ARE WE NOT MULES . . . WE ARE DEVO

[Keith Martin]

I should clarify that I believe what I've written about in Are We Not Mules? is most appropriately applicable to Modern Single Women as opposed to Modern Married Women, although it does apply to a (sometimes-very-significant) degree to wives as well.

Should godly men refuse to perform Partial Husband chores for women who are unwilling to function as godly women within the general structure of scriptural morals and prescriptions?

I don't know that you could give a hard-and-fast answer to that. The relationship between a man and a woman is a complex thing. A man should be "husbanding" or "shepherding" his wife towards improvement. Sometimes tough love is the right approach (refusing to do something), sometimes, (I'm struggling for the right word here) "normal" love is the right approach (doing things she appreciates). Sometimes pushing and sometimes pulling. What is right in a particular set of circumstances to best move a specific woman towards godly behaviour is something that an individual husband would need to determine.

Stipulated that there are no hard-and-fast prescriptions, and further stipulated that the authority to determine proper discipline and teaching is reserved to individual husbands and fathers.

I'm wondering if you missed what I've emphasized above about women who are unwilling to function as godly women. I'm not asking about general instruction, guidance and discipline for either daughters or wives. My questions . . .

Should godly men refuse to perform Partial Husband chores for women who are unwilling to function as godly women within the general structure of scriptural morals and prescriptions?

Or should men who recognize the world needs repair focus on challenging the Ruling Class while men continue to perform as Partial Husbands so women can continue to believe themselves to be independent?

. . . are specifically directed to what men should be doing when confronted with wives or daughters who refuse to function as godly women, including when they refuse to obey, or demonstrate respectful cooperation, or demonstrate patterns of behavior that indicate failure to recognize the ramifications of their choices or to display gratitude for all that men provide them.

Partial Husbands are only very rarely married to the women for whom they provide Partial Husband services. Sometimes the women who exploit men in their lives are wives, but most often they are single women who by all rights should be married if they want to benefit from Husband services, just as they should be entirely subservient to their fathers if they want the full range of Daddy services.

So, again, should godly men refuse to perform Partial Husband chores for women who are unwilling to function as godly women within the general structure of scriptural morals and prescriptions? And if Partial Husband Chumps continue to provide Partial Husband services to women who thus continue to be able to live the delusion that they are Independent Women, why would more than just an insignificant number of women ever be inspired to participate in assisting men in turning around the rot of our world instead of being our most significant obstacle?

 

[FollowingHim]

Partial Husbands are only very rarely married to the women for whom they provide Partial Husband services.

Ah, I had misunderstood you on what you meant by that phrase.

In that case, yes, we need to prioritise our efforts, and it would be foolish to put our effort into propping up the delusions of unmarried women who will never make godly wives until something substantial changes. There is a time and a place for everything, everyone needs help in an emergency for instance, but as a general principle effort should be put into those women who are deserving of the effort, or likely to respond positively to it.

 

[Keith Martin]

Ah, I had misunderstood you on what you meant by that phrase.

In that case, yes, we need to prioritise our efforts, and it would be foolish to put our effort into propping up the delusions of unmarried women who will never make godly wives until something substantial changes. There is a time and a place for everything, everyone needs help in an emergency for instance, but as a general principle effort should be put into those women who are deserving of the effort, or likely to respond positively to it.

Yeah, I'm not always completely clear! When I say Partial Husband, I'm not attempting to point out that husbands aren't sufficiently stepping up to the plate -- in fact, it is my strong opinion that the average husband is more thoroughly performing as a husband compared to how much the average wife is performing as a wife. Partial Husbands are men who perform Husband Services for other women. Sometimes they perform these services for women married to other men (a form of emotional adultery on the part of the women), but mostly Partial Husbands perform their Husband Services for single women who should be marrying and operating as wives to their own husbands instead of feeling entitled to insufficiently-gratefully lean on men they're not married to.

My resolve to refuse to do any more of this was just tested this morning. A very-longstanding close female friend (one day older than me) who is a big promoter of Girl Power, falsely insists that she prefers her 'independence' to her former wife status, and yet has a ring of men around her who constantly rescue her arrived here expecting me to set up her new car's computer system. I politely declined (she and Kristin are out there right now trying to figure it out), and in the unlikely event that she challenges my unwillingness to assist her, I'm quite ready to explain it.

