Fellas, I bring you good news. If you want a woman to like you, a good first step would be being chivalrous. This is true even in the case of feminists who will likely cry “patriarchy!” as you open a door for them.
Jokes aside, this is true according to a recent study from University of Kent and Iowa State University scientists. In this study’s abstract, the scientists inform us that “benevolent sexism” (BS… stop laughing), or well-meaning sexism, despite the “harmful consequences”, shows that these men “are perceived as willing to invest (protect, provide, and commit)” in the relationship.
The scientists note that “women find benevolent sexist [BS] men attractive, not because they are ignorant of the harmful effects, but despite being aware of them. This suggests that the desirable aspects of BS attitudes and behaviors are sufficient to overcome the perceived negative effects.”
Right, just one question. What are the “perceived negative effects”? What are the “harmful effects” of what these scientists call “benevolent sexism”? What is so wrong about being chivalrous? What harm does it cause a woman for a man to hold the door open for them? Does it make the woman believe that she is inferior to the man and needs him to hold a door open for her because she is, in some way, incapable? That’s ludicrous!
Being chivalrous has nothing to do with a man being superior to a woman. It has everything to do with a man wanting to show respect for a woman by doing something nice for her. What age do we live in that doing something nice for someone else is considered a bad thing?
Well, at least even the feminist women who consider chivalry to be sexist are still attracted to men who are chivalrous.
The Daily Mail noted that the research was collected from five study groups full of women, with the largest group comprising of 233 women and the smallest comprising 104. The women were asked to view different scenarios of interactions with men, including “men who were kind but in what is considered a sexist way, and men who treated the women as equals and didn’t offer any special treatment.” In these interactions, the women were asked to rate the men’s “warmth and attractiveness, and how willing they thought they would be to provide for, protect or commit to them.” The women also divulged their own leanings in terms of their feminism.
The scientists noted that “Our proposal is that women approve of BS attitudes and behaviors because they are taken as cues that a man is willing to invest by being protective, providing, and committed.”
And as I have said before, even feminists are attracted to this “BS” behavior. “Evidence shows that many women – even those who desire [equal] relationships – want a man to be chivalrous, by, for example, paying for dates and opening doors for them. Furthermore, the finding that high feminist women, and not only low feminist women, rated a [sexist] potential romantic partner as more attractive despite being more aware of the detrimental effects, suggests that the attraction may be a mate preference for women in general, and not just for women who endorse traditional gender roles.”
I am actually kind of surprised by a couple of things. Primarily, obviously, the fact that even feminist women are attracted to chivalrous men. But also the fact that a man paying for dates is considered “chivalrous”. I just thought it was common sense. What self-respecting man would allow his date to pay for the date, even if it’s just her portion?
Regardless, this is good news for all men out there… well, straight men, at least. This study definitely shows us that, despite it being “2018” as Leftists who are apparently cognitive enough to recognize the year will say, women are still attracted to chivalry, even women who are self-described feminists.
Again, I must call into question why chivalry could even be considered to be sexist in any way, benevolent or not, but these results are actually very favorable to all men out there. In an age when chivalry is not only dying, but being demonized as it’s being lowered into the grave, it’s fantastic news to hear that chivalry is still considered attractive, a positive thing, to all women regardless of political leaning or feminist leaning.
This is the sort of thing that coincides with a UK Daily Mail article about women being attracted to “muscles and money”. I have already written an article surrounding that particular topic, but it does show that the concept of an alpha male, and a chivalrous one at that, is still alive and well. Of course women are attracted to an alpha male. I’ve already detailed the reasons why in that other article, but it makes sense to go over them here as well.
The study mentioned that men who are chivalrous tend to show that they are more willing to invest in the relationship, such as protecting women. Likewise, men who are considered “alpha” show that they are more willing to protect women from potential harm or danger. This has been true since the dawn of time. Since the creation of mankind.
And let’s not forget the hand Hollywood and the media (including t.v.) plays in this sort of thing. In today’s Hollywood, any semblance of masculinity is barraged and attacked. It’s considered sexist to show “toxic masculinity” and it’s something they believe must be changed. Men cannot be allowed to be men, because if they are, that somehow is destructive to women. Nevermind the fact that women have more power and control when it comes to a relationship. Nevermind the fact that women are the ones who have the authority to accept or decline a man’s courtship. If men are men, that harms women.
So, they encourage men to be wussies. They encourage men to be beta males. To show, if not the opposite of masculinity, at least no masculinity at all. Because of this, and because of constant attacks against chivalry, women’s expectations are lowered when it comes to a potential romantic partner. So when said romantic partner shows chivalry and masculinity, women are attracted to it. Not because they ignore the “toxicity” of masculinity, but because they are biologically built that way by the Lord.
