05 July 2013

A Gentleman is So Hard to Find?

The Saturdays, a UK pop band, have released a song about how “hard” it’s to find a “gentleman”. This misandric little number is called “A Gentleman is So Hard to Find”:



A gentleman is so 1995, so hard for a girl to find
A real husband is so 1999, so hard for a girl to find
Cause most guys just hit it and quit it
And then they wonder why most girls just spit it
A gentleman is so 1995, so hard for a girl to find

The song poses the question of where all the “gentlemen” are, but it is an incomplete premise considering that there is another part to this conundrum overlooked; where are the “ladies”? I might also add that ladies don’t sing about “spitting” as opposed to “swallowing” (of course The Saturdays portray this as such an innocent little angle, via fabricated facial shock). Do The Saturdays suppose that a gentleman would want anything to do with women that make their sexual exploits so public? You cannot expect men to maintain the role of the archetypal “gentleman” when so many women today have abandoned the roles of ladies.

The chorus states that gentleman are so 90’s (whether it’s 1995 or 1999). Let me assure The Saturdays that they need to go back much further than two decades to uncover when and how ladies and gentlemen started becoming an endangered species.

Back in the 60’s many women decided they didn’t want to be “ladies” anymore. They didn’t want to be nurturers that had the primary responsibility of looking after children. They were repeatedly told that women should go out to work, and that women who stayed at home were underachieving, and letting their sex down. Of course the propaganda to entice women into this way of life was rife ever since the end of World War Two, when governments all over the West noticed the untapped taxable revenue of getting both women and men into the workplace. Little propaganda pieces became increasingly more common, as “progressives” tried to convince women that successful, self-respecting ladies worked:


 
The interviewer poses the following question to the lady in the film:

“Do you think that some girls have too much talent and ability to waste on a home and children?”

Did you get that? “Waste” on a home and children, as though value can only be achieved through employment labour. How laughable, though not so laughable when you realise that it’s the same old “proletariat” argument; the only value anyone can have is if they acquire said value through collective subservience. Heaven forbid that someone might have their own little piece of happiness called a family, and that women might gain value from nurturing in this environment. We gain increasing insight when we hear the reply that the woman makes to the question the interviewer asks:

“Yes, I think many girls do. Some girls have a great deal to offer, and they certainly don’t make a great contribution to the business world sitting home with their children or cooking dinner for their husband.”

She continues when directed:

“Well, many talented girls deserve a better life than that. They need that feeling of independence, of competition that they don’t get at home, and they deserve the luxuries that they can buy with the money they earn.”

And here it is in all its glory; the attitude of many a modern woman; me, Me, ME! I work for me, and men work for me and the children. As I initially stated, this attitude goes back far more than a single decade - this clip is over five decades old after all! Cultural propaganda takes time to filter through efficiently. Anyone living in this day and age can profess to the fact that this egotistical female attitude is pretty standard for a woman today, though it wasn’t always the case. Prior to the 60’s men and women largely respected their complementary roles that benefited the stability of the family.

Today things are very different. Women get all the choices, and the only real choice that men really get right is the woman they settle down with. This choice is made all the more critical by the fact that men have no parental rights alongside the mother’s, and this is the Achilles heel that allows mothers to take a father to town if they want to use him as a cash machine. If the mother decides to divorce the father, or decides that she’s going to dupe him into getting her pregnant, then his life is hers for eighteen years. He will have to pay child support for all that time, and unless the mother consents, he will have no right to see his children, in spite of his financial responsibilities, and whether they are met or not. Yet The Saturdays had to try to paint this picture differently in these two lines of their little pop number:

You had his baby, so you might got him for now
He already had the milk, so why would he go buy the cow?

No Saturdays! The problems only just begin for men if they end up getting the wrong woman pregnant! That’s just one element of the issues men face from many modern women. They are often less than truthful, and even less modest. You can see it in the entire fa├žade of The Saturdays; one of narcissism and contrived artificial beauty, with no personal integrity outside of a veneer the record company permits.