 

[FollowingHim]

I have a single neighbour with a few acres and far too many animals, fences, house problems etc for her to be able to cope with alone, as she has health problems also. She constantly needs help fixing things or dealing with livestock. She enlists the help of every man that she can persuade to help - each of which helps a lot until they see it is never-ending and stop returning her calls. She is the perfect illustration of just what you are talking about.

What I find really interesting is that she can't see it. She couldn't understand why one man wasn't returning her calls when she just wanted to chat, not even asking him to do something. I told her bluntly why it would be - and she simply couldn't understand. It's fascinating.

In this case though I'm not talking about a "girl power" woman, I'm talking about a lovely Christian lady who just happens to lack a husband. Not my role either. I am happy to occasionally help with something. But I try to keep it under tight control, helping only in rare circumstances, and focus on my actual family.

 

[Keith Martin]

In this case though I'm not talking about a "girl power" woman, I'm talking about a lovely Christian lady who just happens to lack a husband.

The 'Church' is one of the most forceful promoters of 'chivalry,' which is just another form of feminism. The individual doesn't need to overtly push 'girl power' to take advantage of the disadvantage the combination of expecting men to be chivalrous while believing "I don't need no man" creates for men, who are expected to retain all the responsibilities of manhood without any of the perks, most prominently being recognized as the appropriate leader of women.

I guess what I'm saying is that Christian women tend to hide behind whatever curtain allows them to simultaneously virtue signal while treating men like mules.

And I blame men for rewarding women for treating us that way.

Today was tough for a moment, but caving in to all those little 'moments' adds up to perpetuating the dysfunctional, destructive gynocentric social order.

 

[Mark C]

The 'Church' is one of the most forceful promoters of 'chivalry,' which is just another form of feminism. The individual doesn't need to overtly push 'girl power' to take advantage of the disadvantage the combination of expecting men to be chivalrous while believing "I don't need no man" creates for men...

I grew up in college in a fraternity which honored the consummate southern gentleman, and General, Robert E. Lee, and professed 'chivalry' as a primary principle.

I still have no problem with that ideal, whether it's opening the door for a woman, or helping someone change a flat tire on a rainy highway. But you make a great point.

There is a difference between "Vive la difference!" and pretending it doesn't exist, except when it's cause for something antithetical to what actual chivalry was ever supposed to be anyway.

 

[Keith Martin]

except when it's cause for something antithetical to what actual chivalry was ever supposed to be anyway.

Unless "what it was supposed to be anyway" was never what it was supposed to be and was only a propagandized selling point to fool us all into thinking men being subservient to women was the highest expression of masculinity.

 

[FollowingHim]

Unless "what it was supposed to be anyway" was never what it was supposed to be and was only a propagandized selling point to fool us all into thinking men being subservient to women was the highest expression of masculinity.

Interesting thinking there, hadn't looked at it that way before.

 

[FollowingHim]

On consideration, acts of chivalry can be divided into two classes - those that are consistent with preservation of the tribe, and those that are consistent with male subservience. The first is good, the second is bad. The problem with the concept of chivalry may be that it erases the line between the two, intentionally, and uses the natural emotional drive to do the first to justify the second.

For example, "women and children first to the lifeboats" is consistent with preservation of the tribe. Provided polygamy is practiced, it mathematically doesn't greatly alter the birth rate to lose a few men, men are to a degree expendable. But losing any women or children is a serious loss to the tribe's future. Which is why we naturally at an emotional level feel that this is right and automatically act in this way to some degree.

While "men must always open doors for women" has nothing to do with preservation of the tribe, and is solely about male subservience. The introduction of that sort of concept to chivalry may be a key step in the road to outright feminism.

 

[MemeFan]

It' easy what to do in Partial Husband situation. You just need to use right principle.

Only do for girl you aren't sleeping if you would do same for male friend. Treat her same as males.

Otherwise, you will finish as male orbiter. Providing services for her while she just hint at sex while having no intention of actually doing deed.

No wonder women like that situation. They get free help. But why you as a man would you accept such situation? There is no reason. Same situation from male "friend" would never be tolerated.

Don't be a simp. Working for free and getting nothing. Simping is, in generalized sense, special case of not insisting on reciprocity.

