Feminism and Chivalry: Hypocrisy

Parenting is one of the most important jobs that one can have. That's where it all begins. Sure, genetics play a role in what a child grows up to become; however, for the most part, it's up to parents to raise their children the right way and instill in them proper beliefs and customs that benefit society as well as themselves.


Generally speaking, what is the average young boy taught growing up in regards to women? To respect women. To hold open doors for women. To be polite around women. To take care of women. To watch his language around women. To pull out chairs for women. When there is something heavy to be lifted, the boy learns quickly that he should volunteer to carry it for the girl. Not long after this, the average young boy discovers chivalry at its most horrific stage: dating. Whether its a romantic comedy or a television show, the young boy will find out that it is a social standard that on a date, he must (standard date)

a) Chauffeur the girl around in his car, on his dime.
b) Pay for the movie tickets and any snacks that she desires
c) Pay for dinner
d) A kiss is expected at the end. This requires courage, as he is risking rejection as well a a blow to his self-esteem.

We know what young boys are taught growing up. Basically, its to appease and serve women. It continues through adulthood; men don't care for large homes and fancy cars. Not in the abstract they don't. They work slavishly to get these material possessions because society has taught them that its the best way to get an attractive female; if a male could live in a comfortable apartment with a decent car his whole life and not have it work against him when it comes to getting a mate, he would do it. So serving women never stops.

With that being said, I have an important question to ask: are young girls instructed by their parents and society to respect and revere men as much as boys are told to respect them? Of course not, and everyone knows it. Young girls are pampered and told they are princesses. This is a fundamental difference in the way men and women are raised. If feminism is truly about equality, then why exactly have feminists turned a blind eye to the issue of chivalry and the way boys are taught to worship girls?

Chivalry in and of itself is sexist. Yet I see nothing but hypocrisy from feminists and most women for that matter. The feminist movement has turned out to be yet another special interest group that claims to be for equality but in reality desires more and more advantages, entitlements, and attention.

If you are a true egalitarian, you would not identify with any ideology at all. That is the fact that feminists hide. Inequality is a double edged sword. Not being equal has disadvantages as well as advantages. For instance, a disadvantage for women in the early 1900's was that they were restricted to the kitchen and raising children. However, an advantage was not having to work or take on any stressful responsibility. Another advantage was having the luxury of choosing a mate. Women were (and still are) in the position to judge males and choose who they saw fit. Chivalry was also an advantage.

Now, after feminism has pervaded society, we see that these disadvantages are gone. However, the advantages that inequality brought women remain; they conveniently held on to the luxurious social custom of having a man put his self-esteem on the line to approach a woman who he doesn't know, and go through all of the steps that I outlined above on a date. Chivalry was left out of the "equality" movement.

This seems to me to be pure hypocrisy and nothing more than a power grab for the gender that is a 53% majority in the USA. Feminism has turned the average woman today into a party-seeker. A feminist will fight for the right of women to get drunk and pass out in front of groups of red-blooded males. This is subtle encouragement. Today's American woman is as irrational as yesterday's American women; the difference is that today's has been given the green light to act on her illogical, irrational, and emotional choices.

Rand Paul: Libertarian Messiah or Fraud?

Rand Paul, the "Tea Party" candidate has won the republican nomination for U.S Senate in Kentucky. Like his father, Ron Paul, he is a libertarian that used the republican ticket to help him get elected-this country is still in the dark when it comes to voting for anyone other than a republican or democrat. When I heard of this news, I personally was excited. Finally a senator that I can get behind. I mean, he's a libertarian so I should back him 100%, right? Well not after I saw this video of him getting grilled by Rachel Maddow:




Now don't get me wrong: his stance on private ownership is a true libertarian one. And I would support his view even though no one in this country wants to go back to the 1950's where we had signs outside businesses that banished certain groups from entering. The problem with Rand Paul is that he selectively chose this issue to have an extreme view on. After reading an article by David Saltonstall (link to the article below, I discovered where Paul stands on the issue of medical marijuana: he support's its legalization. Upon first glance this may seem to be a good thing. However, the true libertarian stance is against the nanny state. All drugs should be legalized. It isn't in the government's place to tell its citizens what they may or may not put into their own body. The problem with Rand Paul is that he is extreme when it comes to allowing businesses to discriminate, but not extreme where it counts perhaps even more: on the war on drugs.

Anyone who understands the war on drugs and how it is a complete failure knows that it is an issue of utmost importance. This isn't about letting stoners and hippies have their day; its about ending statism, violence, and helping to grow our economy. Paul, unlike his father, doesn't seem to understand this. He should be at the forefront of the argument speaking out against the phony war on drugs. Instead, he takes a weak, watered down stance on the issue and promotes the legalization of medical marijuana. That is simply not enough.

Either you are for freedom or for the state, take your pick Rand. So far you have damaged the Tea Party movement beyond repair. The big knock, if you recall, on the Tea Party Movement was that it was filled with racist, middle-aged, crazed blue collar people who are fed up with so much government. You are only validating the liberals when you take unpopular stances on a civil rights bill that is in the past and will never be changed. What was the point of speaking out against it? I don't understand this extremist point of view in light of the fact that you aren't willing to take extreme libertarian views on other issues.

Philosophy can be a great basis for political positions. However, one must discover that there is a difference between theory and reality. In theory, what Rand Paul wants should hold up. But in reality, all business owners and corporations are not filled with responsible, good natured people. There is incompetence in both government as well as private business. I understand that private ownership is better to bet on than government, but one must not defend private ownership at the expense of the civil liberties of American citizens. Let's suppose a private business were to bar all Jews from entering their Cafe. Does this not infringe upon Jewish American's freedom of movement? What about the American citizens?

These and many other issues are ones that Rand Paul must think clearly about. The arguments that he brings forth are at the college level- they have no place in the United States Senate. He needs to clean his act up and start coming up with constructive, practical ideas rather than loony ones that no one but him will vote in favor of.