The yet more compelling argument is this. It is the Chivalric duty for young men to protect the women & children, which creates the concept that the measure of a Man is in at least a significant part defined by his acceptance of that duty. It is that sense of defined manhood that elicits the "above & beyond" concept, which brings out that something extra, which can turn the tide of battles & win wars.
It is also in that traditional sense of sexually defined roles that brings out the best in young women, even as its repudiation undermines the social fabric.
See Feminist Delusion, for an analysis of the absurdity of the Feminist denial of the importance of traditional sex roles. In the real world, there is nothing more important to the normal individual than his or her sex; after all the future of all advanced forms of life, is derived from clear sex roles.
Query: Does anyone believe that further confusing the traditional sense of male duty, purpose & moral responsibility, makes it more or less likely that we will continue to see acts of murderous rage from young males who have no sense of duty, purpose & moral responsibility? George Washington--in urging the Swiss system of armed youth in their own homes--elaborated on the benefits to those youth, themselves, in the sense of moral responsibility & purpose that such a system would develop.
Isn't it just possible that General Washington had a better understanding of male psychology than the toadies in the Obama Administration? Or do I exaggerate basic cause & effect? Does Switzerland have a lower crime rate than Obamanist strongholds, such as Chicago & San Fransisco?
Will no one, today, acknowledge what has been understood by normal people throughout human history?
William Flax
That isn't just a possibility, it is an undeniable fact.
Liberal turds have no idea what it takes to be a man. Not a single one, and certainly not that Machiavellian pansy in the White House, though calling him "Machiavellian" may be giving the idiot more credit than he is due.