White Feathers, Cowards and Manipulative Females.

''Oh, don't be such a coward!''

Women use this phrase, and variations thereof, to manipulate men when something unpleasant must be done. This custom (in the English-speaking world, anyway) has a long history, as you can see here:

en.wikipedia.org...

This presents a more detailed analysis:

''In August 1914, Admiral Charles Fitzgerald founded the Order of the White Feather. With the support of leading writers such as Mary Ward and Emma Orczy, the organisation encouraged women to give out white feathers to young men who had not joined the British Army. One young woman remembers her father, Robert Smith, being given a feather on his way home from work: "That night he came home and cried his heart out. My father was no coward, but had been reluctant to leave his family. He was thirty-four and my mother, who had two young children, had been suffering from a serious illness. Soon after this incident my father joined the army."

www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...

Yes, the quote above may be passe now but the topic itself is very much relevant today. After all, one can discern a myriad of those manhood-manipulation memes all around in our contemporary society. If the SHTF, which appears to be a matter of near future, the whole edifice of social standards will begin to crumble.

Will we see the resurgence of machismo and other related phenomena? Time will tell.

ya i here "be a man" in response to having to support a woman or do stereotypical guy things. Spoil the chick, or when in arguements if I try to walk away from a fight to cool down I am told to grow up and deal with the issues. Its pretty bogus. Guilt trips and morals are only a way to control people into doing what they dont want to do.

I hope that no shtf will take place, because I believe mens' chivalry (those few that have it) would go byby.

It's interesting to note that the Order of the White Feather was founded by a male military office whose intent was to bolster the forces... So, who was manipulating who again?

Originally posted by survivaloftheslickest
''Oh, don't be such a coward!''

Women use this phrase, and variations thereof, to manipulate men when something unpleasant must be done. This custom (in the English-speaking world, anyway) has a long history, as you can see here:

en.wikipedia.org...

This presents a more detailed analysis:

''In August 1914, Admiral Charles Fitzgerald founded the Order of the White Feather. With the support of leading writers such as Mary Ward and Emma Orczy, the organisation encouraged women to give out white feathers to young men who had not joined the British Army. One young woman remembers her father, Robert Smith, being given a feather on his way home from work: "That night he came home and cried his heart out. My father was no coward, but had been reluctant to leave his family. He was thirty-four and my mother, who had two young children, had been suffering from a serious illness. Soon after this incident my father joined the army."

www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...

Yes, the quote above may be passe now but the topic itself is very much relevant today. After all, one can discern a myriad of those manhood-manipulation memes all around in our contemporary society. If the SHTF, which appears to be a matter of near future, the whole edifice of social standards will begin to crumble.

Will we see the resurgence of machismo and other related phenomena? Time will tell.

we do use phrases and even men when we feel unconfortable, let me ask you something, how did you feel when you saw your first child born? assuming you did of course, what did you say or think? ya both sexes have our unconfortable issues, but we learn to deal with them one way or another. Personally in my family my husband is so blind to a SHTF scenerio he trys to dismantle my preparation, making me have to get mroe resourceful and hide the stuff better, anyhow the point here is, he will be looking to me for answers if and or when TSHTF. not all woman are weak not all men are macho

reply to post by survivaloftheslickest
.

Interesting. I remember reading accounts of the German tribes during warfare. the women would follow the men into battle, rip open their tops and yell that their men had better fight harder else the enemy would get ahold of these! (I suspect some of those Valkarie German women could fight better than a lot of men!)

But the other issue I see is that men have been emasculated to the point that they can't even tell a women they look good without being accused of sexual harassment. This is especially prevalent in the work environment. The real question is, if TSHTF will men revert to their "natural" role and tell feminism to take a hike? This is also true of the so-called "LGBT Community." It's difficult to imagine much sympathy for someone who wishes to change his or her gender if your next meal is the most important issue at hand. I would suggest that some of these 'civil rights' issues would be considered selfish indulgences that are not affordable.

Originally posted by maria_stardust
It's interesting to note that the Order of the White Feather was founded by a male military office whose intent was to bolster the forces... So, who was manipulating who again?

Oops.

