JESSE POWELL restates the rationale for chivalry in an age of feminism here. As he puts it, the abuses of feminism do not justify a rejection of masculine protectiveness, a rejection that is so often advocated by men’s rights advocates.
— Comments —
Orlando Braga writes:
I’m a faithful follower of your writings. Referring to Mr. Powell’s statement in favor of “chivalry in an age of feminism,” I would in principle agree. However, there’s a contradiction in Mr. Powell’s rationale: one cannot simultaneously abide to Natural Law pragmatism (chivalry) and to Positive Law pragmatism (obey to feminist political laws). We must choose between these two types of pragmatism. Trying to follow both types of pragmatism is somehow a sort of “doublethink” as George Orwell put it, or is squaring the circle in John Rawl’s way.
Therefore, I think that “chivalry in an age of feminism” means chivalry according to Natural Law.
Yes, it is not possible to act manfully to protect women and at the same time adhere to feminist laws. But, as Mr Powell pointed out in the comment I referred to, the only valid reason to adhere to feminist laws is the threat of punishment.