 

[FollowingHim]

This is all very ancient and not just modern thinking. In fact, if you have an Orthodox bible, you can read in 1 Esdras about a battle of wits between three young men to determine which thing is the strongest:

1 Esdras 3:12
The third wrote, “Women are strongest, but above all things Truth is the victor.”

1 Esdras 4:13-42

13 Then the third, who had spoken of women, and of truth, (this was Zorobabel) began to speak: 14 “O sirs, isn’t the king great, and men are many, and isn’t wine strong? Who is it then who rules them, or has the lordship over them? Aren’t they women? 15 Women have given birth to the king and all the people who rule over sea and land. 16 They came from women. Women nourished up those who planted the vineyards, from where the wine comes. 17 Women also make garments for men. These bring glory to men. Without women, men can’t exist. 18 Yes, and if men have gathered together gold and silver and any other beautiful thing, and see a woman who is lovely in appearance and beauty, 19 they let all those things go and gape at her, and with open mouth stare at her. They all have more desire for her than for gold, or silver, or any other beautiful thing. 20 A man leaves his own father who brought him up, leaves his own country, and joins with his wife. 21 With his wife he ends his days, with no thought for his father, mother, or country. 22 By this also you must know that women have dominion over you. Don’t you labor and toil, and bring it all to give to women? 23 Yes, a man takes his sword and goes out to travel, to rob, to steal, and to sail on the sea and on rivers. 24 He sees a lion and walks in the darkness. When he has stolen, plundered, and robbed, he brings it to the woman he loves. 25 Therefore a man loves his wife better than father or mother. 26 Yes, there are many who have lost their minds for women, and become slaves for their sakes. 27 Many also have perished, have stumbled, and sinned, for women. 28 Now don’t you believe me? Isn’t the king great in his power? Don’t all regions fear to touch him? 29 Yet I saw him and Apame the king’s concubine, the daughter of the illustrious Barticus, sitting at the right hand of the king, 30 and taking the crown from the king’s head, and setting it upon her own head. Yes, she struck the king with her left hand. 31 At this, the king gaped and gazed at her with open mouth. If she smiles at him, he laughs. But if she takes any displeasure at him, he flatters her, that she might be reconciled to him again. 32 O sirs, how can it not be that women are strong, seeing they do this?”

33 Then the king and the nobles looked at one another. So he began to speak concerning truth. 34 “O sirs, aren’t women strong? The earth is great. The sky is high. The sun is swift in its course, for it circles around the sky, and returns on its course again in one day. 35 Isn’t he who makes these things great? Therefore the truth is great, and stronger than all things. 36 All the earth calls upon truth, and the sky blesses truth. All works shake and tremble, but with truth there is no unrighteous thing. 37 Wine is unrighteous. The king is unrighteous. Women are unrighteous. All the children of men are unrighteous, and all their works are unrighteous. There is no truth in them. They shall also perish in their unrighteousness. 38 But truth remains, and is strong forever. Truth lives and conquers forevermore. 39 With truth there is no partiality toward persons or rewards, but truth does the things that are just, instead of any unrighteous or wicked things. All men approve truth’s works. 40 In truth’s judgment is not any unrighteousness. Truth is the strength, the kingdom, the power, and the majesty of all ages. Blessed be the God of truth!”

41 With that, he stopped speaking. Then all the people shouted and said, “Great is truth, and strong above all things!”

42 Then the king said to him, “Ask what you wish, even more than is appointed in writing, and we will give it to you, because you are found wisest. You shall sit next me, and shall be called my cousin.”

 

[MemeFan]

What is the ideal political system, and where has it been successfully implemented?

Ideal political system is same end results as one for ideal economic and legal.

One definition of politics is who and for what purposes are resouces allowed to use. By this definition it's hard to remove economics influence since economics tells how different rules influence society. And legal system is about how which breaking of rules are we allowed to use force.

So they have to be considered together. End goal would be:

It works as much as possible for whole population in as much time as possible.

Being more detailed:
1. Enables people to live virtuosly towards each other
2. Enables development of human potential
3. Reduces friction towards Lord's desires.

