You Can’t Have Both Feminism and Chivalry

If women are not weaker than men there is zero reason to “protect” or “let them go first” or “open the door for them.”

Now because I’m dead set against feminism, I believe chivalry is wonderful!

 A man is like a bar of iron, a woman is like honey.  Which is preferable?  Which is better?  Which is more important?

No one would ever say that “honey is stronger than iron” (it would be ridiculous).

And honey can NEVER be iron, and iron can NEVER be honey.  And if iron does what iron is supposed to then it can build wonderful things!  The world can be a cruel place to live in without the protection iron brings- protection from enemies, from the elements, from the wild.  

And if honey does what honey is supposed to do, it is the best medicine the world has ever seen (seriously, do your research); it makes life sweet and wonderful!  And when used properly, it keeps sickness away, and the sweetness makes life even worth living.

If man is the wild stallion, then woman is the fragrant flower garden.

Can the wild stallion trample the flower garden?  Sure- if he is the greatest of fools.  But the flower garden wants the stallion to stop roaming, smell the flowers, taste the honey (Song of Solomon stuff, not perverted) and never roam again.  But the stallion is not weaker when he lays in the garden.  And the honey/flower garden is not weaker when she stops pretending to be iron or a horse.

So feminists- you can’t have feminism AND chivalry.  If the flower forever tries to be a horse, she doesn’t need the horse to protect her.

And men- be iron and a stallion, but know that you are stronger (not weaker) when you find the flower garden that wants to be a your own flower garden forever!

And a stallion that thinks he can turn into a flower just looks like a fool and a disgusting horse.  He’ll never give fragrance or medicine or sweetness to life.