Chivalry is anti-Christian in action

It just occurred to me there’s an easy way to explain why chivalry is anti-Christian.

A correct marriage analogy is a King and a Queen — the King wields authority over the queen and the rest of the kingdom. Instead chivalry is a knight trying to impress and serve the queen. Remember, chivalry is a knight’s code and not one that a king would follow. The knight is to put the Queen up on a pedestal and serve her whims.

It’s clearly an inverted roles scenario where the Queen is in charge and the knight is serving her. It’s not even the trash term “servant leadership” but literally just serving. No headship and no authority and therefore anti-Christian.

This entry was posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Chivalry is anti-Christian in action

  1. Swanny River says:

    Simple observance that helps me. The test will be if it also helps Jason see why someone like myself thinks that churches pushing chivalry make it harder for him to find a suitable wife that would be pleased with helping him.

  2. Novaseeker says:

    Right. Dalrock basically explained that in a more fulsome way, going into the details of where chivalry comes from and what it consisted of (namely, adulterous love and desire between a Queen and the attractive knights, which was characterized by the submission of said knight to the desires of his Queen). Chivalry is basically “femdom” love, whereby a male supplicates a socially superior female in order to win her love (whether sexually consummated or not), fulfilling her whims and desires, as she specifies, like any “soft dominatrix” would do. It’s a perverted kind of love and affection that inverts sex roles due to the social distance between a knight and the Queen that imposed social difference and made any such relationship of affection, of necessity, a female dominant/male subordinate framework, because she was, after all, the Queen, and he was a mere knight.

    Beyond these old tales, however, the broader evil happened when this was transposed to be the ideal for all men. Instead of men being the Kings to their Queens, men were to be the chivalrous knights to their wives, despite the fact that their wives were — unlike the situation of the knight — not their social superiors, but their social peers (usually). And so, over time, women were elevated socially in accordance with the framework, so that women came to be seen as men’s social superiors in a way that persists today: that is, even for men and women who are, in fact, social/economic/class “equals”, women are seen as the social “superiors”, generally, because they are women. This was never the case historically, and really is something that developed over the past few hundred years, and really took a very significant ramp upwards during the Victorian era in the Anglo world in particular. And it’s all based on replicating the conditions of chivary — woman as man’s social superior (even if she is only “constructed” or “socially imagined” to be so and isn’t actually so), which justifies a man’s fundamentally supplicatory and submissive mode of expressing love for her.

    The Church was quick to embrace this ideal for various reasons (Leon Podle goes into some of them in his important book, but there are other resources as well), and today it is by far and away the default/dominant setting for the way almost all men in churches — from conservative to progressive — view the proper relationship between husband and wife, regardless of how they dress it up conceptually.

    What happened to the “King and Queen” model? That got transitioned away over time. It didn’t happen overnight, but it did happen — again, Podle and other resources discuss the reasons for what happened in the relatively recent past (i.e., past few hundred years), and the contemporary age has its own additional reasons, like the de facto matrilineality of America and much of the West. But it happened, and now the King and Queen model is mostly for a handful of outliers, and lacks all institutional ecclesial support, never mind social approval. It does exist, also in a twisted form, in the fornication culture, however, where women’s desires for a “Kingly” type come out in the realm of shorter-term fornicative liaisons, but these are pseudo-instances, of course, where there is a play-acting going on that is mostly sexual in nature and is not substantive in the remainder of the relationship for the most part, and most of these situations do not last, either.

  3. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Deep Strength: legit.

    @All:
    Novaseeker wrote most of what needs to be said, especially riffing off of Dalrock’s pretty exhaustive research. The current model for men in marriage either for church people or not church people is figureheadship. Role playing, pretending, etc. Not actually living out the two currents of authority and responsibility. They are a pair and must match in energy and intensity.

    If a man only gets one half of the pair, results may not be as he would desire.

    Tagging on to the last two sentences in Novaseeker’s comment, from time to time I wonder just how many copies of 50 Shades of Grey are still out there slightly hidden away in the books of oh-so-holy church going women? I do not think the number is zero. There is a desire in women for dominance, full stop, it exists even in very nice church girls. It is part of the earthy side whether we like it or do not like it. As with any other urge it needs controlling, but wishing it away or pretending it’s not there fails as we have seen for years. Women think they want a Knight Errant but what they really need at the end of the day is a monarch. A king. A lion.

  4. @ Nova

    Great summary of the whole thing that Dalrock investigated in greater depth.

