Is Chivalry Dead?

[oldspice]

I think Chivalry is dead, and i think women killed it
IE. women's rights activists
do you guys think its dead or alive

[taciturn]

I'm always willing to blame the women's rights activists. But I wouldn't say chivalry is QUITE dead. (Though if anyone's beating it into the ground, your mentioned party is definitely in on it)

[WoodsWoman]

It's not dead - for which I would like to thank the U.S. Military, particularly the Marines.

I do think there are/were some movements in what is called the women's rights arena that put a damper on it though. However it IS still there.

[jndiii]

It's not dead. Plenty of people appreciate it. Those that don't are missing out.

[Minerva]

Chivalry is not dead. I have met some men who are quite gracious and courteous towards women. However, it is endangered of becoming extinct!

[vad1981]

don Quijote says...Chivalry is not dead. I have to say I was raised to be "chivalrious" by my grandma, but living in the real world has killed all of those "skills" off completely...I think the main culprit was TV and pop culture.

[Still Standing]

It is not dead for women who know how to appreciate it as a kind gesture and who don't feel obligated to you because they now "owe you one." Chivalry seemed more appropriate in an era where women were looking for hero types who would sweep them off their feet and provide for them. If a woman is looking for her equal in a man and not a hero, these gestures just seem a bit outdated and perhaps even manipulative.

Nowadays, if you're trying to woo a woman, better show her that you appreciate her wit and her independence rather than go through those traditional motions that worked for your father and your grandfather.

[runoverazebra]

I don't think chivalry is dead in all circumstances. My dad told me once that if a man really wants to be with you, he will rise to the expectations that you set. I think that's true. If you allow a man to treat you like crap, he will. If you expect a man to be chivalrous, and he is genuinely interested in you, then he will.

[Samoan Corleone]

I hope chivalry is dead. I hope to perform ceremonial funeral dances over its corpse while singing "Ding Dong The Witch is Dead."

[OwenF]

It isn't dead, though it isn't nearly as common as it should be.

[Samoan Corleone]

Provided we're discussing the one-sided chivalry where "the man" is supposed to do this and that for "the woman" for no reason other than "politeness" and "helping the weaker sex," then I fail to see why people would still want that around. I don't see a problem with courtesy and politeness as long as it isn't reserved from one gender to the other.

[temi]

I think it's dying. I think that gender roles are currently interchangeable and confused. I have not decided yet if this is a good thing or a bad thing.

It's bad when I want a man to pick me up for a date with flowers in his hand. It's good when I want to debate with a man about any topic and we can have at it as complete equals.

I want to know what genuine romance is like, and yet I insist on retaining my independence, strength, and personal will. Is this possible?

[Synchronicity]

It's hard to paint a clear image of chivalry because it is a somewhat two-sided concept. Men being courteous towards women is a perfectly sensible idea, but I don't think it should be limited to that particular combination of genders. Everyone should be courteous to everyone, within reason, because being a jerk is usually detrimental to the mood of others.

The problem is that it all depends on the rationale behind it and how others interpret it. Holding a door open is a sign of respect if a woman thinks you're doing it in order to be kind, but it's a sign of disrespect if she thinks it is a reflection on her gender, i.e. that she, being a woman, needs to be looked after by men. That's why I favor the elimination of chivalry in favor of good old fashioned, general-purpose, gender-neutral manners. In the general sense, anyway. Chivalry in a romantic setting is not something I feel the need to address, since that falls within the purview of individual couples and how they choose to define their relationship.

[BrooklynBoy]

I wouldn't say it is dead. But I do see signs of it becoming extinct. For example, when I hold a door open for a woman and get a sarcastic response from her. Fortunately, that kind of response is rare as most women appreciate the kindness.

[ElstonGunn]

I thought that this take (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) on chivalry was interesting.

The gist of it is that there's hostile sexism and there's benevolent sexism. The hostile version is bad for obvious reasons, but the benevolent one is also associated with undermining women's self-confidence as well.

[Storm]

I'm not seeing the problem. Oh no! Remnants of sexism are slowly going by the wayside! Heaven help us!

[Warrior]

Chivalry involved much more than just being nice to women. Part of it was how men should treat women, part of it was how men treated other men, part of it was physical prowess at arms, and there were many other parts, too. Picking out one small piece (although it is often the one piece that is often romanticized) and claiming chivalry is dead because that one piece may not currently be expressed as it is in many romantic writings doesn't make a lot of sense.

I hope being curteous and polite, to both men and women, is never really dead.

[Storm]

When people say chivalry, they mean men treating women differently. Sure, the historical definition may be different, but that's not how people use it.

Chivalry does not mean general manners.

[dontmesswithme]

I hold the door open for everyone, not just men.

[Kisai]

People nowadays mean chivalry to mean "good manners towards women", but the root of it stems from "men have power and strength and women can't own land or rule or have a say in politics, or fight in wars, or hold a job, but lets treat them nicely anyways".

I hope good manners stays alive. I hope chivalry dies wriggling on a stake and every girl who ever wanted to make something out of herself can do so without the offered hand of a condescending man.

A day where women can be knights and men can be 'ladies'[1] if they choose. ;)


[1] I'm not a transvestite. Stop that.

[WoodsWoman]

People nowadays mean chivalry to mean "good manners towards women", but the root of it stems from "men have power and strength and women can't own land or rule or have a say in politics, or fight in wars, or hold a job, but lets treat them nicely anyways".

I hope good manners stays alive. I hope chivalry dies wriggling on a stake and every girl who ever wanted to make something out of herself can do so without the offered hand of a condescending man.

A day where women can be knights and men can be 'ladies'[1] if they choose. ;)


[1] I'm not a transvestite. Stop that.

Thank you for this - this definition was needed. Courtesy and consideration to all.

[BrooklynBoy]

People nowadays mean chivalry to mean "good manners towards women", but the root of it stems from "men have power and strength and women can't own land or rule or have a say in politics, or fight in wars, or hold a job, but lets treat them nicely anyways".

I hope good manners stays alive. I hope chivalry dies wriggling on a stake and every girl who ever wanted to make something out of herself can do so without the offered hand of a condescending man.

A day where women can be knights and men can be 'ladies'[1] if they choose. ;)


[1] I'm not a transvestite. Stop that.
I did research on chivalry and it appears that you are right. Since that is the case, then yes, it is better that chivalry dies out. As for my circle of friends, I do not know of any guys (and that includes myself) that have a condescending motive when holding a door open for a woman. I know in my case, I hold the door for anyone. Be it male or female. What motivates me is kindness, consideration, and politeness. However, since it appears to generate some hostility in some women I am now scared to continue doing it.

[Storm]

Just tell those woman that you open the door for anyone. Only open the door if you get there first or if the other person needs help opening it (carrying heavy stuff). Don't rush ahead to open it. And if a woman opens a door for you, go through it and say thank you.

[Deliberator]

Nah, it's not dead. I should know.

Although it arose from darker times, nowadays I think chivalry ties in with common courtesy combined with the terribly charming tendency of men to want to be protective of women. Cute.

As long as a chivalrous attitude doesn't give rise to "humoring" in the work world I have no problem with it.

[green eyes]

I live in the Deep South, and for example there have been days when I haven’t had to open any doors out in public at all.

I think most men around here might see it as showing a respectful character (making an effort to somehow show that they aren’t a drooling “pig” that only sees women as sexual objects to "use"), or maybe not think much about what it means at all (it’s just how they were raised) but know it impresses people...rather than consciously thinking that they are doing it because women are weaker or less capable than them. But what do I know?

[Storm]

rather than consciously thinking that they are doing it because women are weaker or less capable than them. But what do I know?

I doubt that's the conscious thought. But if you are constantly having to look out for one group of people, while simultaneously expecting everyone else to do things themselves, I think it subconsciously makes a person think that the catered to group of people is less capable.

That's why I make a point to open doors for all those walking behind me. Makes a lot more sense anyway.

[gecko]

I doubt that's the conscious thought. But if you are constantly having to look out for one group of people, while simultaneously expecting everyone else to do things themselves, I think it subconsciously makes a person think that the catered to group of people is less capable.

That's why I make a point to open doors for all those walking behind me. Makes a lot more sense anyway.

Many women feel it is almost their duty to do housekeeping - I don't think they believe that men are less capable of doing dishes or laundry. Cooking perhaps, but only by virtue of experience.

[Storm]

I think that women who feel that housekeeping is their domain do feel that men are not capable of it. That's what are those commercials for cleaning products that make the joke "even a man can do it" are playing on.

[plotthickens]

In order to define what something is, it helps to know what that thing looks like.

Chivalry today looks like some folks doing the below for folks who could, physically, do it for themselves:

Opening doors
Carrying things
Pulling out chairs
Financial arrangements

The only group of people that these could be done for, legitimately, are the physically/mentally handicapped. I'd prefer not to be grouped with a set of people I'm not, thankyewverymuch. If you want to be chivalrous, try the word 'polite' instead and do it for everyone, not just the incapable. Boobs DO NOT equal handicapped.

[gecko]

I think that women who feel that housekeeping is their domain do feel that men are not capable of it. That's what are those commercials for cleaning products that make the joke "even a man can do it" are playing on.

I disagree. I might go as far as agreeing that they believe that a man does not know how to do a certain task, but it is absurd to imagine that a man is simply not capable of a housekeeping task, or even less capable given the proper information.

[Storm]

I disagree. I might go as far as agreeing that they believe that a man does not know how to do a certain task, but it is absurd to imagine that a man is simply not capable of a housekeeping task, or even less capable given the proper information.

Do you think that housekeeping is a woman's job?

[overthought]

Chivalry is just artificial respect for women. What kind of respect is opening a door for someone, or carrying their books, or whatever when they are completely capable of doing it themselves?

Real respect is listening to their ideas and learning who they really are, instead of some patronizing, belittling act of "respect."

[gecko]

Do you think that housekeeping is a woman's job?

What relevance does this have? Do you think cultures that place emphases on traditional gender roles are inherently inferior?

[Storm]

What relevance does this have? Do you think cultures that place emphases on traditional gender roles are inherently inferior?

Whoa, that was out of left field. I said that people who adhere to the belief that women should do housework probably think that men are less capable of housework. You then said that wasn't true since you don't think men are less capable of housework. The obvious question, then, is whether or not you fall into the named category of people who think that women should do housework. Otherwise, your opinion on male capabilities of housework is rather irrelevant.

[eagleseven]

I've given up on chivalry, but hold strong to common courtesy.

This means thanking the waiter/waitress for bringing my food, greeting the mailman, and generally being considerate of strangers. Of course, I am fully capable of dropping the niceties when necessary.

[gecko]

Whoa, that was out of left field. I said that people who adhere to the belief that women should do housework probably think that men are less capable of housework. You then said that wasn't true since you don't think men are less capable of housework. The obvious question, then, is whether or not you fall into the named category of people who think that women should do housework. Otherwise, your opinion on male capabilities of housework is rather irrelevant.

You gave no evidence yourself in your assertion that people who adhere to the belief that women should do housework probably think men are less capable of it. I assumed it was a subjective belief, to which I responded with my own personal belief(that it is absurd to believe such and thus a reasonable capability of rational thinking possessed by those who are traditional-minded suggests that they would not believe it as well). What I think about the male capability on housework is just as irrelevant as your original assertion.

In which, all of this was an attempt to show that one does not need to belittle another in order to assume responsibilities for them.

[Storm]

You gave no evidence yourself in your assertion that people who adhere to the belief that women should do housework probably think men are less capable of it.

This is what I said:

I think that women who feel that housekeeping is their domain do feel that men are not capable of it. That's what are those commercials for cleaning products that make the joke "even a man can do it" are playing on.

I do think it's absurd to think that men are incapable of housework. However, my point was that upholding these gender roles often creates the belief that the gender roles exist because the other gender is not capable of carrying out the other gender. You see it in such classic as "I love Lucy" where Lucy and the men switch roles. She goes to work and her husband stays home with disastrous consequences for both. In the modern day, you see jokes about men not being able to care for children or how to mop.