In the Left’s attacks against masculinity, they ignore a crucial factor: biology. Not surprising considering they ignore biology when it comes to transgender people. Masculinity, to women, will always be an attractive factor. This is true regardless of whether you call it evolution or God’s Will for the roles of men and women.
Women tend to be attracted to men who are men. Who knew?
“However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.”
Do you know what a feminazi is? A feminazi is a woman who believes her gender is sociologically still insanely unequal to men, even though facts say otherwise and she is typically someone who wants female supremacy while claiming it’s for “equality”.
But why am I bringing this up? Because of a story I read on AffinityMagazine.us. Here’s the title of the story: “Why the Term “Feminazi” Should Never Be Used”. In this story, Clara Sparwath tells of the time when she was “sitting in my English class listening to the boys behind me talk about the election right after Trump was announced to be our next president… I couldn’t take it anymore when one boy said, ‘Trump was elected! They need to just get over it!’ As the words left his mouth I spun around and looked at the two boys and said, ‘We can’t get over it because he’s an a**hole.’ They looked at me, stunned for a moment before one of them began to chuckle before saying, ‘Looks like we got a feminazi on our hands.’ Immediately rage built inside me.”
I would like to know what college those boys attend so I could shake their hand and become their friend. But I also want to point out her reason for liberals not being able to get over Trump getting elected. So she thinks he’s an “a**hole”? Let me tell ya, I thought Obama was a communist spawn of Satan, but I got over him becoming president… TWICE!
The article continues: “How is wanting gender equality anything like committing genocide? The answer is: it’s not. People have started calling feminists ‘feminazis’ in order to invalidate the movement and our arguments (not to mention the word nazi is not one to be thrown around carelessly).”
This girl has much to learn. Committing genocide is not strictly a Nazi thing. ISIS commits genocide as often as they can, but no one calls them Nazis. Nazis are those inherently hateful of other people simply for being different and are willing to go to any extreme to eradicate them.
Huh, I guess ISIS actually could be classified as neo-Nazis, according to my definition.
But anyway, that’s not the reason we call them “feminazis”. We call them “feminazis” because they HATE men who are men, HATE women who are women and HATE women who don’t hate men.
Secondly, what does this girl mean by “gender equality”? I thought men and women already were equal? Are they not? Are women not able to vote in elections like men do? Are women not allowed to drive like men can? Are women not allowed to have jobs like men can? Do we live in the early 1900’s still? You see, I thought women ARE equal to men, but I guess they’re not, since this girl says they’re not.
Third, she says we started calling them feminazis to “invalidate the movement and their arguments”. Honey, history already invalidates your arguments, you don’t need us for that. And to “invalidate the movement”? The “movement” is not for equal rights. It’s for the right to get free contraceptives that TAXPAYERS have to pay for so that you can have sex all you want without worrying about getting pregnant. Oh, but then what does it matter if you do get pregnant? Because you also claim that abortion is a right and since it’s “your body”, therefore it’s “your choice”.
THAT IS THE GENOCIDE PART! ABORTION!
Abortion is the reason they're feminazis. Nazism is synonymous with genocide...and 55 million unborn babies killed since Roe v Wade are the evidence of the Feminist Movement genocidal character.
That’s what the feminist movement is. The WOMEN’s movement was successful in making women equal to men. The FEMINIST movement seeks to emasculate men and have women be SUPERIOR to men. The feminist movement seeks to get people to pay for them to just have fun having sex without worrying about having to take care of an “annoying child”.
In my opinion, the only important thing that is left to take care of is the wage gap. If a woman is perfectly qualified to do a job that a man can, she should not be getting payed less for that job. THAT is the only thing I could possibly agree on. THAT is the only area that is still an issue. A REAL issue, that is. The rest is not for equality between both sexes, it’s about free contraceptives, the right to kill their own children and being dominant over men.
Lastly, I want to point out the irony of the statement “(not to mention the word nazi is not one to be thrown around carelessly)”. I can bet you any amount of money that she’s called Trump a Nazi on more than one occasion. The Left calls us Nazis all the time now, if not “white supremacists”, so I find it deliciously ironic that she has a problem with getting called a “feminazi”, when she has, undoubtedly, called conservatives Nazis in the last few weeks.
But to return to the previous point, do you know exactly who has made it so that men have the roles they have and women have the roles they have? It’s not the government. It’s not society. It’s GOD.
He is the one that has explained the roles of men and women. Ephesians 5:22-24 says: “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.”