Women manipulate men though shame in many ways. It is called "playing the mommie card." The woman treats the man as a mother scolding a naughty infant. If frequently employed it loses its effectiveness but infrequent use is highly effective.

reply to post by schuyler


I like your points alot though, and it's why my mistaken affinity with the political Left went byby. With an encroaching Orwellian state, the continuation of wars of aggression, looming possible economic collapse, they worry and hand wring about "abortion rights" and "gay marriage", it makes me want to just wring their necks, these morons. They seriously need to get their heads out of their butts. (Maybe literally as well as common sense wise)

Originally posted by maria_stardust
It's interesting to note that the Order of the White Feather was founded by a male military office whose intent was to bolster the forces... So, who was manipulating who again?

Fair enough, but there had to be a proclivity towards this type of manipulation in the first place, i.e. women allowed themselves to be manipulated without even realizing it. Then again, different times, but minds were and are often feeble...

I hate to say this, guys, but we put this leash on ourselves. Sure, we like to protect the ladies. In fact, we like it a little too much. Exposing yourself to life-threatening danger to ensure the safety of your girl is part of the hard-wiring.

The cowardice card is, by and large, not played by the women. It's played on the men by the men. Perhaps in time, they displace onto the girl they are protecting the self-loathing they experience through a failure to face and acknowledge the natural aversion to danger we all share in common. The golden leash of chivalry turned to leaden obligation.

Believe me, most of our women? Would want us to stay right there with them, out of harm's way.

Originally posted by mistermonculous
I hate to say this, guys, but we put this leash on ourselves. Sure, we like to protect the ladies. In fact, we like it a little too much. Exposing yourself to life-threatening danger to ensure the safety of your girl is part of the hard-wiring.

A little too much. Well said.

Originally posted by survivaloftheslickest

Yes, the quote above may be passe now but the topic itself is very much relevant today. After all, one can discern a myriad of those manhood-manipulation memes all around in our contemporary society. If the SHTF, which appears to be a matter of near future, the whole edifice of social standards will begin to crumble.

Will we see the resurgence of machismo and other related phenomena? Time will tell.

I once found myself crawling through a window into the cab of a pick-up truck which had impacted a concrete wall at high speed. Gasoline was forming in puddles underneath the vehicle, and the engine compartment was smoking. One dead occupant was lying on top of the still alive but unconscious other occupant on the floorboard.

As I worked to get the dead man onto the seat, so as to get to the one below whose breathing was ragged and labored, a small crowd had gathered. Instead of helping me, several were yelling at me to get out before it caught fire.

The next day, when I had time to take stock, I found I was furious, livid, angry as I could be, that no one helped. I hated those people-- complete strangers-- and I hated them.

BUT!

Then I later learned, that I did what I did and they did what they did without thought-- without intent.

It was no more to my credit that I crawled through that window than it was to anyone else's discredit that they did not; but instead yelled concern for my safety. We are pre-wired (and also, to a lesser degree) conditioned from experience to react in certain ways to life and death situations.

I was equally concerned as they, but I happened to be the one pre-wired to crawl through that widow. I could not help it anymore than they could help yelling to warn me. Only the actions differed-- cowardice and heroism were not a part of the equation.

It is NOT a matter of character.

Now, with that said, I ask Why disparage someone who is pre-wired (and knows it) from responding to danger in a more pro-active way? They cannot help it. The initial reaction is "normal" to that person, whether the "fight" mechanism is first and most powerful or if the "flee" mechanism is first.

So if "normal" is whatever your impulse is; then one may well be expected to confirm normal by reasoning after the fact. The solider has learned that he is well equipped to take risks in an emergency, and the "white feather" civilian has learned that he is best equipped for a more considered activity.

Just as a "hero" may well decide retreat is the better of two options and change his initial direction; a "coward" is equally likely to decide to attack even if his initial reaction was contrary to that. It is the initial impulse, our "gut reaction" that we may allow to define us-- and that is a problem. Both are necessary, and both are right, and both are reasonable, and neither speaks to character.

Knowing what you are prone to do is good; but assigning value to your impulses and taking a negative view of those whose impulses are different is to be avoided.

Put that another way, branding a "safety above all" ideology based upon "normal" of one's own impulse as "cowardly" is as false an understanding as is branding a "pro-active" ideology based upon "normal" of one's own impulse as "violent."

"Pacifist" and "Brave" are the flattering misunderstandings. I think those descriptions might be better than the disparaging ones; but even those (falsely) assign character-- when it is only inclination. I never heard a hero admit it as describing himself. For good reason. It is as false as calling someone a "coward."

Women will Manipulate foolish men as will children, animals, and politicians. Perhaps rather than blaming women ( the daughters of Eve) we should blame male idiocy which is alive and well!