[eagleseven]

This is what I said:



I do think it's absurd to think that men are incapable of housework. However, my point was that upholding these gender roles often creates the belief that the gender roles exist because the other gender is not capable of carrying out the other gender. You see it in such classic as "I love Lucy" where Lucy and the men switch roles. She goes to work and her husband stays home with disastrous consequences for both. In the modern day, you see jokes about men not being able to care for children or how to mop.
Because men never live on their own before they get married?

Oh, society...

[yoginimama]

Chivalry is just artificial respect for women. What kind of respect is opening a door for someone, or carrying their books, or whatever when they are completely capable of doing it themselves?

Real respect is listening to their ideas and learning who they really are, instead of some patronizing, belittling act of "respect."

1) In today's world, it can be kind of a sweet, indirect way for a shy person to express attraction to someone (of either gender), and can be imbued with the symbolism of "I will go the extra mile for you."

2) It's important to think about the original context. Chivalry began in the Middle Ages, which was a totally hierarchical society. Everyone was ranked with respect to everyone else. Therefore, for men to perform little acts of physical service to women was fairly subversive. The master became the servant. Convincing men that they owed women the signs of "artificial respect" was a shrewd way to shoehorn in some space for real respect.

[plotthickens]

1) In today's world, it can be kind of a sweet, indirect way for a shy person to express attraction to someone (of either gender), and can be imbued with the symbolism of "I will go the extra mile for you."

2) It's important to think about the original context. Chivalry began in the Middle Ages, which was a totally hierarchical society. Everyone was ranked with respect to everyone else. Therefore, for men to perform little acts of physical service to women was fairly subversive. The master became the servant. Convincing men that they owed women the signs of "artificial respect" was a shrewd way to shoehorn in some space for real respect.


I don't think so. All the acts performed were because the 'little woman' just wasn't 'strong enough' to do it on her own. It was patronizing, and it still is. Boobs do not make a person handicapped.

[catzmeow]

People nowadays mean chivalry to mean "good manners towards women", but the root of it stems from "men have power and strength and women can't own land or rule or have a say in politics, or fight in wars, or hold a job, but lets treat them nicely anyways".

I hope good manners stays alive. I hope chivalry dies wriggling on a stake and every girl who ever wanted to make something out of herself can do so without the offered hand of a condescending man.

A day where women can be knights and men can be 'ladies'[1] if they choose. ;)


The idea of putting women on pedestals and treating us differently as if we're the "weaker sex," simply because we have a vagina, annoys the crap out of me.

Many years ago, I had a relatively new boss who was quite young. I had been doing my job for 8 years, and doing it well. He decided that he was constantly concerned for my safety (the job was dangerous, admittedly, but I knew that when I took it). He was, in his view, being chivalrous, he was protecting me from myself.

I found it infuriating. I'm a grown woman, I'm capable of deciding what risks I will and won't take. And, I was doing the job that I was hired to do.

That kind of chivalry, I hope, is long dead. However, mutual chivalry, where men and women treat each other with courtesy and graciousness, is still desirable.

---------- Post added 04-13-2010 at 07:25 PM ----------

Boobs do not make a person handicapped.

Au contraire. They occasionally cause men to be unable to think/speak.

[plotthickens]

Au contraire. They occasionally cause men to be unable to think/speak.

Hah! Good point. Well, when they've gotten past their subsequent embarassment and can stop pandering us to cover for it, then perhaps we can all treat each other like the fully human beings we are?

[catzmeow]

Hah! Good point. Well, when they've gotten past their subsequent embarassment and can stop pandering us to cover for it, then perhaps we can all treat each other like the fully human beings we are?

God, I hope so...someday.

I think it's interesting how the chest beaters always protest about how snappy some women are about having the door opened for them. I don't EVER remember beating a guy up for opening the door for me, or even making a smart ass comment about it. I'm pretty sure that the only thing I've EVER said was "thanks." But I also don't expect it. I'm perfectly happy opening it myself.

[callalilly]

Is it going away ...I think so.Is it dead..not quite

[gecko]

I'm still not buying that chivalry is a negative. There will always be sexists, but to say chivalry is the cause seems remiss. It is in man's nature to (want to) protect women, similar to maternal instinct. Now that society is safer and there is less emphasis on physical prowess, we imagine we (should) have 'evolved' further from our base instincts such that they are no longer part of us - which I think is a form of denial. An interesting anecdote:

In On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman briefly mentions that female soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces have been officially prohibited from serving in close combat military operations since 1948 (in 2001, subsequent to publication, women began serving in IDF combat units on an experimental basis). The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines is no reflection on the performance of female soldiers, but that of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression. (wikipedia:Women in the military)

[Storm]

I'm still not buying that chivalry is a negative. There will always be sexists, but to say chivalry is the cause seems remiss. It is in man's nature to (want to) protect women, similar to maternal instinct. Now that society is safer and there is less emphasis on physical prowess, we imagine we (should) have 'evolved' further from our base instincts such that they are no longer part of us - which I think is a form of denial.

Oh look, here's that gender roles lead to belief in gender roles at play. Not that it's the only thing happening here, but I bet it's part of it.

In On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman briefly mentions that female soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces have been officially prohibited from serving in close combat military operations since 1948 (in 2001, subsequent to publication, women began serving in IDF combat units on an experimental basis). The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines is no reflection on the performance of female soldiers, but that of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression. (wikipedia:Women in the military)

Now this is interesting. It turns out that men are not competent soldiers in the presence of women, so women are removed? I wonder why they didn't consider removing the men, since they were the ones with an innate handicap. Or having male and female troops separated. There is more at play here than practicality.

[BuShinJu]

Read Parzifal by Von Eshenbach for a good book length description of chivalry.

My take on it was putting on your armour, getting on your horse, knocking some other dude in armour off his horse, taking that dude for ransom, get a lot of money and land in exchange for him and then winning the favor of the most beautiful lass in the land who has been following your exploits.

(if I remember right, some of the the women in the book also held political and monetary and land ownership power, as they have down the ages)

[Blse]

As others have pointed chivalry is a difficult to define concept. If you mean showing special treatment towards women, such as opening doors for them, walking on the curbside, pulling their chairs out and given them your jacket when they're cold, then it's not quite dead but endangered. Which is good, because women are more likely to take note if you do any of the above.

[Naga]

1) In today's world, it can be kind of a sweet, indirect way for a shy person to express attraction to someone (of either gender), and can be imbued with the symbolism of "I will go the extra mile for you."

2) It's important to think about the original context. Chivalry began in the Middle Ages, which was a totally hierarchical society. Everyone was ranked with respect to everyone else. Therefore, for men to perform little acts of physical service to women was fairly subversive. The master became the servant. Convincing men that they owed women the signs of "artificial respect" was a shrewd way to shoehorn in some space for real respect.

Agreed.

Personally, in my day-to-day life, I wouldn't want men to be overly chivalrous. (i.e. rushing ahead to open the door, pulling my chair out for me, being over protective) But, I would see 1) as really sweet. Also if/when I have a SO, it would be nice on special occasions or when we go out to a nice place to be treated extra speciallly.

[gecko]

Oh look, here's that gender roles lead to belief in gender roles at play. Not that it's the only thing happening here, but I bet it's part of it.

You lost me here...

Now this is interesting. It turns out that men are not competent soldiers in the presence of women, so women are removed? I wonder why they didn't consider removing the men, since they were the ones with an innate handicap. Or having male and female troops separated. There is more at play here than practicality.

Yes, traditionalism accepted by their respective society, as well as lack of desire by most women to serve in combat positions. Women are not allowed to serve in combat roles in America either, yet there is no large movement to change this - because most women do not want to be infantrywomen/serve in direct combat positions. What does 'practicality' have to do with anything here?

[catzmeow]

It is in man's nature to (want to) protect women, similar to maternal instinct.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm quite protective of all the people I love, male or female. I don't think that women are any less protective than men.

[Distance]

Chivalry is only dead until the guy sees a woman he's attracted to. Then he hops to and helps the woman with her luggage or heavy box. ;)

[Night Knight]

I think being chivalrous means having good manners in this modern era. But if somebody is in trouble and somehow somebody fixes the problem I guess that can be considered chirvalry too.

[gecko]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm quite protective of all the people I love, male or female. I don't think that women are any less protective than men.

There is a bit of an ambiguity here - misinformation perhaps excusing overprotective behaviors by men, or societal nods to a father being more protective of a daughter than a son, as well as the normal double standards where men are expected to 'take the lead, always'(in relation to many situations, in this context:emergencies). However, I think that 'societal norms' are reinforced such that it is difficult to pinpoint the characteristics of this 'male protectiveness towards females' as being natural, cultural, or even mythical - however the passage I quoted certainly gives credence to its existence. I can attest personally that gallantry exists separately, having felt the emotion on select occasions - it is certainly plausible that an equivalent feeling is experienced by women, however there is a specific quality or ingredient in the notion of "protecting a women" that is characteristic of 'gallantry' as opposed to simple protectiveness, as in a paternal sense.

[Blse]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm quite protective of all the people I love, male or female. I don't think that women are any less protective than men.

Yes, but they show it differently. Women, according to traditional gender roles that continue to greatly influence cross-gender interactions, are supposed to be protective in a motherly fashion while men are supposed to protective in an assertive/aggressive fashion.

Chivalry is only dead until the guy sees a woman he's attracted to. Then he hops to and helps the woman with her luggage or heavy box. ;)

Haha... so true!

[Storm]

You lost me here...

You assumed that chivalry is good because men like to protect women, and that women like to be protected. This is merely an assertion on your part and without more, it's got the same amount of logic as saying men aren't assigned housework because men are not good as housework.

Yes, traditionalism accepted by their respective society, as well as lack of desire by most women to serve in combat positions. Women are not allowed to serve in combat roles in America either, yet there is no large movement to change this - because most women do not want to be infantrywomen/serve in direct combat positions. What does 'practicality' have to do with anything here?

Do women want to serve in combat in positions any less so than men? That's the question you should be asking. Most people don't sign up to be soldiers in general. Many men try to get desk jobs or civilian jobs if drafted into armed forces. Most men hope that they never have to see actual combat. So, the assertion that men are chomping at the bit to be on the front lines while women stray behind is not accurate. Also, there IS a movement by women to serve in combat positions, it's been going on for decades. Thus far, these women have been denied. Of course, right now most women actually do serve in just as, if not more, dangerous positions than combat since enemies will often try to attack support troops instead of going after "front lines."

According to you, the only reason women were not suitable soldiers was because men could not handle their presence. If that is really the only reason, then it makes far more sense to get rid of the group who, according to you, can not be trusted to act calmly and rationally in combat situations.

---------- Post added 04-13-2010 at 09:40 PM ----------

Yes, but they show it differently. Women, according to traditional gender roles that continue to greatly influence cross-gender interactions, are supposed to be protective in a motherly fashion while men are supposed to protective in an assertive/aggressive fashion.

Have you ever tried to harm a woman's child? Was she all sweet and cute about it?

[purplesky]

don Quijote says...Chivalry is not dead. I have to say I was raised to be "chivalrious" by my grandma, but living in the real world has killed all of those "skills" off completely...I think the main culprit was TV and pop culture.




Sadly, I think it's dying and I agree with that statement. =/

[gecko]

You assumed that chivalry is good because men like to protect women, and that women like to be protected. This is merely an assertion on your part and without more, it's got the same amount of logic as saying men aren't assigned housework because men are not good as housework.

I was expecting an explanation for your 'gender roles lead to belief in gender roles at play' statement. Your propositions have an equal if not less logical basis underlying them, yet you attack me for voicing my opinion in a similar fashion. Interestingly passive-aggressive, if you don't mind me observing. Last I checked, no one here is backing things up with hard science - are you the only one allowed to speculate on this thread?

Do women want to serve in combat in positions any less so than men? That's the question you should be asking. Most people don't sign up to be soldiers in general. Many men try to get desk jobs or civilian jobs if drafted into armed forces. Most men hope that they never have to see actual combat. So, the assertion that men are chomping at the bit to be on the front lines while women stray behind is not accurate. Also, there IS a movement by women to serve in combat positions, it's been going on for decades. Thus far, these women have been denied. Of course, right now most women actually do serve in just as, if not more, dangerous positions than combat since enemies will often try to attack support troops instead of going after "front lines."

