course, entirely without responsibility for the bad boys being between their legs. Don’t ask why, it doesn’t really matter.
3) As a corollary to number 2, being taught by church/school/family that a “real man” takes care of women, even when the women in question created their own problems, and only want someone else to take the responsibility of their actions on their behalf.
4) As a corollary to number 3, failing to realize that the distressed damsel does NOT want to be rescued… She just wants somebody to pay the bills for her until the next hot bad boy comes along.
5) Actually believing that if you show her what a truly sensitive and caring guy you really are, and how you will always be there for her, she will someday realize that you are the one. And then let you into her panties. Because that’s how it works out in all the chick flicks, and that’s what all these women are telling you they “really want.”
6) As a corollary to number 5, believing what women tell you they want rather than actually believing what you see them doing with your own lying eyes. Because obviously women never lie, and your eyes deceive you all the time. Because if that’s not the way it is, you’ve been playing YOURSELF for a chump all along…. and you just can’t bear to admit that yet, now can you?
7) Desperately wanting approval from your family/church/female friends so badly that you voluntarily cover your own eyes to avoid seeing the truth. Because if you see the truth then you realize that you live in a fallen and sinful world, and women are just as guilty and depraved as men, and so…..

The Order of Malta Was Quick To Post This

through their FB page: NOTE OF CLARIFICATION FROM THE SECRETARIAT OF STATE.

Vatican City, (VIS) - In response to frequent requests for information concerning the recognition by the Holy See of Equestrian Orders dedicated to the saints or to holy places, the Secretariat of State considers it opportune to reiterate what has already been published, namely that, other than its own Equestrian Orders (the Supreme Order of Christ, the Order of the Golden Spur, the Pian Order, the Order of Saint Gregory the Great, and the Order of Pope Saint Sylvester), the Holy See recognises and supports only the Sovereign Military Order of Malta - also known as the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta - and the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem. The Holy See foresees no additions or innovations in this regard.

All other orders, whether of recent origin or mediaeval foundation, are not recognised by the Holy See. Furthermore, the Holy See does not guarantee their historical or juridical legitimacy, their ends or organisational structures.
To avoid any possible doubts, even owing to illicit issuing of documents or the inappropriate use of sacred places, and to prevent the continuation of abuses which may result in harm to people of good faith, the Holy See confirms that it attributes absolutely no value whatsoever to certificates of membership or insignia issued by these groups, and it considers inappropriate the use of churches or chapels for their so-called "ceremonies of investiture".

Some may believe that it is right to hold on to such traditions, because they have been passed down from preceding generations. Is there a way for a different sort of aristocracy or republicanism to arise in Europe, as the old aristocracy has very little real power (just that which comes with money and nostalgia and some measure of influence in certain circles). I'm probably too American to accept those sort of honors as really meaning much - having the respect of a group of men whom one respects would be sufficient, and when one is a part of that group, that's the sort of honor that really matters. The hollowing out of the state may be a work in progress, but wherever there are men working together as men, there is a potential republic. The honor that goes with a title of nobility may be commensurate with doing some good work or philanthropy or service in the modern nation-state, but can that compare to the honor associated with the deeds, sacrifices, and friendship accompanying life in a real community?

Links:
Sovereign Order of Malta
American Association

You Can't Have It All.

LGR fisks a piece that was mentioned in a combox in the androsphere: If You Don’t Hold a Door Open for a Woman, then “You Must be Horrendous in Bed”. The typical Uhmerican feminist, who believes in equality and yet unequally mandates that men be chivalrous. Well, logic and consistency aren't hallmarks of feminist think feel.

More on Chivalry

Via P Ray: One-Sided Chivalry by Pete Jensen

Related: Towards a New Chivalry
Divorce Self-Defense 101 (alt)

Katie Melua ft Davy Spillane - Gold in them Hills @ Titanic commemoration (14.04.12)

Socons love chivalry

Ryan Gosling, Manly Men, and the Witness of Chivalry by Emily Stimpson (alt)

Regardless, last week when Gosling bravely stepped in and prevented a woman from being hit by a car, he moved up a notch or two in my estimation. Not enough that I want his memes appearing on my Facebook wall, but enough to make me realize he’s more of a manly man than I thought. This particular act of heroism was actually rather endearing to me since I have an unfortunate habit of wandering into oncoming traffic and have been saved more than once by similarly solicitous men. I guess you could say I felt gratitude towards Gosling by proxy.

Chivalry? Or just "plain" benevolence or humaneness? Shouldn't a woman have done the same? So was Ryan Gosling obligated to save her because she is a woman? (Would he not have done so for another man?) Medieval chivalry existed within a specific social and cultural context; is it really the same as the code of the 19th century gentleman or Victorian chivalry? It cannot exist without reciprocal duties and obligations on the part of women.

And that’s why men open car doors for women— as a reminder, among other things, of their call to love, honor, and protect women.

After her explanation of why chivalrous actions are necessary for the moral development of men, she discusses women:

As women, we’re called to nourish and nurture life. Our ability to answer that call, however, depends on us being receptive. Thanks to nature, our bodies already have that down pat. It’s how we’re built. But thanks to the effects of the Fall, it usually takes a bit more nurture to bring our souls up to speed. Most of us need help letting go of our own fallen need to dominate, manipulate, and control so we can become vulnerable enough to welcome people into our lives and love them for the gifts that they are. Learning to receive a man’s arm helps us do that. At least a little.

What of respect and submission to the husband's authority (or the authority of men in civil society)? In a community where there are consequence for failing to live up to the moral idea, this or any other kind of chivalry might make sense. But in an Uhmerican megapolis? More and more men are seeing that such gestures are not acknowledged, much less appreciated. Women are not the only special class who can "claim" the help of a man's physical strength -- there are also children and the elderly, for exmaple. This is a duty of distributive justice, something owed for the good of the community as a whole, not something owed to women as individuals or as a specific group. Chivalry may have been understood by some as a vehicle for inculcating attitudes of honoring/respecting women, but it may be better understood as reinforcing social separation and protecting against over-familiarity with members of the opposite sex. Gestures of honor and respect may be laudable when displayed to one's wife, but they can also faciliate or strengthen an erroneous understanding of women (and ignorance of their weaknesses). It might be better to understand them as another mode of communication, one that signals respect and affection and so on, rather than as an act that is due to a woman because she is a woman.


Related:
Over at The Spearhead: Ryan Gosling Saves Feminist, Gratitude Not Forthcoming (See also What's Wrong With Wanting to be Loved?)

More on "chivalry" from Dalrock

See Dalrock's follow-up to the post to which I linked earlier this week: Lets you and him fight.