The wife is to submit to her husband, as they are to submit to the Lord. Does that mean that she is his slave? Not in the least! Because Ephesians 5:25-30 says: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of His body.”
God told men that they should LOVE their wives as Christ loved the church. Should a wife submit to her husband, even if he is abusive towards her and/or the children? OF COURSE NOT! A man who abuses his wife and/or children is no man at all! And she should not submit herself to a man who refuses to be a godly man. But if the man loves his wife as Christ loved the church (which actually is a great task that, without God, we would fail), then the wife, commanded by God, should be submissive to him, knowing that she will be taken care of by his love.
Does that mean that she shouldn’t get a job if she wants to have one? No, she can do as she pleases in that regard, provided that the husband is ok with that decision as well, particularly if there are children involved. Marriage is a compromise, as they say. Equal partners in love. The husband may be the head of the household, but in no way does it mean that he is the owner of the wife.
The point is that the women’s movement has already accomplished much of what feminists claim they want to accomplish. And God has already commanded that women have a certain role, provided the husband also does what He commands he does. If the husband does not love his wife as Christ loved the church, the wife is in no way to be submissive to such a poor excuse for a man.
“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of His body.”
While listening to the Rush Limbaugh show on Tuesday the 11th of April, Rush talked about a news article from PJ Media about Millennials. The article was titled “Millennial Men Prefer to Be Family Breadwinners, Have Stay-at-Home Wives”.
When I heard it, I immediately thought that that’s not something the Left, particularly feminists, would be happy to read. But it makes sense. Personally, I want to be the breadwinner for my family and for my wife to take care of the house and children. That’s not to say I wouldn’t help, but that’s the roles I want for my family.
And, according to this article, most millennial men want the same.
Rush also stated a survey run on the dating website “Plenty of Fish”. According to the survey results, “22% of women refused to date a man that earned less money than they do.” And that by comparison, “4% of men and 11% of single individuals overall claimed that they refuse to be the breadwinner in a relationship.” The wording might trip you up a bit, it certainly confused Rush for a moment, but this is certainly good news. This means that 96% of men in that survey said they wanted to be the breadwinner.
When I heard all of this, it made complete sense. But more than that, it made me think about the trend in the world. The Left is trying to fundamentally change the U.S. They want civilization and people to be so incredibly confused and frustrated that they need government intervention to help sort things out, and that means Democrats getting elected. But what these things tell me is that the Left is not succeeding anywhere near as much as they would want us to believe.
They have the mainstream media and Hollywood to shout the things they believe and shove them down people’s throats, but that’s just it: they’re loud, not plentiful. Most people don’t want what they’re selling.
That article told me that millennial men want to embrace the role that God Himself ordered on man. And that they want a woman who will embrace the role God Himself ordered on woman. Telling this to a liberal feminist will undoubtedly infuriate them to the core. And that just makes me smile. This tells me that the Left isn’t succeeding as much as they want me to believe or even as they may believe themselves.
Furthermore, the evidence that they aren’t as successful as they claim to be is in the 2016 electoral map by county. When you look at that, you see a massive sea of red, even in California, Oregon and Washington. That’s something I’ve told you about in previous articles, but it is reinforced by the aforementioned article and survey.
MOST PEOPLE WANT A NORMAL LIFE.
MOST MEN WANT TO BE MEN.
MOST WOMEN WANT TO BE WOMEN.
Most people want to embrace the role God gave them. And that makes God smile. God didn’t create man so that he can lazy around doing whatever he wanted whenever he wanted with and to whomever he wanted. He didn’t create woman to do the same things man did. He created man to protect and care for woman and He created woman to accompany man by his side.
Leftists might say that that’s damaging to women, calling people that want that ‘sexist’. But here’s the thing: God created Eve from Adam’s rib. He didn’t take a part of Adam’s foot so that he may be above her, or from his head so that she may be above him. He took part of Adam’s rib so that woman may be equal to man, formed of his side to be by his side.
Men are to love their wives as Christ loved the church and women are to love and submit to their husbands as the church loves and submits to Christ.
When the husband is a man of God, righteousness fills his heart and refuses the desire to do evil, such as harm his wife. That’s just common sense. As Christ is the head of the church, so is husband the head of the family, which is why Ephesians 5:22-24 says to women that they should submit. “Wives, submit to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit everything to their husbands.”
This verse talks about a husband who is a man of God. God obviously doesn’t want women to submit to an abusive, sinful, evil man. But if a man is right with God and follows Christ, his heart won’t allow him to sin and feel good about it. He has the right heart and so the wife should follow him who follows Christ.
“Wives, submit to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit everything to their husbands.
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the Word, so that He might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of His body. ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’”
We bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...