According to you, the only reason women were not suitable soldiers was because men could not handle their presence. If that is really the only reason, then it makes far more sense to get rid of the group who, according to you, can not be trusted to act calmly and rationally in combat situations.


I included that passage in order to display what I considered to be the instinct held by men to protect women. I had no inkling that whether or not women should be allowed to fight in combat roles would become part of a debate, and I am still a bit confused as to why you are pushing this angle. I am aware that some women want to be infantrywomen/serve in combat roles, but as I said - I do not believe the movement is large. In fact, I would go as far as saying that many citizens in America have never even pondered such a movement - that is how small it is. I think it is a reasonable assumption that most women do not want to serve in combat positions, and also a reasonable assumption that a higher percentage of men than women in the military want to serve in combat related positions. There are plenty of studies that document women as being more risk-averse than men. Not to mention societal influences, physiological.

[Krazy P]

I always think of the term in its historical context, which is Medieval. I don't really think of the term as applying to the modern world. It is very much of a time and place in history.

[Takeru]

I don't think Chivalry is dead.

In my terms, Chivalry (at least today) doesn't just target females, but it can target whoever it is intended for. Simple acts of kindness I suppose would be chivalry in my terms. One easy example is leaving the door open enough for the person behind you so the person doesn't have to open it themselves. Now, I'm not going to wait there for you to run to the door if you are a bit too far but I'll open the door as wide as possible.

[Storm]

I was expecting an explanation for your 'gender roles lead to belief in gender roles at play' statement. Your propositions have an equal if not less logical basis underlying them, yet you attack me for voicing my opinion in a similar fashion. Interestingly passive-aggressive, if you don't mind me observing. Last I checked, no one here is backing things up with hard science - are you the only one allowed to speculate on this thread?

No, I don't have to prove anything. The assertion is that men like to protect women, hence, you need an argument to back it up. It's bit like Person A were to say "Cats are smarter than dogs" and Person B responded "Why do you think that besides stereotypes?" and Person A were to respond "I don't need to tell you why. Actually, you not accepting the stereotype is just as illogical, if not less logical, reason to think they are not smarter." You even added a bit of an ad-hom, claiming that my reason for not accepting gender roles without a bit more logic than "because that's the way things are" was because I am passive-aggressive.

We both agreed that assuming men are incapable of housework based on gender roles is illogical. Especially given that men are just as smart and have the needed body limbs to carry out housework. That men need to cater to women to satisfy some sort of protector role is equally illogical without more. Especially given that women are autonomous adults perfectly capable of supporting themselves just as much as a man.

[Tactical Panda]

I some of this thread before rushing off to class today.

Along the way I passed through a building and kept the door open for the girl behind me. Through the building she passed ahead of me and returned the favor to me for keeping the door open on the other side.

My experiment was inconclusive. Haha.

[tooboku]

Chivalry... oh don't get me started on this. This is the cause of half my problems with members of the opposite gender.

It's stupid how most people take it nowadays.

- You hold the door for a stranger, you polited smile and nod as she passes through the door, and then either rolls her eyes or makes a creeped out face as her back is turned towards you.

- It's dark outside and you're out with a friend. Just because you walk her to her front door, she thinks you're like in love with her or something. Yes, because I want to see her home safely, it means I want to make babies with her.

- I used to get yelled at by one of my ex-girlfriends for not driving aggressively enough. Yeah, she got mad because I was only going 10 above the speed limit when we were in absolutely no rush at all.

- I was walking home from the grocery store with one of my roommies and she was obviously having trouble with her bags. Seeing as it was no problem at all for me to hold the extra bags, I offered. She declined several times and almost dropped them before letting me carry them for her. Yeah, she would rather let her bags fall on the ground than "burden" me.

Stone me now, but it's established that in general most men are physically stronger than most women. Dismiss it if you want but higher levels of testosterone not only help develop muscle repair, the development of the frontal lobe, or that a subtle spike in testosterone levels aides the ability to make high risk decisions. Doesn't mean we're better or smarter but in the past it's worked to our sepcie's survival that the males take a protective role. It doesn't mean that women aren't capable of defending themselves because I know quite a few girls that throw pretty hard punches. Where we went wrong is when we started thinking that meant we could also be the dominant role.

In St. Paul's letter to the Ephesians, he writes about the man being the head. What we don't get is that it's been translated to English from Ancient Greek. In Ancient Greek, "head" only has one meaning, the literal head. This is a metaphor from being the woman's protector, not the woman's Lord.

In fact, I see chivalry as a sign of respect towards women not condescension. A man is literally submitting himself to the service of a woman. If it were degrading to women, they would be the ones openning doors, throwing their cloaks over muddy puddles, or turning away when a man had his bosom exposed. This is a simple price we pay for being physically stronger however there are things we totally suck at and I don't mean cooking and cleaning.

[gecko]

No, I don't have to prove anything. The assertion is that men like to protect women, hence, you need an argument to back it up. It's bit like Person A were to say "Cats are smarter than dogs" and Person B responded "Why do you think that besides stereotypes?" and Person A were to respond "I don't need to tell you why. Actually, you not accepting the stereotype is just as illogical, if not less logical, reason to think they are not smarter." You even added a bit of an ad-hom, claiming that my reason for not accepting gender roles without a bit more logic than "because that's the way things are" was because I am passive-aggressive.

Only you did not respond 'Why do you think that?', you felt the need to apply one of your baseless assumptions that 'gender roles lead one to assume negative thoughts about the roles that one gender plays as relating to ability compared to the other gender' to me without explanation. When I asked for an explanation, you flaked and called my assertions baseless - completely skipping the part where you cordially ask me to expand upon my opinion. I did not impose my beliefs upon you, like you did upon me, so no: the burden lies on you. I am waiting to hear why my belief that men are uniquely protective over woman proves that "Oh look, here's that gender roles lead to belief in gender roles at play. Not that it's the only thing happening here, but I bet it's part of it."...as you said.

We both agreed that assuming men are incapable of housework based on gender roles is illogical. Especially given that men are just as smart and have the needed body limbs to carry out housework. That men need to cater to women to satisfy some sort of protector role is equally illogical without more. Especially given that women are autonomous adults perfectly capable of supporting themselves just as much as a man.

We agreed that men are just as capable of performing housework. That men feel the need to cater to women to satisfy a protector role is illogical - based on what? That men feel the need to protect women based on an instinct that probably originated in dangerous hunter-gatherer mini-societies of our ancestors - illogical today in developed societies? Perhaps. It is just as illogical that I sometimes enjoy making random noises when I am bored and alone. You are not merely saying it is illogical - but that it is harmful to society. That it fosters disrespect towards woman. That it leads to sexist thoughts. That is where I disagree.

[Storm]

In fact, I see chivalry as a sign of respect towards women not condescension. A man is literally submitting himself to the service of a woman. If it were degrading to women, they would be the ones openning doors, throwing their cloaks over muddy puddles, or turning away when a man had his bosom exposed. This is a simple price we pay for being physically stronger however there are things we totally suck at and I don't mean cooking and cleaning.

I think you make some valid points, but I don't see how being physically stronger means that it becomes a man's duty to "protect" a woman in all situations. These things you mention have nothing to do with strength - they have to do with manners. I also don't know where you live that women don't hold doors open for other people. Nor do I know where you live that men actually throw their cloaks onto muddy puddles. I have never, ever seen it done and think that doing so is a bit silly. (Just walk around the puddle, really). A woman's breasts are considered private areas, whereas a man's chest is not since it is devoid of boobs. I don't see normal men exposing their penises in public, which is the more appropriate analogy.

Also, it's a bit of a myth that a man will prevent you from getting attacked. You should be careful, too. (I live in a somewhat high-crime area, men are mugged all the time because they think it's perfectly fine to walk around darkened back streets at 2 in the morning. The most ironic was a couple that got mugged, the man was walking her back to her apartment to keep her safe. Muggers attacked them anyway.)

---------- Post added 04-13-2010 at 11:45 PM ----------

We agreed that men are just as capable of performing housework. That men feel the need to cater to women to satisfy a protector role is illogical - based on what? That men feel the need to protect women based on an instinct that probably originated in dangerous hunter-gatherer mini-societies of our ancestors - illogical today in developed societies? Perhaps. It is just as illogical that I sometimes enjoy making random noises when I am bored and alone. You are not merely saying it is illogical - but that it is harmful to society. That it fosters disrespect towards woman. That it leads to sexist thoughts. That is where I disagree.

I think it's true that men feel a need to protect their loved ones - such as their wives, friends, and children. Just as I think it's clear that women feel a need to protect their loved ones. Like I told Blse, go ahead and try to attack a woman's family and see if she just stands around.

Whether or not men inherently feel the need to help all women based purely on their sex is not so clear. It could be partly biological. However, the degree and form of protection is re-enforced through societal expectations and roles that continual hold up women as in need of protection, as in need of being catered to. I am arguing that by continual teaching a people that women need to be cared for by men, it teaches that women need this care because they are not as capable as caring for themselves. By having a marked difference in appropriate attitude and behavior toward one of group, it teaches that group of people is deserving of that behavior. And further, that there is a reason for that behavior.

[Seducer]

Yeah I don't believe in chivalry because women have been stepping all over mens rights for the past several decades and have waged war on men, a war for women to dominate men and deny men all their rights. Fuck chivalry. Let them open their own doors and fend for themselves. I ain't buying no diamond engagement ring nor giving away my house to some woman either. They don't need our help. It's everyone for themselves now. Don't do anything for a girl that you wouldn't do for a guy.

[Storm]

Yeah I don't believe in chivalry because women have been stepping all over mens rights for the past several decades and have waged war on men, a war for women to dominate men and deny men all their rights. Fuck chivalry. Let them open their own doors and fend for themselves. I ain't buying no diamond engagement ring nor giving away my house to some woman either. They don't need our help. It's everyone for themselves now.

Yeah, that "take the vote away from men" movement has really gained ground recently.

[tooboku]

I think you make some valid points, but I don't see how being physically stronger means that it becomes a man's duty to "protect" a woman in all situations. These things you mention have nothing to do with strength - they have to do with manners. I also don't know where you live that women don't hold doors open for other people.

Who said in all situations? Women are allowed to go out on their own. Who said they weren't? Just that if you're a guy and you're already there and you don't live too far away. I've had to adjust the walking to the door thing to a "wait until in the car they get inside" thing. I do it for guys too but seriously. Don't be rediculous.

That's what Chivalry is, manners.

Women do open doors here. Nobody rolls their eyes at them for doing so though.

Nor do I know where you live that men actually throw their cloaks onto muddy puddles. I have never, ever seen it done and think that doing so is a bit silly. (Just walk around the puddle, really).

Really? You're taking the cloak in the puddle thing litteraly? That was an anecdotal example from before we had paved roads and such an act was appropriate and logical.

A woman's breasts are considered private areas, whereas a man's chest is not since it is devoid of boobs. I don't see normal men exposing their penises in public, which is the more appropriate analogy.

You missed the point. Plus who decides that "boobs" are private? In a few cultures even today, everyone is topless. "Boobs" aren't considered private. Again, you're taking the argument way too literally just for the sake of argument.

Also, it's a bit of a myth that a man will prevent you from getting attacked. You should be careful, too. (I live in a somewhat high-crime area, men are mugged all the time because they think it's perfectly fine to walk around darkened back streets at 2 in the morning. The most ironic was a couple that got mugged, the man was walking her back to her apartment to keep her safe. Muggers attacked them anyway.)

Uh huh. You're taking an extreme example of someone just being plain stupid and asking to get mugged.

[Storm]

Tooboku, you took my argument too literally. My point was that chivalrous mannerisms rarely have anything to do with strength. So arguing that chivalry is virtuous based on strength alone is not a strong argument. Perhaps in the situation of making sure someone gets home safe, but that's the only one, and even then, it's not that much more safer given that men can get mugged too.