    It somewhat also explains the “one upsmanship” that goes into more fancy engagement proposals. The man must to go greater and greater lengths to propose to not only show a woman his love but build social capital to make her feel more special. In other words, she can compete with her peers to see who has the greater status by having a man go more out of his way for her which means her status is superior.

  5. Jack says:

    It’s true that the church has promulgated Chivalry over the last several decades (or centuries?). But this is compounded by the fact that women in general and especially Christian women teach their sons to be chivalrous starting from their youth. I was raised in the church, and my mother, aunts, and grandmothers were this way too. I spent a couple decades of my life waking up from this. So I am inclined to believe this from the opposite perspective — that the church is actually supporting and socially reinforcing this female propensity for exercising control over (younger) men — “dressing it up” (as Novaseeker said) with (in)appropriate rhetoric and (im)moral principles.
    This institutionalized social reinforcement (i.e. churchianity) puts men and fathers at a great disadvantage. It explains why the church has become feminized and why so many men have drifted away from church attendance. I believe many men can sense that the church is somehow their spiritual enemy in this regard, even though they can’t apprehend that on an intellectual level. Dalrock et al. have made this truth available to us intellectually, and for this we are grateful.

  6. cameron232 says:

    Excellent post and great commentary by novaseeker (as usual).

    novaseeker: “It does exist, also in a twisted form, in the fornication culture, however, where women’s desires for a “Kingly” type come out in the realm of shorter-term fornicative liaisons,”

    My impression from adaptations of the Arthur legends is that Lancelot is a more viscerally attractive male than Arthur. So it’s more like the queen being married to Jeff Bezos but fornicating with Chris Hemsworth or John Cena on the side.

  7. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    You have a point but don’t know how literal this is in historic terms. What we know as Chivalry came to us from Moorish Spain. Eleanor of Aquitaine really got the concept going with her Court of Love.

  8. Anonymous Reader says:

    It’s true that the church has promulgated Chivalry over the last several decades (or centuries?). But this is compounded by the fact that women in general and especially Christian women teach their sons to be chivalrous starting from their youth.

    It’s both. It’s “church leaders AND women”. It is a self-reinforcing process.

    There’s multiple layers to this. First, women are followers by nature, so the most natural thing for churchgoing women to do with sons is teach them whatever their church expects. I’m reasonably sure that this can be seen in those churches that theologically conservative, especially those that practice catechesis. If the church leadership expects parents to teach their children certain things in a certain way, some will do that. If that includes chivalry, well, that’s what will be done. But on the flip side, those sons who grow up in a church and in time come to be part of leadership will have chivalry printed onto them – they will expect parents to teach it to their children.

    Second, women are a tribe. Let’s stipulate this rather than endlessly wrangle, if possible. Men are not, we are more individuated – although this varies more than I previously thought. Teaching sons to defer to women in a Chivalric fashion serves the larger tribe-of-women, even if it disadvantages the son(s). Chivalry makes men slaves to women at some level, as older Arthurian tales clearly show, and taking advantage of “free stuff” is human nature in general. It’s very much female nature, because women historically can’t really survive long on their own, they have to be part of a group or die.

    Cultural and “brain wiring” combine to make chivalry a really attractive feature, to women. Unfortunately it’s now more like a mental virus than a feature.

  9. Jack says:

    “Teaching sons to defer to women in a Chivalric fashion serves the larger tribe-of-women, even if it disadvantages the son(s).”

    Chivalry serves womens’ sinful self-interest. It allows them to dispense with the humble formalities of respecting and submitting to men.
    It gives them a powerful tool to demand things from men rather than to act as their helpers. It strokes their egos and gives them a sense of control over men. But deep down, women hate chivalrous men, because all this hurts them in the long run.

    “Cultural and “brain wiring” combine to make chivalry a really attractive feature, to women.”

    Just to be clear, the word “appealing” is better than “attractive”. Chivalry is appealing to women in the same way that the forbidden fruit was appealing to Eve. Both give them a false sense of self-righteousness, security, and control. Chivalry is not very attractive in terms of the tingles.

  10. pb says:

    “Second, women are a tribe. Let’s stipulate this rather than endlessly wrangle, if possible. Men are not, we are more individuated – although this varies more than I previously thought.”

    Women will congregate in a herd to socialize. They also in mass politics look out for the interest of women when it is to their benefit to do so: the feminine imperative.

    Men are task-focused so they can work alone, but they also collaborate with other men to attain common goals, and they have a form of friendship that is different from what women have with one another.

  11. lastmod says:

    Game pushes chivalry. It does what a woman wants and expects. It teaches men to decode what they are think, what they really mean evidetly with foolproof results. It makes men only into a one way thinking mode, and caters exactly to whims, trends and what women want in men…….who is being played here?