As they sing about cultural issues they express no understanding of I wonder what they would say about the domestic violence statistics that are rigged to insinuate that men abuse one in four women, when objective research repeatedly and increasingly shows that violence in relationships is committed equally by women. Perhaps this is a bit too deep for The Saturdays, who would probably suffer with a brain haemorrhage if they tried thinking outside of their manufactured box. The media at large is constantly attacking men with a barrage of cultural shaming about being endemic abusers, with no mainstream acceptance of the fact that women are just as abusive, or that men are often left suffering at the hands of modern women with personality disorders common among people that grew up never hearing the words ‘no’. Are these the types of women that gentlemen should pander to? The narcissistic women The Saturdays appeal to with their simplistic lyrics?

As though the song couldn’t be any more of a bad joke it throws this line in near the end:

Somebody I can take to Mama, I need to find my Obama

ROFL!!! You mean a man that repeats feminist talking points to acquire more votes from women, while stabbing his own sex in the back? But it gets better:

Heard 'em say I need a Kanye, he ain't a gentleman, but I'll have him anyway

And here lies the contradiction of many modern women; they have been taught their entire lives that they should be strong and independent, and that it’s okay to be sexually promiscuous. But when it comes right down to it this is a morally primitive doctrine that puts women right in the arms of men that are anything but gentlemen. It creates a fatherless culture where women have given in to the ego soothing of state policy and ideological feminist fervour, leaving gentlemen nowhere to be found when it comes to the raising of children, because this little feminist social experiment wasn’t supposed to include males (unless you’re gay of course).

While one in three women now raise children in single parent households we’re led to believe this is all the fault of men by popular culture, when in truth it was women that gravitated towards the peer pressure and appeals to flattery that made them abandon family life for the rewards of  wanton hedonism. Are these the women that deserve gentlemen? The women that make 200 fathers a day lose contact to their children in secret family courts, while evidence shows time and again that homes with fathers are by far the most stable environments for children? I think not.

So long Saturdays. I wouldn’t touch you with a barge-pole! And neither should any other man, if they know what's good for them.

12 comments:

  1. Yep, yep and yep.

    I am a Gentleman. Actually I am a Knight, but not a white one. The 'Lady' is hard to find. I look for castles. There is usually a Princess or two in there. But outside, all around, are wenches. Some quite unclean. Indeed, most.

    http://parzivalshorse.blogspot.com.au/

    ReplyDelete
  2. -Gentleman- it's a label I have no aspirations for, to me it represents a purely symbolic representation of masculine virtue, an ostensible badge, the kind of decoration favoured by hypocrites to beguile the gullible. We live in a age replete with symbolism, a symptom of retreat to superstition as a tool for the manipulation of the masses:- Want to reduce carbon emissions? Build a windmill -- somewhere conspicuous. Agriculture stricken by an outbreak of foot and mouth? Emulate the cat killers of the plague era and burn some cows. Feel the need to be recognised as noble? Wear a tie and lose the accent or better still find some suitably hapless sap engaged in strife with a woman to conspicuously admonish -- do make sure he's smaller you though.

    ReplyDelete
  3. We live in a disgenic world, so good ppl, gentlemen included, are about to be extinct, no mystery here. Less and less good women, less and less good men, not hard to see the big picture. Its tragic when u refuse to see it, thats another story.... Besides, I also agree with DeadSpiderEye....

    ReplyDelete
  4. I once wrote a blog post about the hypocrisy of women demanding men to be gentlemen while they can choose to be ladies or not. This simply means they love having the perks of men working for them, but are too damn lazy to do the same for their men. To think they would demand the "right" to not have to follow roles while demanding men unconditionally follow their roles and then start whining about "where have all the cowboys gone?" is too pathetic and ignorant to be laughable.

    Do they honestly look down on men so much to believe they can curb the rights of men while indoctrinating us with feminist ideology and we would not react without total subservience? I remember the bullshit being fed to me since I was a boy while clearly seeing the girls were just as bad but getting preferential treatment as the "fairer sex" (literally laughing giddily at how much more leeway they got over their male peers). I decide not to feed into their egos and give them the treatment they demand (men and women are EXACTLY equal), yet I am the "man-child" who will not "man up" and "accept my duties"? ROLFMAO~!