[tooboku]

Fine, it is the intent of presenting that you care.

Why is that still so bad?

[Blse]

Fine, it is the intent of presenting that you care.

Why is that still so bad?

It's not bad, but you must take care not to come across as seeking her approval. Seeking a woman's approval will turn her off. Women are attracted to aggressive men (hence your former gf wanting you to drive fast - although that's a rather immature manifestation of the preference women have for dominant and aggressive men). For example, you said you smiled and nodded when holding the door open? That might have made you look submissive, eager to please and dorky; not strong and assertive. The trick to not being a jerk but still being sexy is to be aggressive/dominant, yet respectful.

[gecko]

I am arguing that by continual teaching a people that women need to be cared for by men, it teaches that women need this care because they are not as capable as caring for themselves. By having a marked difference in appropriate attitude and behavior toward one of group, it teaches that group of people is deserving of that behavior. And further, that there is a reason for that behavior.

As long as there is the recognition of formality to it(it is very similar to displaying good manners or common courtesy), I find it to be a bit of a leap from "Catering to the fairer sex" to mean "Babysitting the handicapped sex". People often feel obligated to behave differently in a formal setting ie:kiss ass to climb the corporate ladder, yet it is rare that they end up believing that their boss is truly their superior.

[firebee]

Yeah I don't believe in chivalry because women have been stepping all over mens rights for the past several decades and have waged war on men, a war for women to dominate men and deny men all their rights. Fuck chivalry. Let them open their own doors and fend for themselves.

Hmm. So we dominate men and deny them all their rights (and tie them up in the closet, and spank them with a ping-pong paddle, and make them give us backrubs and serve as footstools, et cetera, as we dance to the masochism tango), but we have to accept the consequence of having to open our own doors?

Gosh.

That's a hard choice.

I'll have to do me some serious thinking about that one.

Don't do anything for a girl that you wouldn't do for a guy.

Given the harsh conditions that men nowadays are subjected to, I'd go further to say that actually it's women who should be offering chivalrous courtesies to men. The point of chivalry, after all, is that strong and powerful people should make superficial shows of respect to the weak, powerless, and pathetic.

[tooboku]

It's not bad, but you must take care not to come across as seeking her approval. Seeking a woman's approval will turn her off. Women are attracted to aggressive men (hence your former gf wanting you to drive fast - although that's a rather immature manifestation of the preference women have for dominant and aggressive men). For example, you said you smiled and nodded when holding the door open? That might have made you look submissive, eager to please and dorky; not strong and assertive. The trick to not being a jerk but still being sexy is to be aggressive/dominant, yet respectful.

I do it for no one's approval but my own. It doesn't matter who I do things for except fo the fact it only seems to be old ladies who appreciate the gesture nowadays.

What else would you rather do when openning the door? Look at your watch? It's rediculous. If you are within a few inches of someone and are likely to be at eye level, you acknowledge that person. Don't be an anti-social creep.

[Blse]

I do it for no one's approval but my own. It doesn't matter who I do things for except fo the fact it only seems to be old ladies who appreciate the gesture nowadays.

What else would you rather do when openning the door? Look at your watch? It's rediculous. If you are within a few inches of someone and are likely to be at eye level, you acknowledge that person. Don't be an anti-social creep.

First, it matters how it looks to the other person. Even if you're not actually seeking their approval. It may look as though you are and that'll make you less sexy.

As for the door example, I'm not saying you should be an anti-social creep. Quite the opposite, always look people in the eye and acknowledge their presence. Looking away is just the kind of submissive gesture that no one finds sexy. Instead of smiling and nodding like a uber-friendly doorman, just look them in the eye. Smile once they smile, otherwise just smile very, very lightly. Don't be too friendly, that's what I'm saying.

Look, I'm just answering your question here. You're saying women you treat nicely, don't return the favor and actually roll their eyes at your behavior. I'm just telling you why that may be. You can rationalize and defend your behavior, change it to whatever you wish, or continue to engage in it and just acknowledge that it might have results you don't like. It's your choice, I'm just handing out free information.

[tooboku]

God! It's not about being sexy. It's about being polite. It's about one of the few social conventions of the past that were actually good things and having it face extinction over something as superficial as being associated to a gender role. Women are more than welcome to practice chivalry but why are men looked at as being chauvanistic for being polite?

Also, it's not my delivery. I assure you. Despite being an INTJ, I'm as charming as the next guy. Perhaps even more.

You really want to disect my approach to openning a simple fucking door? Shit.

Okay,

I walk to the door. Simple glance behind to make sure no one is behind me. If it's a person with their hands full, I'll get behind the door and hold it open. It's logical. That person would obviously have a hard time on their own despite gender. If it's just a person, I walk through, stop when the tip of my finger is the only thing keeping the door open and glance back. If that person is taking too long I push the door open some more and continue on my way. If the person comes within a certain radius, of course you smile and nod. Half smile but serious face, perhaps a subtle nod. No more than a half inch of movement.

Geez,

YOU'RE OVER COMPLICATING THE MOST TRIVIAL OF SOCIAL CONVENTIONS

[Blse]

God! It's not about being sexy. It's about being polite. It's about one of the few social conventions of the past that were actually good things and having it face extinction over something as superficial as being associated to a gender role. Women are more than welcome to practice chivalry but why are men looked at as being chauvanistic for being polite?

Also, it's not my delivery. I assure you. Despite being an INTJ, I'm as charming as the next guy. Perhaps even more.

You really want to disect my approach to openning a simple fucking door? Shit.

Okay,

I walk to the door. Simple glance behind to make sure no one is behind me. If it's a person with their hands full, I'll get behind the door and hold it open. It's logical. That person would obviously have a hard time on their own despite gender. If it's just a person, I walk through, stop when the tip of my finger is the only thing keeping the door open and glance back. If that person is taking too long I push the door open some more and continue on my way. If the person comes within a certain radius, of course you smile and nod. Half smile but serious face, perhaps a subtle nod. No more than a half inch of movement.

Geez,

YOU'RE OVER COMPLICATING THE MOST TRIVIAL OF SOCIAL CONVENTIONS

Alrighty, chill. You were complaining that being what you consider polite was eliciting a negative response from women. I just told you why that might be. That does have to do with being sexy. You may be too charming, too nice (which comes across as eager/seeking approval). I don't want to dissect the details of your behavior. I choose that as an example. All you're doing here is defending your behavior as though you're on a trial. You're not. I'm not saying you shouldn't be doing this. All I'm saying is why women might be responding to you in a negative way, and what you could do about it if you wanted to change the reaction you get. You can take or leave that info. Arguing it ain't helping either of us.

[Still Standing]

God! It's not about being sexy. It's about being polite. It's about one of the few social conventions of the past that were actually good things and having it face extinction over something as superficial as being associated to a gender role. Women are more than welcome to practice chivalry but why are men looked at as being chauvanistic for being polite?

Exactly. I think new "traditions" need to be developed for women regarding men (and perhaps a new word for the female version of chivalry) so that being nice to one another can be fostered and initiated in both directions, rather than the woman being nice to the man (or not) in reaction to his chivalrous behavior. Any suggestions?

[cheerbear]

People nowadays mean chivalry to mean "good manners towards women", but the root of it stems from "men have power and strength and women can't own land or rule or have a say in politics, or fight in wars, or hold a job, but lets treat them nicely anyways".
...

Is that really where it stems from? What happened to the idea that women were treated nicely because men thought we were special and wanted to show that appreciation in a way they knew how? No wonder women are so opposed to it now, if that’s the reason; they’re trying to say “F* off, I don’t need your pity courtesy!”


...
It's stupid how most people take it nowadays.
...
In fact, I see chivalry as a sign of respect towards women not condescension. A man is literally submitting himself to the service of a woman. If it were degrading to women, they would be the ones openning doors, throwing their cloaks over muddy puddles, or turning away when a man had his bosom exposed. This is a simple price we pay for being physically stronger however there are things we totally suck at and I don't mean cooking and cleaning.

THANK YOU, Tooboku, I absolutely loved this response!

Call me old-fashioned, but personally, I *like* it when doors are opened or chairs are pulled out for me, and I’ll always have a bright smile in return. I think the problem comes when women assume that nice actions towards them are for lascivious reasons; sometimes, nice is just nice. Plus, sometimes men just become bumbling idiots and have no other response than to show a physical act. Let’s face it: femininity is something they will never understand, and therefore it will always have a certain power over them. They’re celebrating the difference, not deriding it.


...
Do women want to serve in combat in positions any less so than men? That's the question you should be asking. Most people don't sign up to be soldiers in general. Many men try to get desk jobs or civilian jobs if drafted into armed forces. Most men hope that they never have to see actual combat. So, the assertion that men are chomping at the bit to be on the front lines while women stray behind is not accurate. Also, there IS a movement by women to serve in combat positions, it's been going on for decades. Thus far, these women have been denied. Of course, right now most women actually do serve in just as, if not more, dangerous positions than combat since enemies will often try to attack support troops instead of going after "front lines."

According to you, the only reason women were not suitable soldiers was because men could not handle their presence. If that is really the only reason, then it makes far more sense to get rid of the group who, according to you, can not be trusted to act calmly and rationally in combat situations.

My friend in the marines told me it’s actually psychologically harmful for men to see women out in the field; that when they see a woman hurt or in pain, their protective instinct will take over and they won’t be able to perform as well. Plus, considering their mom’s are women, I’m sure it’s quite easy to see how this can happen. Women out in the field are just distracting, and not for the assumption that they're irrational. I would never advocate for this.

---------- Post added 04-14-2010 at 02:26 AM ----------

It's not bad, but you must take care not to come across as seeking her approval. Seeking a woman's approval will turn her off. Women are attracted to aggressive men (hence your former gf wanting you to drive fast - although that's a rather immature manifestation of the preference women have for dominant and aggressive men). For example, you said you smiled and nodded when holding the door open? That might have made you look submissive, eager to please and dorky; not strong and assertive. The trick to not being a jerk but still being sexy is to be aggressive/dominant, yet respectful.

:stunned:

I don't know what kind of women you've been attracting/seeking, but my friends and I all agree that aggressive men can be quite off-putting ("What does he have to prove?" kind of thing). I'm sure you don't mean it as harsh as it sounds?

[Blse]

I don't know what kind of women you've been attracting/seeking, but my friends and I all agree that aggressive men can be quite off-putting ("What does he have to prove?" kind of thing). I'm sure you don't mean it as harsh as it sounds?

Apparently I must sound a lot harsher (given that your reaction differs from other threads where I've made the same statement using different wording). What is your understanding of aggressive then? I'm not talking about a though if that's what you had in mind. I mean a man who takes charge of the situation, goes directly for what he wants in life, is ambitious, confident and in control of himself. Notice the word "can" in your post, which shows me you and I actually agree that aggressiveness, if channeled correctly, is attractive in a man. That though for people who are not naturally assertive - the "what does he have too prove" kind of behavior you're describing are poor attempts at faking real assertiveness and confidence.

I, as I have previously stated, follow the traditional rules of chivalry. I hold women's doors open, I pull their chairs out. Women always appreciate it and say thank you. I've never gotten the reaction Toboktu described. The only way you can get the reaction he described is if you comes across a "nice guy" (read doormat). The details he gave in his posts support the idea that he comes across as too nice, too smiley, too pleasing.

[Syntax]

I haven't read the whole thread(I will! I promise!)...


...But I don't think chivalry is completely dead. If it is, I doubt feminists had much to do with it. In all likelihood, it was frivolous girls who were willing to take advantage of chivalrous men. But truly chivalrous males are stubborn. My mother raised me to be overtly kind to females and it's something that stuck. Despite the fact that such a modus operandi has blown up in my face before, I doubt I'm going to change anytime soon.

[Blse]

I haven't read the whole thread(I will! I promise!)...


...But I don't think chivalry is completely dead. If it is, I doubt feminists had much to do with it. In all likelihood, it was frivolous girls who were willing to take advantage of chivalrous men. But truly chivalrous males are stubborn. My mother raised me to be overtly kind to females and it's something that stuck. Despite the fact that such a modus operandi has blown up in my face before, I doubt I'm going to change anytime soon.

