Or, in other words, they say they want men to be leaders, but actually want them to be chauffeurs.
You know, the guy with the jacket and cap who takes a passenger where she wants to go, and who speaks only when spoken to. A remake of “Driving Miss Daisy”…
The socons and the tradcons try to tell men that being a chauffeur for women is “male leadership” by doing the equivalent pointing out the chauffeur sits in the front seat. It’s a logical fallacy to assume that being in front of something means that you are in charge of it. It pisses off the socons and the tradcons that increasing numbers of men are understanding this.
The comparison with the movie, Driving Miss Daisy, is very apt. Driving Miss Daisy is about a black male chauffeur driving a white woman in the South before the civil rights era. The black male chauffeur had lesser status and less rights than the white woman he drove. This accurately describes the current situation between men and women. Imagine if Miss Daisy told her chauffeur that he had more rights than her because he was in the front seat, and she was in the back seat of the car that he drove. Such an idea would be absurd. That’s what the socons and tradcons are doing.
anti-feminists in name only, in other words. they claim that they aren’t like those awful mean feminists and that they love men and want to be a good wife. then they get a sucker to fall into the trap and it’s too late.
jso put it perfectly; so-con and trad-cons are anti-fembot only as much as their lips move, but their actions make them the perfect Useful Idiots to further the fembot agenda. Turds.
on May 3, 2012 at 11:03 am | Reply Redleg
Chivalry without deference is parasitism.
The current paradigm has disposed of chivalry; everyone is supposedly equal. Everyone is NOT equal. When society stops calculating inequality in its formulas, women fall prey to cads and beta men are locked out by female hypergamy.
Don’t you mean “Women claw each other’s eyes out for the chance to leap on to the hard cocks of cads” ???
Well, I once read an article in which a Saudi woman claimed that Saudi women weren’t oppressed, because their men were obliged to buy them a chauffeur.
There’s not much of an alternative to either treating females in our current fashion or reverting back to a 1950′s model.
Now, they work and have massive economic power.
What Firepower says is right.
Of course, it’s impossible to revert to a 1950s model en masse, at least the way the economy is set up right now. It’s just too difficult to raise a family on one income. And yes, this has caused the average man to lose a lot of status, because our society is very money-centric. Women are definitely pickier when it comes to income, especially once you reach a certain age from what I hear. Average almost doesn’t do it anymore.
I think when it comes down to it, the average man is just not going to pamper women to high heavens if he has no reason to. Chivalry requires a sort of visceral motivation, otherwise it just disappears. The socons have been railing against the sexual revolution. They lost. They continue to rail against the loss of chivalry, but chivalry is effectively dead as we have seen with the Costa Concordia disaster.
They’re almost like the people among certain quarters of the alt-right who want to bring back segregation. It’s just not gonna happen.
If by segregation you mean government-mandated segregation such as Jim Crow laws, then I have never seen anyone in the alt-right advocate this. This is a scandalous claim to make, and I would ask for you to provide proof.
And if segregation means any separation between where people live, who they marry, etc., people of all races self-segregate. They always have, and continue to do so today. It’s absurd to claim racial segregation can’t be brought back when it currently exists in greater magnitude than it ever has in the West.
So, by any conception of segregation, the simile doesn’t support your point about chivalry. I agree with you about the state of chivalry, but it and segregation do not function equivalently and ought not be compared.
[...] 4. Submission is not dishonoring God by honoring your husband’s wishes. 5. Submission is not a Driving Miss Daisy kind of submission (which is no submission at all). 6. Submission is not looking to your husband for things that you [...]
[...] http://www.antifeministtech.info/2012/05/driving-miss-daisy/ Imprima em PDFCompartilhe isso:FacebookEmailRelated [...]