    I never have defended chivarly. It’s a battle code…….and there is like one line about the treatment of women, and people of an occupied territory. Chivarly probably set the basis for the “Geneva Convention” if the real truth is told of how an officer in war behaves in an occupied territory / town / city / region.

    Even if I found the reddest of the red pilled church………ugly people don’t make babies…….god makes some people attractive and others ugly because he is “teaching the ugly person a lesson” evidently.

    It’s not a “test” women hate ugly men. Case. Point. Match. Set.

  12. cameron232 says:

    lastmod

    Women don’t hate ugly men. THey don’t want to marry or have sex with ugly men unless there’s something else exceptional about that man e.g. Bill Murray who many women would have sex with or marry.

    People’s physical ugliness (and a bunch of other things) is a result of God’s permissive will not God’s positive will. This is a result of the Fall.

  13. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.
    1 Peter 3:5-6

    What is a “lord”, but the ruler, law giver or master to be honored and obeyed. It is simple, the relationship of the wife to her husband is that of subject to lord or church to Christ. The relationship of husband to wife is that of loving head, and sacrificial head. Chivalry perverts the relationship from that of a divine covenant pointing to the gospel of Christ to the supremacy of female feelz over the action of males.

  14. Quiet Desperation says:

    First time commenter on this site. “I believe many men can sense that the church is somehow their spiritual enemy in this regard, even though they can’t apprehend that on an intellectual level.”

    Yes. As I man who was raised in a traditional congregation where the pastor regularly preached Biblical sex roles, I find the changes in the modern church extremely perplexing. Many of the teachings of the current year are the polar opposites of the teachings I received as a child. I was taught that husbands were responsible for provision, protection, and headship of their wives and children, while wives were created to bear and nurture children. I always felt that sex roles defined by God were a fundamental part of Christ’s Gospel. However, the church has been a prime mover in providing and cheerleading alternative modes of provision and protection (mostly government programs) while denying or inverting the headship roles of men. The male role has been devalued consistently in the church for decades if not centuries. Attending men’s groups at church is now almost indistinguishable from the squishy-feely stuff I’m forced to attend by my company’s HR department.

    Questions: Does Christ really approve of the teachings of the modern church about sex roles? Was the church wrong for the last 20 centuries? What is the proper course of action for a man who genuinely believes in Christ and his church but feels current church teachings about gender roles are wrong? As I said, I have seen them reverse in my lifetime. I’m genuinely confused.

  15. @ Quiet Desperation

    Questions: Does Christ really approve of the teachings of the modern church about sex roles? Was the church wrong for the last 20 centuries? What is the proper course of action for a man who genuinely believes in Christ and his church but feels current church teachings about gender roles are wrong? As I said, I have seen them reverse in my lifetime. I’m genuinely confused

    Of course not. There’s plenty of Scriptures like in Timothy and Revelation 2 and 3 that show that the Christians and Churches have the capacity to go off track into false teachings.

    The best we can do right now is keep speaking the truth *and* living it out in our lives. Jesus lead by example and that’s how we should do it as well.

  16. lastmod says:

    Ummm……..To say there is a ‘permissive will of God’ is the same as saying that we have the power to change God’s divine plan for us……..so making someone unattractive physically is not his permissive will. I have heard it said that man looks at the outside, God looks at the inside……God doesn’t really doesn’t care what you look like, though he made this person in his image……yes, I know he allows this to “teach” that ugly person his real, deep, and true love for them (sarcasm)

  17. Quiet Desperation says:

    @Deep Strength: Thank you for your reply. The unceasing feminist gaslighting is taking a toll on me. It is refreshing to find at least one voice of sanity remaining in this world gone mad.

  18. wodansthane says:

    @Deep Strength. Thanks for coming up with such a succinct description. This is going to save me a lot of breath when I have to explain all of this to fellow believers still struggling with all of the nonsense we’ve been fed over the years. Glad you’re posting more regularly.

  19. Anonymous Reader says:

    Chivalry-man meets up with “Let’s You And Him Fight” girl. Foolish chivalry-man believes the word of a woman…

    https://www.fox13news.com/news/robinson-murder-trial-thursday

    …one man winds up dead, the foolish one now facing life in prison.

    The girl’s lie? Oh, well, Faire Laydees will talk. So what?

    The video is instructive. Watch the body language.

  20. Pingback: The Friday hawt chicks & links – The fate of the world edition – Adam Piggott

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s