See that's what I've been talking about before. It's being too nice that blows up in a man's face because it comes across as trying too hard/being submissive/being eager to please her/being a follower. That's an attraction killer. It's part of why we have the whole "women like jerks, not nice guys" thing. Doing things like holding doors open and pulling chairs out is alright as long as it doesn't come with an overly niceness that can be misinterpreted as submissiveness.

[firebee]

What happened to the idea that women were treated nicely because men thought we were special and wanted to show that appreciation in a way they knew how?

The difference between a pedestal and a prison cell is that the latter is more spacious, more private, and lacks the potential for breaking bones by falling off it.


Plus, sometimes men just become bumbling idiots and have no other response than to show a physical act. Let’s face it: femininity is something they will never understand, and therefore it will always have a certain power over them. They’re celebrating the difference, not deriding it.

/me titters, bats eyelashes.

Math is hard.

(Particularly at the graduate level.)

Hence why it is so much better to be put up on a pedestal because of the mysterious idiocy-inducing power that radiates from my vulva.


My friend in the marines told me it’s actually psychologically harmful for men to see women out in the field; that when they see a woman hurt or in pain, their protective instinct will take over and they won’t be able to perform as well.

So... if we exploit this fundamental biological response by pairing one team of actresses with one team of female assassins and deploying them in the obvious fashion, we can render any military unit consisting of men ineffective and then slaughter them at our leisure?

Guess that explains how men lost all their rights and became dominated by women, huh?


Plus, considering their mom’s are women, I’m sure it’s quite easy to see how this can happen.

You know what's weirder? Their dads... are men. And their uncles... also men! In fact... by my accounting almost everyone that these soldiers work with and are likely to encounter share the gender of one or another of their relatives. Improbable as that fact may seem.

Maybe we should only recruit soldiers who don't have relatives?

[astrolite]

Chivalry died when women entered the workforce and society scaled to two incomes instead of one therefore leaving dirty dishes, fast food, and children raised by nannies. Oh yes, I went there!

Chivalry, in the modern-nice-to-ladies-sense, was/is nothing more than a sexual ritual. If you remove it from the context of Chivalry, it is called being nice - which has always existed. I open doors for both men and women, consistently (or maybe i'm a latent homosexual?).

[cheerbear]

Going a little off topic, but sure, aggressiveness towards ambitions/life goals, etc. can be quite attractive; just not quite as much so towards women if it's taken to an extreme and if one crosses the line.

The only way you can get the reaction he described is if you comes across a "nice guy" (read doormat).
I don't agree that is the only way to get that reaction, and I think that is what caught me off guard. Guys are not looked as doormats for being nice.

See that's what I've been talking about before. It's being too nice that blows up in a man's face because it comes across as trying too hard/being submissive/being eager to please her/being a follower. That's an attraction killer. It's part of why we have the whole "women like jerks, not nice guys" thing. Doing things like holding doors open and pulling chairs out is alright as long as it doesn't come with an overly niceness that can be misinterpreted as submissiveness.

If a girl thinks that being too nice is wrong, they're not the right girl for him and it's better off knowing sooner than later.
And, the whole "girls like bad boys" theory fits maybe when younger, but I've seen every girl I know fall out of that phase as they matured.

[Blse]

I don't agree that is the only way to get that reaction, and I think that is what caught me off guard. Guys are not looked as doormats for being nice.

No, not for being nice. For being too nice. As with being aggressive, there's a line that shouldn't be cross. I bet if you search your memory you'll find a few guys who were really, really sweet and nice, who were happy as puppy every time they saw you, and you thought they were just trying too hard. That's what I mean :).


If a girl thinks that being too nice is wrong, they're not the right girl for him and it's better off knowing sooner than later.
And, the whole "girls like bad boys" theory fits maybe when younger, but I've seen every girl I know fall out of that phase as they matured.

True, I'd argue that's partly because men mature too and learn how channel their aggression, confidence and courage. Young girls like bad boys because they're the most confident. It's the confidence they're attracted to, not being mistreated. They just don't understand that at this early age. As they grow up they develop a more refined antenna and men tend to overcome the insecurities that cause them to act out when they were younger. In any case, what we see throughout the life-span of typical women and men is that leaders who're assertive and ambitious are attractive, whereas men who are submissive are considered friend-material only.

[Syntax]

See that's what I've been talking about before. It's being too nice that blows up in a man's face because it comes across as trying too hard/being submissive/being eager to please her/being a follower. That's an attraction killer. It's part of why we have the whole "women like jerks, not nice guys" thing. Doing things like holding doors open and pulling chairs out is alright as long as it doesn't come with an overly niceness that can be misinterpreted as submissiveness.

Damn. I knew I should have read the whole thread first because you hit the nail on the head. "Too nice" was EXACTLY the theme that came up after a date in which I used the teachings of my mother. Long story short I opened doors for her and acted interested yet conserved for some girl while we were out on a date...then she gave a blowjob to my friend(who is notoriously an "asshole") that same night. He claimed I was not "too nice" but rather "just nice" when I asked him about it. I was jaded for quite a while after this event. "OH boo-hoo, girls only like assholes!" is something to the effect of what I said.

[firebee]

That's an attraction killer. It's part of why we have the whole "women like jerks, not nice guys" thing.

You've got the whole thing worked out, clearly. Perhaps, by way of example, you want to tell us one of the (surely countless) examples where opening a door in a manner consistent with these principles has successfully resulted in a formal dating relationship between you and a particular actual woman?

Also, is it really necessary to open doors only in the context of a long-term committed relationship, or can one engage in casual door opening with friends and acquaintances?


Doing things like holding doors open and pulling chairs out is alright as long as it doesn't come with an overly niceness that can be misinterpreted as submissiveness.

See, this is what I'm all the time telling my boyfriend: "Serve me those grapes with manly authority, boy! Provide me with firm leadership and guidance as I dangle you from the ceiling and tie my bootlaces around certain strategic body parts!"

But dammit, what he keeps on doing is all this squirming and puppy dog eyes and such like, which is a complete turnoff to all entities female.

The beatings will continue until dominance improves, I guess.

[Blse]

You've got the whole thing worked out, clearly. Perhaps, by way of example, you want to tell us one of the (surely countless) examples where opening a door in a manner consistent with these principles has successfully resulted in a formal dating relationship between you and a particular actual woman?

Also, is it really necessary to open doors only in the context of a long-term committed relationship, or can one engage in casual door opening with friends and acquaintances?

You can open the door for whomever you please just don't be too nice about it. And no opening doors in a cool, collected manner (rather than eagerly friendly) won't get you a dating relationship by itself. Instead it should be part of the overall mind-set that will.


See, this is what I'm all the time telling my boyfriend: "Serve me those grapes with manly authority, boy! Provide me with firm leadership and guidance as I dangle you from the ceiling and tie my bootlaces around certain strategic body parts!"

But dammit, what he keeps on doing is all this squirming and puppy dog eyes and such like, which is a complete turnoff to all entities female.

The beatings will continue until dominance improves, I guess.

That's a funny story alright. You got a real talent for funny straw man fallacies. But what's your point exactely? Are you saying women aren't attracted to strong leadership personalities? To men who are firm and in-control of themselves? That being submissive is not a turn-off? Please do tell, because if I take you literally you're just the exception by liking submissive men (and I'm sure there are some women who do).

I think you just have a problem with the fact that gender roles continue to influence what people find attractive. The reality of our society conflicts with your personal beleifs so you deny it with a fallcious rebuttal. I did that too once. I was 17 and just learned of a placed called Wikipedia. Then I learned that the world is what is whether it conforms to my value system or not.

[cheerbear]

The difference between a pedestal and a prison cell is that the latter is more spacious, more private, and lacks the potential for breaking bones by falling off it.
Sure, you can make this argument and infer that every man that shows a little chivalry will take it to an extreme and thus need incarceration. I’ve been victim to inappropriate crossing of the lines, so if anyone, I think I have plenty of right to frown upon chivalry; that is, if I held that assumption. Fact is, I don’t, because I look at each person individually, and won’t judge the entire male population for one.


/me titters, bats eyelashes.

Math is hard.

(Particularly at the graduate level.)

Hence why it is so much better to be put up on a pedestal because of the mysterious idiocy-inducing power that radiates from my vulva.
Graduate coursework means what in this conversation? Where does this cynicism come from? Can’t just be from me saying that women are different from men? I never said it was “better” to be put on a pedestal; in fact, I never said we were put on a pedestal at all. I’m just saying that the differences between men/women are there and celebrated. It happens all the time even in having a simple “girls’ night out”.

So... if we exploit this fundamental biological response by pairing one team of actresses with one team of female assassins and deploying them in the obvious fashion, we can render any military unit consisting of men ineffective and then slaughter them at our leisure?

Guess that explains how men lost all their rights and became dominated by women, huh?

You know what's weirder? Their dads... are men. And their uncles... also men! In fact... by my accounting almost everyone that these soldiers work with and are likely to encounter share the gender of one or another of their relatives. Improbable as that fact may seem.

Maybe we should only recruit soldiers who don't have relatives?
Haha, seriously? You’re highlighting such a small portion to take out the context; the idea was that there is a different kind of connection and bond that is formed in the womb, so when a man sees a woman out in the field, something inside them is affected differently. Bringing up other relatives was pretty non sequitor.

[JustMel]

Chivalry isn't dead..... yet. The problem is that women are taught to be independent but not taught that it's also okay to like to be taken care of a bit. Yes, I can open my own door but it's nice when he does it. Yes, I can hold my own coat but it's nice when he does it. Letting a man hold a door for you or your coat or a myriad of other things considered chivalrous is not abdicating the fact that you're female. It doesn't make you lesser. It means you enjoy that little bit of attention whether you know the man or not.

Listen up girls it's like this; women bitch that men aren't as chivalrous, nice, sweet, accommodating etc as they used to be but we forget that so many men are slapped at for playing nice that they get to the point where they say "fuck it. she can get her own door/coat/etc." Really, who can blame a guy? You don't think it takes a little slap at a guy's pride to have you snarl at him "I can do it myself"? Sure it does, just like when you try to do something for him and he snarls at you it slaps at your pride.

Women were all up in arms that they wanted equality. Yes, in the workplace but that doesn't mean you give up your femininity because you let him carry your groceries in the house for you, open a door for you or hold your coat for you.

Ladies just because we have vibrators and bigger paychecks doesn't mean we have to give up the acceptance of chivalry. You don't have any problem letting him give you an orgasm but you snarl if he holds a door for you. Where the hell is the logic in that one?

Guys there's a difference between treating a woman like she's incapable and being chivalrous. Holding her coat, getting the door, carrying a package is all chivalrous, getting something down off a shelf she can't reach is chivalrous. Ordering for her in a restaurant without consulting her first is controlling. Talking to her as if she is a child is disrespectful. We get it, you're big, bad men you roar. Guess what, women roar too. Next. If you try to be chivalrous and it gets a snarl then simply say "okay" and let it go. Forcing it is starting a pissing contest and no one wins. You might can piss standing up but we can pump our own gas, change our own light bulbs, mow our own yard and get our own orgasms. Keep letting a few pissy women turn you into a dick isn't going to get you anything but a mad woman and really how many of you want a pissed off woman in your life?

Learn to accept chivalry from one another or quit bitching that it's dying. It's not dying it's being murdered.

[UrWrongImRit]

Don't get me started on this chivalry crap

I love mutual respect, and doing things out of love for someone else, not because its a duty, but becuase you WANT to make them happy.

My opinion on this subject is always swinging from side to side. I like a man trying to take care of me but knows I can take care of myself, it's sweet.

However: in my culture, chivalry is not dead, nor is it alive in a respectful manner.
"A Man is THE Man"

Well then, I have 2 words for you.
FUCK YOU.


i.e My mother was telling me about my uncles baby who swallowed screws and is now hospitalized for also consuming something and getting food poisoning. and how she felt so bad for her brother.
I told her I felt no sympathy for him, nor empathy, instead, I felt bad for the child who is defenseless and doesn't know better.
It is the parents responsibility to watch over their kid, and he was not doing the job.