Rules for rules
1. Easy removal of damaging rules.
2. Hard to remove useful and proven beneficial rules.
3. Enables creation of new rules. Needed for future flexibility.
4. Rules must promote cooperation.
5. Usually doing something good for yourself is also good for others.
6. They support restoration of relationaships after someone breaks rules.
7. Can be localized toward climate and other natural phenomena.
8. Relatively few in number so by they can be learned by heart.
9. Seen as just.
10. Take into account natural human differences
11. At same time strengthen both individuals and community

 

[Keith Martin]

I would suggest that even the supposed preservation-of-the-tribe dynamics are not only in service to the subservience aspect (designed, by the way, by ruling class men to keep most men in that posture toward them as well) but more often than not flawed in its logic. Women-and-children-first-to-the-lifeboats is an excellent example. Titanic is the perfect embodiment of it, given that the woman for whom the man sacrificed went on to bear another man's children; in the end, she was just an opportunist. I've also used the example before of what the decision-making should be if you're part of something like the Donner party and end up with a whole family stuck in conditions in which there simply is no way for everyone to survive and there ends up being only enough food to make everyone comfortable for a couple days but would be enough to give miniscule amounts to everyone (just enough to trick the body into not going into shock) but also enough to feed the patriarch so well that his strength would be buttressed for a week or more -- what should be done?

I contend the latter, because the male head of the family is statistically the only one who has any real likelihood of creating a solution not only for himself but for his tribe. This general principle can be extrapolated out into all manner of circumstances: forget happy wife, happy life -- the principle should be that the most important consideration in a family should be keeping the patriarch healthy and happy. Everyone is not of equal value, and the tendency to believe that women are of the highest value because they carry on the tribe through childbirth is a canard. Women are far more interchangeable than are men, because women present a much more narrow range of potential contributions to the success of families, tribes, communities. War brides are the (major) exception to the rule, because they choose to shift their allegiance to a man who was at least part of besting her original mate in masculine traits, but when strong men defer to women, statistically the outcome is most likely going to be that those women will go on to more frequently mate with men who aren't as strong in whatever metric you want to use to define masculinity; specifically, they most often choose replacements who are unwilling to defer to them -- sometimes that will be due to them having strong frame, but more often it will reflect the female tendency to hook up with bad boys.

What we leave out of the equation when we put women on pedestals is that the collective end result of that is to emasculate men, partially by expecting men to behave in an emasculated manner, and partially by rewarding women for rewarding subservient men, with whom they will raise increasingly-opportunistic daughters and increasingly-subservient sons.

In the end, I think chivalry is nonsense, because its net result is paradoxically putting supposedly dainty flowers in a dominance position over men.

 

[Keith Martin]

Only do for girl you aren't sleeping if you would do same for male friend. Treat her same as males.

Exactly -- because, as you say, you wouldn't continue doing favors for males who didn't fully reciprocate.

I would just expand that to assert that much of what men do for their wives should be discontinued if their wives aren't being respectfully cooperative (submissive) and/or demonstrating gratitude for what their men do for them that women are unable to do for themselves.

Instead of Partial Husband, a married man who behaves as a Full Husband to a woman who behaves as a Partial Wife is also a fool.

 

[Keith Martin]

This is all very ancient and not just modern thinking. In fact, if you have an Orthodox bible, you can read in 1 Esdras about a battle of wits between three young men to determine which thing is the strongest:

1 Esdras 3:12
The third wrote, “Women are strongest, but above all things Truth is the victor.”

1 Esdras 4:13-42

13 Then the third, who had spoken of women, and of truth, (this was Zorobabel) began to speak: 14 “O sirs, isn’t the king great, and men are many, and isn’t wine strong? Who is it then who rules them, or has the lordship over them? Aren’t they women? 15 Women have given birth to the king and all the people who rule over sea and land. 16 They came from women. Women nourished up those who planted the vineyards, from where the wine comes. 17 Women also make garments for men. These bring glory to men. Without women, men can’t exist. 18 Yes, and if men have gathered together gold and silver and any other beautiful thing, and see a woman who is lovely in appearance and beauty, 19 they let all those things go and gape at her, and with open mouth stare at her. They all have more desire for her than for gold, or silver, or any other beautiful thing. 20 A man leaves his own father who brought him up, leaves his own country, and joins with his wife. 21 With his wife he ends his days, with no thought for his father, mother, or country. 22 By this also you must know that women have dominion over you. Don’t you labor and toil, and bring it all to give to women? 23 Yes, a man takes his sword and goes out to travel, to rob, to steal, and to sail on the sea and on rivers. 24 He sees a lion and walks in the darkness. When he has stolen, plundered, and robbed, he brings it to the woman he loves. 25 Therefore a man loves his wife better than father or mother. 26 Yes, there are many who have lost their minds for women, and become slaves for their sakes. 27 Many also have perished, have stumbled, and sinned, for women. 28 Now don’t you believe me? Isn’t the king great in his power? Don’t all regions fear to touch him? 29 Yet I saw him and Apame the king’s concubine, the daughter of the illustrious Barticus, sitting at the right hand of the king, 30 and taking the crown from the king’s head, and setting it upon her own head. Yes, she struck the king with her left hand. 31 At this, the king gaped and gazed at her with open mouth. If she smiles at him, he laughs. But if she takes any displeasure at him, he flatters her, that she might be reconciled to him again. 32 O sirs, how can it not be that women are strong, seeing they do this?”

