Modern chivalry is dead

And a good riddance to it. Guy Ritchie is an early nominee for Man of the Year.

When a man sees a woman in trouble it is usually polite to help her out but for one English gent his manners seemed to have failed him last night. As Guy Ritchie was leaving Claridges hotel a woman stumbled on a plant pot and tumbled to the ground, but the director did little but smile at her plight. In fact, although the woman fell directly in front of him, he failed to help her out and merely pointed towards her with a grin before walking around her and carrying on his way home.

Chivalry in the modern sense presumes that women are of intrinsically more value to men. This was true when most Western women were serious about fulfilling their primary role as propagators of mankind. But since women have by and large abandoned that role and given priority to their self-esteem, education, and occupation instead, there is no longer any justification for chivalric behavior applied broadly to the female sex in general. Each woman must be judged worthy or unworthy of such treatment on her own merits, and in the absence of any information, the assumption must be that she is unworthy.

My habit is to treat women as they wish to be treated. If a woman insists that she is equal to me, then I will show her no more favor or mercy than I would show a man. Pay for yourself, defend yourself, and get your own damn door. If, on the other hand, a woman indicates that she subscribes to traditional and unequal standards, I am pleased to show her with all the conventional courtesy that was previously provided to all the members of the erstwhile "fair sex". Barring any indications to the contrary, I assume that a woman I don't know is an equalitarian and treat her accordingly.

In the days of yore, the correct response to a woman in minor distress was to go to her assistance. These days, the proper response is to simply proceed with the mission. With a snort of amused contempt, of course, if you feel so moved.

Mailvox: facing fear

Whatever wonders if I mean it:

It's just that when I hear Vox say something along the lines of "pick a fight with your wife in order to work out your fear issues", then I start wondering if he'd really do that if he was in someone else's shoes.

Yes, absolutely, because it's not a question of "picking a fight" at all, but rather not going out of your way to avoid conflict. There is a crucial difference there. Conflict avoidance can be a good thing, but not when it is driven by nothing more than cowardice. I believe in the principle of conquering your fears by facing them. When I was young and a little afraid of the dark, I used to sneak out of the house and wander through the woods at night. Not only did my fear of the dark disappear, but I soon came to love it. I also developed an aversion to sunlight and discovered that I rather enjoyed biting attractive young women in the neck, but that's probably just a coincidence.

When Ender briefly developed a reflexive fear of the ball after a foolish coach allowed him to get shellacked in goal for more than 45 minutes from the penalty spot, I bought him some wrist pads, taught him a modified martial arts block, then spent about 20 minutes a day charging towards him and throwing the ball directly at his face from the penalty spot. I also taught him to step forward into the ball and attack it by blocking it on his padded forearms. He soon realized that it didn't hurt and by the third day, he wasn't the least bit afraid of the ball anymore. By the end of the season, he had acquired the nickname "toro" for the way he would fearlessly charge toward attacking players and cut down the angles of their close-range shots as they approached goal.

The core concept of Game involves consciously emulating the behavior of those who naturally succeed where you fail. This is a concept that is applicable to a far greater range of human behavior than the male pursuit of women for short-term sexual pleasure.