She then begins to say that it was not her fathers fault but her mothers. It is her responsibility to watch over the child. I asked her why that is, are they not both the parent of that child? do they not BOTH have jobs?

she was silent and then continued to say, " well.. shes on a break at the moment"
I told her. Alright, that is understandable, but who was watching her? They are both responsible for her, and who ever was near her was obviously the one holding the most responsibility; you shouldn't assume it's the mother right away.

I was super pissed.

[firebee]

stuff

Lotsa talking. Conspicuously absent: providing of requested example regarding how aforementioned talk talk has been applied in actual practice to an actual woman resulting in actual horizontal tango or other intimate-type shenanigans.

Also still lacking: explanation of why proper door-opening procedures apparently cannot be constructed without the object of demonstrating optimum dating appeal. Is one meant to make with the sexy sexy when opening doors for elderly men, fat chix, your mom, or whatever?

[Blse]

Lotsa talking. Conspicuously absent: providing of requested example regarding how aforementioned talk talk has been applied in actual practice to an actual woman resulting in actual horizontal tango or other intimate-type shenanigans.

What exactly are you asking for? On the four dates I went on with the most recent girl I asked out, I opened the car door and other doors (restaurant, public buildings) each time, as I did with any other girl. Since January when I got friendzoned after developing a crush one a girl I'd been getting to know for months, I've always gotten a first date with every girl I've asked after doing no more than an hour's worth of conversation; they're always very sweet and kind when I talk to them, laugh at all my jokes, giggle a lot - all signals that they're having a good time.

Does that meet your requirements for evidence? Because, no, I'm not going to give up intimate details beyond that. But why don't you share (perhaps a youtube link?).


Also still lacking: explanation of why proper door-opening procedures apparently cannot be constructed without the object of demonstrating optimum dating appeal. Is one meant to make with the sexy sexy when opening doors for elderly men, fat chix, your mom, or whatever?

When did I make that claim? If you want to make "sexy sexy" with an old dude go ahead and knock yourself out, sweetheart.

[UrWrongImRit]

Lotsa talking. Conspicuously absent: providing of requested example regarding how aforementioned talk talk has been applied in actual practice to an actual woman resulting in actual horizontal tango or other intimate-type shenanigans.

Also still lacking: explanation of why proper door-opening procedures apparently cannot be constructed without the object of demonstrating optimum dating appeal. Is one meant to make with the sexy sexy when opening doors for elderly men, fat chix, your mom, or whatever?
door opening, and other procedures show a sign of respect and courtesy, respect/courtesy is rarely shown in todays society, so when someone shows it, it's refreshing.

If a guy opens a door for me on a date, how is that not a good thing?
Bottom line, +1 for the guy that does it. :)

[Storm]

Tooboku, if you treat women AND men with the same set of manners, this isn't chivalry, it's being nice. Chivalry means treating women with a DIFFERENT set of manners than men. And that is the problem.

Some people might advocate getting rid of the manners, I think you should extend them to all people. So, like you said, if you approach a door first, you open it. If you are escorting someone, you open their car door for them. If someone is having troubling carrying something, you offer to help (you also respect people who say no). Knowing what the other person has in their pants is not a necessity.

[catzmeow]

I think that 'societal norms' are reinforced such that it is difficult to pinpoint the characteristics of this 'male protectiveness towards females' as being natural, cultural, or even mythical - however the passage I quoted certainly gives credence to its existence.

Anectdotal information can only be applied selectively, and not generally.

I can attest personally that gallantry exists separately, having felt the emotion on select occasions -

But why do you feel that? I would suggest that you feel it because you have been told, since you were a boy, that you were SUPPOSED TO FEEL IT. Israeli society, while progressive militarily, can be still quite patriarchal culturally. The Jewish culture itself is patriarchal. So, men have been indoctrinated that women are weaker/lesser and must be protected.

That sort of conditioning is difficult to overcome.

it is certainly plausible that an equivalent feeling is experienced by women, however there is a specific quality or ingredient in the notion of "protecting a women" that is characteristic of 'gallantry' as opposed to simple protectiveness, as in a paternal sense.

If someone tried to harm the people I love, including the man I love, I would have zero problems getting physically violent.

---------- Post added 04-14-2010 at 08:57 AM ----------

Yes, but they show it differently. Women, according to traditional gender roles that continue to greatly influence cross-gender interactions, are supposed to be protective in a motherly fashion while men are supposed to protective in an assertive/aggressive fashion.

I've known some extremely aggressive women. Including myself, if sufficiently provoked.

---------- Post added 04-14-2010 at 09:01 AM ----------

women have been stepping all over mens rights for the past several decades and have waged war on men, a war for women to dominate men and deny men all their rights.

Please feel free to elaborate on the rights that you've been deprived of by evil feminists. For the record, I see no reason why men should be required to pay for an engagement ring by themselves or support a perfectly able-bodied woman.

---------- Post added 04-14-2010 at 09:04 AM ----------

First, it matters how it looks to the other person. Even if you're not actually seeking their approval. It may look as though you are and that'll make you less sexy.

As for the door example, I'm not saying you should be an anti-social creep. Quite the opposite, always look people in the eye and acknowledge their presence. Looking away is just the kind of submissive gesture that no one finds sexy. Instead of smiling and nodding like a uber-friendly doorman, just look them in the eye. Smile once they smile, otherwise just smile very, very lightly. Don't be too friendly, that's what I'm saying.

Look, I'm just answering your question here. You're saying women you treat nicely, don't return the favor and actually roll their eyes at your behavior. I'm just telling you why that may be. You can rationalize and defend your behavior, change it to whatever you wish, or continue to engage in it and just acknowledge that it might have results you don't like. It's your choice, I'm just handing out free information.

Ah, the PUA manual in action, again.

[tooboku]

Tooboku, if you treat women AND men with the same set of manners, this isn't chivalry, it's being nice. Chivalry means treating women with a DIFFERENT set of manners than men. And that is the problem.

Some people might advocate getting rid of the manners, I think you should extend them to all people. So, like you said, if you approach a door first, you open it. If you are escorting someone, you open their car door for them. If someone is having troubling carrying something, you offer to help (you also respect people who say no). Knowing what the other person has in their pants is not a necessity.

Not exactally. I don't turn around when theres a guy getting dressed in front of me. Theres are certain cases where it does make sense to treat the sexes differently.

[Samoan Corleone]

Not exactally. I don't turn around when theres a guy getting dressed in front of me. Theres are certain cases where it does make sense to treat the sexes differently.

You're not worried you might see the guy's schlong? Are guys not entitled to privacy, too?

[cannotseethe]

I think Chivalry is dead, and i think women killed it
IE. women's rights activists

I'm always willing to blame the women's rights activists.

Yeah I don't believe in chivalry because women have been stepping all over mens rights for the past several decades and have waged war on men, a war for women to dominate men and deny men all their rights.

Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned
Nor hell a fury like a man scorned.

[ZincLysine]

You can't have it both ways. Women can't be equal and recieve chivalry. Pick one or you get neither.

When I'm in asia, I guess I act and do things that'd be seen as chivalrous. Even around my house. But really its more because its necessary. Often I'm asked to do things like move 40kg suitcases around or something like that.

When here in the UK, I don't do anything. When I do, I get shit. When I don't, I get shit. Considering I don't care about these people, I don't bother.

[heartland]

I would say I am relatively chivalrous in terms of the traditional sense, holding doors open for women and the like. As I have gotten precisely nothing in return (in some cases, they don't even consider it necessary to say thank you) I now plan on giving up this behaviour and just being an asshole.

I will probably still relinquish my seat on the train or bus if I see an elderly person approaching but that's about it.

[ZincLysine]

I will probably still relinquish my seat on the train or bus if I see an elderly person approaching but that's about it.

I do this, but I don't consider elderly people the same as a vain young girl who thinks I'm keeping the door open cos I like her and thinks that this small normal gesture is something more than you know, being human.

[Tough Love]

If a woman is looking for her equal in a man and not a hero, these gestures just seem a bit outdated and perhaps even manipulative.

Nowadays, if you're trying to woo a woman, better show her that you appreciate her wit and her independence rather than go through those traditional motions that worked for your father and your grandfather.

This is exactly my stance. Women work and want the same wages, but how can we expect them if we rely on men to make life cushty for us as well? At the end of the day, what does chivalry gain?! Men treating women as a 'fragile species' is unneccessary in this day and age - And IMO its the women who seem to think that men somehow owe them this type of service who are holding back women's progress in the business world and in society as whole.

And i dont label myself as a feminist.

---------- Post added 04-14-2010 at 02:51 PM ----------

I think that women who feel that housekeeping is their domain do feel that men are not capable of it. That's what are those commercials for cleaning products that make the joke "even a man can do it" are playing on.

100%, and how many men have i met who pretend they cant do something properly (ie making a huge mess when they do the dishes, or mixing colours in the washing machine on purpose) because they know that next time she is going to think 'he is not capable, it'll be easier for me to do it myself'.
And how many women know that by going to their partner to open a jar for her even when she can technically open it herself, will make him feel good about himself?

Most i think. Women correct me if im wrong?

[cannotseethe]

You can't have it both ways. Women can't be equal and recieve chivalry. Pick one or you get neither.

Be patronized or else be equal, expressed as a command, is an apt distillation of this discussion.

[yoginimama]

I don't think so. All the acts performed were because the 'little woman' just wasn't 'strong enough' to do it on her own. It was patronizing, and it still is. Boobs do not make a person handicapped.

In the Victorian-through-Edwardian era, that was absolutely true and I agree with you completely. Mid-19th-to-early-20th-century chivalry represents a perversion of the original medieval ideal. It was overtly about the male ego, strutting around like a peacock and doing things for the "little lady" because obviously she couldn't do them herself. (But god forbid she request help with the dishes instead of help getting up into a carriage.)

In the medieval era, though, my understanding is that it was somewhat different. Knights performed useless, symbolic acts of service for the ladies as a sign of emotional submission. It was a paradoxical, subversive act. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest it was a form of proto-kinky roleplay hiding in plain sight. (Remember, chivalry was invented and played out by noblewomen and men with the time and resources to make their daily lives somewhat of a self-conscious game.)

[ctclough]

You can't have it both ways. Women can't be equal and recieve chivalry.

Why can't women be recognized as intellectually equal while recognizing that they are physically smaller and weaker? Why shouldn't men celebrate their masculinity and women celebrate their femininity? Why must we deny gender differences? Equality of value does not equal qualitative uniformity. I so appreciate a man with good manners, and who does not engage in "barbarous Man-talk" around me. It is chivalrous to recognize and be sensitive to gender differences and to value these. When a guy holds a door open for me, and I appreciate this gesture, we are doing the celebration of gender difference happy dance. I think that men being chivalrous and honoring toward women should be encouraged in any small way. Perhaps less women would be raped in the subway while men pass by if chivalry were the rule, rather than the exception.

[ZincLysine]

Be patronized or else be equal, expressed as a command, is an apt distillation of this discussion.

Why can't women be recognized as intellectually equal while recognizing that they are physically smaller and weaker? Why shouldn't men celebrate their masculinity and women celebrate their femininity? Why must we deny gender differences? Equality of value does not equal qualitative uniformity. I so appreciate a man with good manners, and who does not engage in "barbarous Man-talk" around me. It is chivalrous to recognize and be sensitive to gender differences and to value these. When a guy holds a door open for me, and I appreciate this gesture, we are doing the celebration of gender difference happy dance. I think that men being chivalrous and honoring toward women should be encouraged in any small way. Perhaps less women would be raped in the subway while men pass by if chivalry were the rule, rather than the exception.

This is more toward ctclough, but just look above. I believe that cannotseethe is a guy, but its a view that some women express.

I'm happy to do the things you've said. Even stated in my post, when I'm in Asia visiting family and meeting people out there, where the infrastructure is far more physically demanding, there's almost an expectation of me as a male having certain roles and doing things. If I don't do them, I'm asked to do them.