    They can abuse their voting privilege to enlarge the government and whittle our freedoms away until the cows come home. More men are just going to look elsewhere for happiness, and sadly more hate movements like the MHRM and MGTOW are going to continue to grow in our immunodeficient society we now live in. By all means, keep demanding men to do more for YOU while not even lifting a finger to improve society. The gentlemen will persistently repel from you, and all you'll have left is trash like Obama and Kanye. You'll have a huge government that is cold and cares nothing for you than what they can take from you, and men of little moral fiber who will abuse you at the drop of the hat. Hope the free ride feminist and other leftist ideological incursions this past half-century gave you to be selfish, disgusting, and lonely was worth it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Modern men must define themselves. But take care. It is easy to define oneself into a nonentity completely 'self-sufficient' and sufficient only to oneself. But that has never been enough.

    A 'gentleman' may have a particular mode of conduct but that is not all. Any fool can emulate it and thereby gain a false confidence from some 'punter', some 'mark'. But the Authentic adult man is larger than that. He is not a punter; he is not a mark, even for his own delusions of adequacy. And he is deeper. He has Integrity. He has a Spirit. He can be a Gentleman and a scholar, a man of merit and achievement, and he can offer his wholeness up. To be 'whole' in his Integrity and cured of his modern wounds he must ask the fundamental questions: "What ails thee, Uncle: Whom does the Grail Serve"?

    ReplyDelete
  6. A gentleman is so hard to find that some ladies will offer serious cash incentives for people to find her undefinable "gentleman." See Chapin's new video "10K for a Husband!"

    In today's political climate, things get interesting quick, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  7. When it comes for the demand for good quality working fit slaves....

    Well...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZlDZPYzfm4

    ReplyDelete

  8. “Do you think that some girls have too much talent and ability to waste on a home and children?”


    Great quote. Just look at the assumption in that statement; that devoting your talent and ability to raising your children is a waste. And there, in a nutshell, you have the feminists' attitude to children. ...Which explains why feminists invariably screw up their kids.

    The traditional view of children (i.e. the one inherited from the 'fascist' Judaeo-Christian worldview found in the Bible) is that they are a gift and a blessing from God. There is surely no more important job on the planet than raising the next generation: as the saying goes, the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. And the radicals have always recognised this: it's not that they don't want to raise children --- far from it. It's that they want to raise everybody else's children in order to cement their worldview in future society (there was always this ulterior motive behind Leftists' advocacy of state schooling). Staying at home to raise their own children is too modest a goal and would simply hamper their narcissistic ambition to remake society in their own image.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right, of course. Authoritarians have been trying to control the rearing of children since the time of Plato, who himself advocated lying to the people about what is happening, and why.

      Delete
  9. This is probably one of the most sexist articles I have ever read. Why on earth did I click on this link? Just so all of you know, progressive feminists aren't about being anti-well mannered behavior or anti-nurturing mothers. Never have been. Men feel threatened by the fierce competition women present and and feed into a rape culture that emphasizes male dominance and female oppression and when they fail to establish that dominance they pick out the flaws in individual women, holding them responsible for why they don't feel the need to respect women. Being a gentleman shouldn't have anything to do with the people around you, it's about moral fiber and upstanding character combined with superb manners. This is something usually instilled in people by how they were raised. Same with ladies, usually their lack of qualities in common with the ideal 'lady' is a product of how they were raised. I am a feminist, leftist and a lady.
    Sources: A college education, many esteemed professors and philosophers and common sense to know better

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If anything you alluded to were true feminism wouldn't encourage women to become tax slaves, instead of putting their families first. But as usual you move straight onto lies about sexist culture, while anti-family ideology is all over feminism, right from the start. Try looking up Simone de Beauvoir and Mary Wolstonecraft - both were entitled upper class women who wanted to poison middle class and working class women with 'wet nurse' mentality, where bonding with children is a no, no. Their upper class entitlement protrudes throughout feminism, and this mentality is a bane on intimacy, just like you and your appeals to authority via your degree that is a waste of money. MacDonalds awaits - or better still you can go and work for the leftists establishment and agitate all day.

      Seriously, women like you appal me - don't even bother replying - I will delete it.

      Delete