33 Then the king and the nobles looked at one another. So he began to speak concerning truth. 34 “O sirs, aren’t women strong? The earth is great. The sky is high. The sun is swift in its course, for it circles around the sky, and returns on its course again in one day. 35 Isn’t he who makes these things great? Therefore the truth is great, and stronger than all things. 36 All the earth calls upon truth, and the sky blesses truth. All works shake and tremble, but with truth there is no unrighteous thing. 37 Wine is unrighteous. The king is unrighteous. Women are unrighteous. All the children of men are unrighteous, and all their works are unrighteous. There is no truth in them. They shall also perish in their unrighteousness. 38 But truth remains, and is strong forever. Truth lives and conquers forevermore. 39 With truth there is no partiality toward persons or rewards, but truth does the things that are just, instead of any unrighteous or wicked things. All men approve truth’s works. 40 In truth’s judgment is not any unrighteousness. Truth is the strength, the kingdom, the power, and the majesty of all ages. Blessed be the God of truth!”

41 With that, he stopped speaking. Then all the people shouted and said, “Great is truth, and strong above all things!”

42 Then the king said to him, “Ask what you wish, even more than is appointed in writing, and we will give it to you, because you are found wisest. You shall sit next me, and shall be called my cousin.”

Sure, who can argue that Truth isn't the strongest, but that passage is also characterized by bunk, because the whole "King came from a woman, so she is stronger" argument is fatally flawed, because no woman is capable of gestating a king without a man to impregnate her. It's folly to base a conclusion on a partial premise that is dependent on a more complete one.

 

[Keith Martin]

What is the ideal political system, and where has it been successfully implemented?

End goal would be:

My question isn't intended to lead toward any discussion centered around what kind of political system we could design for the future.

I'm specifically asking for you to do the following, @MemeFan: using the present tense as reflected in my use of the word 'is' (as opposed to what would or could be the ideal political system, identify the current (or even past) political system that is (or has been) ideal -- and tell us where it has been successfully implemented. That is, what and where?

 

[FollowingHim]

I would suggest that even the supposed preservation-of-the-tribe dynamics are not only in service to the subservience aspect (designed, by the way, by ruling class men to keep most men in that posture toward them as well) but more often than not flawed in its logic. Women-and-children-first-to-the-lifeboats is an excellent example. Titanic is the perfect embodiment of it, given that the woman for whom the man sacrificed went on to bear another man's children; in the end, she was just an opportunist. I've also used the example before of what the decision-making should be if you're part of something like the Donner party and end up with a whole family stuck in conditions in which there simply is no way for everyone to survive and there ends up being only enough food to make everyone comfortable for a couple days but would be enough to give miniscule amounts to everyone (just enough to trick the body into not going into shock) but also enough to feed the patriarch so well that his strength would be buttressed for a week or more -- what should be done?

I contend the latter, because the male head of the family is statistically the only one who has any real likelihood of creating a solution not only for himself but for his tribe. This general principle can be extrapolated out into all manner of circumstances: forget happy wife, happy life -- the principle should be that the most important consideration in a family should be keeping the patriarch healthy and happy. Everyone is not of equal value, and the tendency to believe that women are of the highest value because they carry on the tribe through childbirth is a canard. Women are far more interchangeable than are men, because women present a much more narrow range of potential contributions to the success of families, tribes, communities. War brides are the (major) exception to the rule, because they choose to shift their allegiance to a man who was at least part of besting her original mate in masculine traits, but when strong men defer to women, statistically the outcome is most likely going to be that those women will go on to more frequently mate with men who aren't as strong in whatever metric you want to use to define masculinity; specifically, they most often choose replacements who are unwilling to defer to them -- sometimes that will be due to them having strong frame, but more often it will reflect the female tendency to hook up with bad boys.