You do half way normal things here in the UK like open a door and you get shit from girls. You don't do it. You get shit. There's no way to win. Sometimes for friends I would do things just cos I'm polite. Then they think you're interested in them which in itself leads to its own problems.

In the end, I found, if I acted like a selfish prick and looked out for number one, I had to deal with less of this overall. Best of all, I was still attracting girls I wanted. I didn't have to put up so much with other people.

As far as I'm concerned, people want a better society, but they complain when they have it. Removing it from them makes life easier for me and doesn't affect the quality of my life. Sure, it might affect yours, but I have no incentive or good reason anymore to be helpful. I don't get appreciated for anything I do in that way. So I stopped. If my life was going more hunky dory, like I was wealthy or something, I might be more inclined to be altruistic. However, when you're life is going badly like mine is, and doing 'good' things for people gets you more crap when doing nothing keeps the levels of crap you get stable, it takes an idiot to want to get more abuse.

I actually agree with the principle of your message. But the majority of people don't act that way or seem interested in it anymore.

[Storm]

Why can't women be recognized as intellectually equal while recognizing that they are physically smaller and weaker? ... When a guy holds a door open for me, and I appreciate this gesture, we are doing the celebration of gender difference happy dance.

Uh, how does being being less strong equate to being unable to open a door? Why is physical strength so incredibly important that a whole protocol needs to be created around it to emphasis the difference? Practical, it should only come up if there is something that that needs to be done that actually requires more strength than you have.

And what does the fact that I open door for men say about me? Am I asserting that I am physically stronger than he is? That I think he is a woman?

What's funny is that we've got a lot of men in this thread angry that being polite toward women as women (not as people) is seen as a come-on by some women, then we've got Blse arguing the entire point of such mannerisms is sex appeal.

Also, Blse, I have no idea what you mean by opening a door "assertively" and opening it "too nice." What?

[Tough Love]

I think that men being chivalrous and honoring toward women should be encouraged in any small way.

What has a woman done to deserve it over her male counterpart? Or do you just base it on her being 'smaller and weaker' (Which i dont believe is a rule anyhow and the proffession of such leads many women to see themselves as abnormal - or they just fit themselves into the role of 'smaller and weaker')
AOn the flipside, are we as women supposed to 'honour' men in the way they want?

[gecko]

Anectdotal information can only be applied selectively, and not generally.

Hmmm. I said that the account I posed gives credence to its existence. Meaning that via my collective experience/perception, this account reinforces what I already suspect exists - whether or not in some or all men.

But why do you feel that? I would suggest that you feel it because you have been told, since you were a boy, that you were SUPPOSED TO FEEL IT. Israeli society, while progressive militarily, can be still quite patriarchal culturally. The Jewish culture itself is patriarchal. So, men have been indoctrinated that women are weaker/lesser and must be protected.

That sort of conditioning is difficult to overcome.

I can assure you that I was never told that I should get angry and protective and that adrenaline should flow through my body when a woman is threatened. Any exposure to such would have been reflected in literature, art/cinema, and personal affirmation - pursued at my choice. I cultivated the instinct, the idea, because it seemed good and true. I have been exposed to the normal 'be the man of the house', 'be a man by doing this', 'you're a man so you should do this', 'she's a woman that's how they are' gender roles typified to a fault - I generally choose to reject them because they(those expressing such) tend to be riding on some notion of false truth. I can also tell you that I do not associate women as weaker/lesser than men in anything other than physical respects, while still retaining an affinity for chivalry. You seem to have a dislike for the notion that men are specifically protective over women because they are physically weaker - that it may be a part of our evolution, and that it (somehow) automatically fosters sexism.


If someone tried to harm the people I love, including the man I love, I would have zero problems getting physically violent.


As I said - and I would love for other guys to chime in here, I have noted a unique flavor to the protectiveness(see:aggression, increased vitality/alertness, perhaps even some sexual energy) I feel when a woman is threatened.

---------- Post added 04-14-2010 at 12:50 PM ----------

What has a woman done to deserve it over her male counterpart? Or do you just base it on her being 'smaller and weaker' (Which i dont believe is a rule anyhow and the proffession of such leads many women to see themselves as abnormal - or they just fit themselves into the role of 'smaller and weaker')
AOn the flipside, are we as women supposed to 'honour' men in the way they want?

Smaller, weaker, dainty, delicate, fragile, elegant, exquisite, fine. All of these words can be used to say the same thing - to describe an average woman who is usually more slight of frame, with less noticeable muscle tone, smaller shoulders, more body fat percentage, etc. compared to an average man. Do you expect us to pretend such differences do not exist in order to fulfill some illusion of complete equality(see:asexuality) or to make sure we don't program ourselves into sexists? Or worse, do you yourself deny that such differences exist in order to compensate for an innate insecurity caused by perceiving yourself as 'the weaker sex'?

[cannotseethe]

You do half way normal things here in the UK like open a door and you get shit from girls. You don't do it. You get shit. There's no way to win.

Chivalry is all about winning. One endeavors to make small acts of self sacrifice only if one has a reasonable probability of getting something in return for them. Holding one's fork a certain way, chewing with one's mouth closed, saying please and thank you, and opening doors are all investments. We should always have our eyes open for opportunities to leverage these into sex, the ultimate ROI.

[ZincLysine]

Chivalry is all about winning. One endeavors to make small acts of self sacrifice only if one has a reasonable probability of getting something in return for them. Holding one's fork a certain way, chewing with one's mouth closed, saying please and thank you, and opening doors are all investments. We should always have our eyes open for opportunities to leverage these into sex, the ultimate ROI.

I don't care if I get a positive return or not. No response is okay, but not great. The most I expect from someone is "Cheers" or "thanks" for something like holding the door slightly open.

What sucks is getting flak for doing something like that. Hence I don't bother going down that road anymore.

We should always have our eyes open for opportunities to leverage these into sex, the ultimate ROI.

Thinking of the girls I've dated recently, I didn't get them from being chivalrous. I wasn't a douche either. I worked out a different formula for attracting the girls I like and to be honest, it seems this way works better for me.

[firebee]

Sure, you can make this argument and infer that every man that shows a little chivalry will take it to an extreme and thus need incarceration.

Well, since you brought it up, I will note that the fellow I knew who was by far the most preoccupied with chivalry among all guys that I've met, once threatened a good friend of mine with a knife because she was being pointedly gay in his presence. He was quite worshipful of the mysterious feminine -- the actual female (who is not necessarily feminine) not so much.

Which does tie in to the point that I was actually making, namely that while it sounds sooooo nice and respectful to treat female people with worshipful awe for what they supposedly represent, this also has its problems. It may not seem so, but being treated as a representative of an ideal rather than a human being is limiting; it limits one to approximating the ideal that one is meant to represent. To an extent, it confers an expectation that the pedestal-resident should concern themselves with performing according to their assigned role rather than going about their ordinary business -- and if these expectations are violated to a sufficient extent, the result is resentment, anger, and abuse.

Graduate coursework means what in this conversation? Where does this cynicism come from?


A concrete example. That is one aspect of what I actually am -- a graduate student in electrical engineering, an assistant instructor in the martial arts, a queer woman, someone who poos. Not a representative of the mysterious feminine, not a representative of the actual feminine most of the time.

The cynicism extends from there; it doesn't mean anything good to me to be celebrated for what I am not in preference to what I am, and I find the suggestion that I should rather tiresome.

I never said it was “better” to be put on a pedestal; in fact, I never said we were put on a pedestal at all.

Incorrect. You said that men, upon encountering particular women, want to celebrate the supposed 'differences' that these individuals represent because they are women. That's a pedestal. That these men become 'bumbling idiots' on account of these differences, and this is the source of the power that a female person has -- as a female, not as a person. That's a pedestal. You state that men in the military are not capable of seeing women with whom they might serve as fellow soldiers rather than as iconic representatives of Mommy. That's a pedestal.

And that it is somehow wrong of me to be unimpressed by this 'celebration' and the expectations that go along with it, and to go through life as a human being rather than a comfort object? That is the problem with pedestals.

[Blse]

I've known some extremely aggressive women. Including myself, if sufficiently provoked.

Interestingly enough you've also described your usual MO as motherly, sweet and charming. Of course any woman can be aggressive if provoked, but usually a woman's protective instincts are expressed through nurturing behavior, not aggression.


Ah, the PUA manual in action, again.

Ah, dismissing an argument without engaging it by (erroneously) attributing it to a disreputable source.

Are disputing that women are attracted to strengths of character, mind and personality? Are disputing that submissive behavior is a turn off? I doubt it. Take a look at threads on this forum where women are honest about what they're attracted to. You don't need to open a PUA book to figure out that women prefer assertive leader types.

Tooboku, if you treat women AND men with the same set of manners, this isn't chivalry, it's being nice. Chivalry means treating women with a DIFFERENT set of manners than men. And that is the problem.

Why?

---------- Post added 04-14-2010 at 10:56 AM ----------

Why can't women be recognized as intellectually equal while recognizing that they are physically smaller and weaker? Why shouldn't men celebrate their masculinity and women celebrate their femininity? Why must we deny gender differences? Equality of value does not equal qualitative uniformity. I so appreciate a man with good manners, and who does not engage in "barbarous Man-talk" around me. It is chivalrous to recognize and be sensitive to gender differences and to value these. When a guy holds a door open for me, and I appreciate this gesture, we are doing the celebration of gender difference happy dance. I think that men being chivalrous and honoring toward women should be encouraged in any small way. Perhaps less women would be raped in the subway while men pass by if chivalry were the rule, rather than the exception.

That's my stance. Although I do wonder what "barbarous man-talk" means...

[Storm]

Smaller, weaker, dainty, delicate, fragile, elegant, exquisite, fine. All of these words can be used to say the same thing - to describe an average woman who is usually more slight of frame, with less noticeable muscle tone, smaller shoulders, more body fat percentage, etc. compared to an average man. Do you expect us to pretend such differences do not exist in order to fulfill some illusion of complete equality(see:asexuality) or to make sure we don't program ourselves into sexists? Or worse, do you yourself deny that such differences exist in order to compensate for an innate insecurity caused by perceiving yourself as 'the weaker sex'?

What does any of this have to do with why chivalry (men putting women on pedestal) rules need apply?

[Distance]

I've never understood the "If women want equality in this world, screw manners" argument.

Most women that I know are similar to myself, where we appreciate a man who displays common courtesies, who isn't afraid to be a man, who's confident with himself as a man who was properly raised. We also return those manners, sometimes in different ways. A man or woman holds the door open for us, we smile and/or say thanks. We also hold the door open for people behind us, rather than allowing the door to slam in their faces.

I've had people ignore me for holding the door open and admittedly they were women. Mannerless cretins. And yet, this won't stop me from holding the door open for people, same as it doesn't stop many others from doing the same for me.

IMO, manners are a reflection of who I am, rather than trying to get payment for services rendered.

[Blse]

Also, Blse, I have no idea what you mean by opening a door "assertively" and opening it "too nice." What?

It's about the attitude you have, the aura you present. I mean when you open the door you don't need to smile and nod like she just made your day by walking past you. Just make eye contact and smile a little if she does. I know one guy in particular, who keeps asking for lunch to help him plan his career, who's a dork because he's too nice. He's much too happy and smiley around people. Excessive niceness backfires. That's my point.

[Storm]

Why?

Have you been reading the thread? By putting women on a pedestal and continual treating them like they are less capable than men, it causes people to think that they are less capable and are not true equals.

---------- Post added 04-14-2010 at 01:05 PM ----------

It's about the attitude you have, the aura you present. I mean when you open the door you don't need to smile and nod like she just made your day by walking past you. Just make eye contact and smile a little if she does. I know one guy in particular, who keeps asking for lunch to help him plan his career, who's a dork because he's too nice. He's much too happy and smiley around people. Excessive niceness backfires. That's my point.

So, you think that the point of treating women differently is to try and get something from them?

[Blse]

Have you been reading the thread? By putting women on a pedestal and continual treating them like they are less capable than men, it causes people to think that they are less capable and are not true equals.