What we leave out of the equation when we put women on pedestals is that the collective end result of that is to emasculate men, partially by expecting men to behave in an emasculated manner, and partially by rewarding women for rewarding subservient men, with whom they will raise increasingly-opportunistic daughters and increasingly-subservient sons.

In the end, I think chivalry is nonsense, because its net result is paradoxically putting supposedly dainty flowers in a dominance position over men.

You have missed my point entirely as you have ignored maths, and are focussing on a smaller family unit rather than the tribe.

Over a period of a year:
100 men + 100 women can have 100 babies.
10 men + 100 women can have 100 babies.
100 men + 10 women can have 10 babies.

It really is that simple. Why in tribal warfare are the losers men generally massacred but the women generally captured? Same reason.

This creates a real, innate urge to protect women, which is perfectly understandable from either a religious perspective or evolutionary psychology. This is a fundamental factor that cannot just be ignored.

 

[Gary Slaughenhaupt]

Over a period of a year:
100 men + 100 women can have 100 babies.

10 of the 100 men are going to try to kill, emasculate or enslave 90 of the men so that:
10 men + 100 women can have 100 babies.

 

[Keith Martin]

You have missed my point entirely as you have ignored maths, and are focussing on a smaller family unit rather than the tribe.

Over a period of a year:
100 men + 100 women can have 100 babies.
10 men + 100 women can have 100 babies.
100 men + 10 women can have 10 babies.

It really is that simple. Why in tribal warfare are the losers men generally massacred but the women generally captured? Same reason.

This creates a real, innate urge to protect women, which is perfectly understandable from either a religious perspective or evolutionary psychology. This is a fundamental factor that cannot just be ignored.

I'm not missing your points.

You're missing mine.

I don't challenge that numbers of women determine maximum number of children over course of a one-year period. Who could challenge that? What I'm challenging is:

• The long-term effect; i.e., who gives a sh** about what happens in a year when the world isn't going to end in a year?
• What matters is, what kind of world are we left with long-term based on whether or not men remain subservient and obsequious to women? (Tangible evidence is ubiquitous.)
• How are we defining 'tribe?' If it's the whole human race, no matter what level of misery ensues, then, sure, just make sure the women and children survive (especially the female children), because a small number of cowardly, weak, simping men can impregnate all of them, pass along whatever markers in their DNA may have influenced them to be cowards, and the resulting children can be raised to more thoroughly worship women and denigrate men.

In war, the losers are massacred, just as an ascendant lion massacres the cubs of his new pride who were produced by insemination from the previous top 'dog,' in order to remove influence of the preceding males. One 'tribe' thus benefits long-term, but in the case of your women-and-children-first example, the 'tribe' of men who put women and children first (in modern terms, think happy-wife-happy-life and child-centered parenting) only serves to extinguish themselves, relegating their surviving sons to be raised by women who will teach them to extinguish themselves as well. We're watching this happening in real time, Samuel.

No one is ignoring anything, but the modern 'religious perspective' is destructively gynocentric, and evolutionary psychology is predominantly full-scale BUNK, salted with a handful of doh-obvious 'insights.' To tout evolutionary psychology as ultimate wisdom absolutely requires treating Charles Darwin as the Second Coming.

I guess I shouldn't be, but I'm actually surprised at how vehemently you're defending prioritizing defending women and claiming innate status for it. We are exhorted to defend our women, but that entirely implies that it isn't innate and has to be commanded or instructed. Furthermore, the imperative to protect isn't provided in a vacuum but in the overall global context of Scripture that even more vehemently instructs us to be in charge.

Which brings us back to the Are We Not Mules? argument: what sense does it make for men to fully sacrifice themselves (behave as a Full Husband) on behalf of women (Partial Wives) who won't even acknowledge that they are owned by the men they expect to protect them?

Would you assert that men owe women provision and protection just because those women provide them with whatever level of sex and reproduction those women deign to provide their men?

 

[steve]

A facebook post went something like Men spoil women and then complain about the spoiled women
(Feminists being the spoiled women)
My reply was that men would prefer that they didn’t become spoiled.

I am not going to up the ante in the gender wars by refusing to be chivalrous. Some women will, over time, learn the balance. The rest aren’t my problem.