Have you been reading the responses by many women saying they appreciate the gestures? But I completely agree that you shouldn't put women on a pedestal, or any person for that matter. That's why I'm emphasizing the point that you shouldn't be excessively nice while being chivalrous.

---------- Post added 04-14-2010 at 11:08 AM ----------


So, you think that the point of treating women differently is to try and get something from them?

No. I'm saying that chivalry can backfire if you're being too nice. No ones like people to try hard to get your approval. The men who complain about their chivalry backfiring likely came across as too nice. That's not advocating chivalry as a seduction method or something.

[gecko]

What does any of this have to do with why chivalry (men putting women on pedestal) rules need apply?

Nothing. You will never see me claiming that chivalry is necessary or that I despise those who do not choose to practice it in any form. Nor do I agree that chivalry is always putting someone on a pedestal. You use stereotypes, yes? That certain stereotypes are positive does not equal a pedestal. I do not look favorably upon a woman I am attracted to based on superficial qualities(say femininity) and think "wow, she must be so much greater than me because she inexplicably creates a positive physical reaction in me" When did 'appreciate' make the recipient of appreciation a superior?

[catzmeow]

Interestingly enough you've also described your usual MO as motherly, sweet and charming. Of course any woman can be aggressive if provoked, but usually a woman's protective instincts are expressed through nurturing behavior, not aggression.

Women are primates. Have you ever seen a female primate fight? I can be all of the things above, but I can also be as brutal as any person you've ever met. It entirely depends upon the circumstances.

The idea that we are primarily maternal, soft and delicate is largely a myth imposed upon us from those on the outside who are engaging in wishful, 1-dimensional thinking.

I am all of those things, but they are not the sum total of my being.

I'm also a woman who works with violent gang-involved offenders for a living. That makes me sweet, motherly, charming, and a bit of a badass. I'm not afraid of conflict, violence doesn't scare me, and my first impulse in protecting the people I love is to fight.

In other words, what she said:

Which does tie in to the point that I was actually making, namely that while it sounds sooooo nice and respectful to treat female people with worshipful awe for what they supposedly represent, this also has its problems. It may not seem so, but being treated as a representative of an ideal rather than a human being is limiting; it limits one to approximating the ideal that one is meant to represent. To an extent, it confers an expectation that the pedestal-resident should concern themselves with performing according to their assigned role rather than going about their ordinary business -- and if these expectations are violated to a sufficient extent, the result is resentment, anger, and abuse.

The cynicism extends from there; it doesn't mean anything good to me to be celebrated for what I am not in preference to what I am, and I find the suggestion that I should rather tiresome.




Ah, dismissing an argument without engaging it by (erroneously) attributing it to a disreputable source.

Do you neg them whilst opening the door to establish yourself as an alpha? ^.^

[cannotseethe]

You don't need to open a PUA book to figure out that women prefer assertive leader types.

The assertive leader type, characterized by a proclivity towards nice but not too nice chivalrous gestures such as opening doors for women without smiling, has, in my estimation, emerged as the hands-down favorite among the women who post in the Relationships and Dating forum. One need look no further than the men these women have dated, and the men on the forum who've experienced some success at dating, to see that.

[Blse]

The idea that we are primarily maternal, soft and delicate is largely a myth imposed upon us from those on the outside who are engaging in wishful, 1-dimensional thinking.

Maybe, but it's a myth so powerful that it's effects on behavior can't be denied.


Do you neg them whilst opening the door to establish yourself as an alpha? ^.^

What can I say, it comes to me naturally. I'll just note that you didn't dispute any of my statements...

[firebee]

Interestingly enough you've also described your usual MO as motherly, sweet and charming. Of course any woman can be aggressive if provoked, but usually a woman's protective instincts are expressed through nurturing behavior, not aggression.

I don't know how I've managed to get through these 29 years of living as a woman without the benefit of sound advice from a person who has read all about the nature of women on teh internetz and experienced relationships up to four whole dates with actual ones.

It is fortunate that we have the benefit of your wisdom and experience in these matters.

That said, your comments here indirectly illustrate one reason why women may find chivalrous behavior worthy of suspicion. We have here, let us say, a door (operated through the conventional means), a door-opening male person, and a door-entering female person. This does not have to be an exceptionally complicated task; the door is closed, the man opens the door, the woman walks through the door.

But apparently, it is important for the man to conduct the door opening task in a dominant fashion, to illustrate his strength of character through his manly door-opening skills. To show that he is a "go-getter" in this matter of doors, so that he might demonstrate his characteristics of optimum dateability. And why, ultimately, does he need to do these things...?

To get in her pants. Maybe to have a first date with her -- or even four dates!

If this is what is meant to be going on in the head of the average opener of doors... you know, it is suddenly looking a lot more simple and agreeable just to somehow figure out how to do it my own self.

[catzmeow]

Maybe, but it's a myth so powerful that it's effects on behavior can't be denied.

I deny its effects every day just by being myself. It's people who have very little tangible experience with real women that tend to fall back on these sorts of myths.

What can I say, it comes to me naturally. I'll just note that you didn't dispute any of my statements...

Some statements aren't worthy of a serious response.

[Storm]

Have you been reading the responses by many women saying they appreciate the gestures? But I completely agree that you shouldn't put women on a pedestal, or any person for that matter. That's why I'm emphasizing the point that you shouldn't be excessively nice while being chivalrous.

Actually, I do appreciate people opening doors for me. I do NOT appreciate people opening doors for me because of my sex. Which is why I open doors for everyone.

Here's question, why don't you open doors for men?

No. I'm saying that chivalry can backfire if you're being too nice. No ones like people to try hard to get your approval. The men who complain about their chivalry backfiring likely came across as too nice. That's not advocating chivalry as a seduction method or something.

This is part of your theory that ALL interactions between men and women are about some sort of power struggle - showing your dominance and being a leader. In reality, you have NO IDEA why some women are rude when a man opens a door for them. It is purely speculation that it's because men are being "too nice." Again, as someone who actually has door opened for them, I really do not know what you talking about. The fact there exist rude people in the world is true for all things. Some people don't say thank you for gifts. Some people ask too personal of questions to strangers.

It's interesting that you use the word "backfire" here. It implies that the you were expecting something more than just a "thanks." What is that exactly?

[Nothing. You will never see me claiming that chivalry is necessary or that I despise those who do not choose to practice it in any form. Nor do I agree that chivalry is always putting someone on a pedestal.

Treating a group of people special, when you do not need to, is putting them on a pedestal. So, if you open the door for everyone - it's not a pedestal. If you help someone carry something because they truly need help, it is not putting them on a pedestal.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Blse. Why don't you perform these minor tasks for men?

[Cygnus]

Right, back to regularly scheduled programing...

I am polite, but not chivalrous (at least by modern usage of the word). I extend equal consideration, politeness and good manners to people regardless of age, ethnic background, or gender. If I like someone and get to know her (since we are talking of chivalry), I then take how she wishes to be treated into greater consideration and accommodate appropriately.

[Zsych]

There seems to be a lot about opening doors here.

I'll typically open them for anyone, and most people appreciate it - and I in turn appreciate other people doing it for me.

[Cygnus]

There seems to be a lot about opening doors here.

I'll typically open them for anyone, and most people appreciate it - and I in turn appreciate other people doing it for me.

Perhaps it needs to be renamed "Opening Doors for Others, Dead?" Though that can give that entire Weekend at Bernie's image to it then...I tend to appreciate politeness regardless of the motivation or intent.

[realitycheque]

Chivalry is all about winning. One endeavors to make small acts of self sacrifice only if one has a reasonable probability of getting something in return for them. Holding one's fork a certain way, chewing with one's mouth closed, saying please and thank you, and opening doors are all investments. We should always have our eyes open for opportunities to leverage these into sex, the ultimate ROI.
Well, this certainly is not my viewpoint on Chivalry. I like one quote from wikipedia ("Chivalry is only a name for that general spirit or state of mind which disposes men to heroic actions, and keeps them conversant with all that is beautiful and sublime in the intellectual and moral world.") It hints at more noble and honorable and intangible purposes than "what's in it for me".

To me it's about going above and beyond simple courtesies (i.e., the banal "opening doors") and doing some task really requiring extended time and effort. It is done for the simple joy in giving of my own finite resources to a person or group of my choosing. Such altruism does not require equitable distribution to everyone for the appearance of politically-correct fairness. It does not require any ROI other than my feeling a sense of satisfaction about my ability to help someone else who cannot, or would rather not, do a difficult task or speak out for themselves if unreasonably wronged. And it does not imply that I will be insulted if the offer is courteously declined.

If anyone reads more into such actions and intents, it is his/her problem, not mine. There is a place and a need for unadulterated Chivalry in this world, and in our modern society in which traditional roles are very much relevant.

[cannotseethe]

Well, this certainly is not my viewpoint on Chivalry. I like one quote from wikipedia ("Chivalry is only a name for that general spirit or state of mind which disposes men to heroic actions, and keeps them conversant with all that is beautiful and sublime in the intellectual and moral world.") It hints at more noble and honorable and intangible purposes than "what's in it for me".

I was being sarcastic to make a point much like this one.

Such notions as being nice but not too nice contain an implicit expression of entitlement. I do these things to get something. I don't overdo them, because I might not get something. If I do these things and the person is not appreciative, I stop doing them (never mind that a handful of bad experiences with some people says nothing about what the remaining 6.7 billion people on Earth might do). Norms of social graciousness arise, in part, to contravene exactly such self-serving purposes. You're kind for the sake of it, nice for the sake of it, open doors for people for the sake of it. You're fully aware that you might be treated badly in return, but you do it anyway, because that's what gracious people do. Or something.

Yet here we have people putatively in favor of chivalry, that pinnacle of masculine social grace, declaring that feminists killed the notion and they're done with it because they're not treated like the door-opening heroes they seem to feel they deserve to be. There's nothing like arguing in favor of an ideal while simultaneously rejecting it on grounds that the ideal itself dictates you shouldn't legitimize.

[gecko]

Treating a group of people special, when you do not need to, is putting them on a pedestal. So, if you open the door for everyone - it's not a pedestal. If you help someone carry something because they truly need help, it is not putting them on a pedestal.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Blse. Why don't you perform these minor tasks for men?

Let's examine your first statement. Why do we treat our loved ones special:we certainly do not need to. Normal response would be because we love them for reasons x, y and z. Are we putting them on a pedestal? Are all of our loved ones superior? "Putting something on a pedestal" often means that the object being 'worshipped' is superior, beyond our grasp. We treat mentally retarded special(unnecessarily), do we put them on a pedestal? We treat authority figures special(unnecessarily), do we put them on a pedestal? It does not follow that 'treating a group of people special when unnecessary=putting them on a pedestal'.

Maybe I can successfully read between the lines here. Maybe you perhaps meant to say: Treating a group of people special on the basis of our physical differences fosters an unhealthy optimism/pessimism or idealism regarding one's expectations for this group of people. Ever offend someone of a different culture for committing a 'faux pas' of sorts? Let's say you enter a traditional Japanese home and do not take your shoes off - the matriarch of the household admonishes you. Do you a. say fuck you I don't have to treat you special where's the logic? or b. take your shoes off in respect of their culture/traditions? Chivalry, like traditions, can show respect for women like following traditions can show respect for a culture.

I do hold doors open regardless of sex.

Chivalry[1] is a term related to the medieval institution of knighthood. It is usually associated with ideals of knightly virtues, honor and courtly love. Today, the terms chivalry and chivalrous are often used to describe courteous behavior, especially that of men towards women.

Here we have 'knightly virtues' (which we can safely discount), honor, and courtly love. Let's focus on courtly love. Ever receive flowers, been taken on a romantic horse carriage ride through Central Park, been draped with a boyfriend's coat when you were cold, or been offered an umbrella when caught in the rain unprepared? Traditional romance/chivalry. I thought we should expand our narrow 'holds doors open = chivalry' definition.

[cheerbear]

...
Which does tie in to the point that I was actually making, namely that while it sounds sooooo nice and respectful to treat female people with worshipful awe for what they supposedly represent, this also has its problems. It may not seem so, but being treated as a representative of an ideal rather than a human being is limiting; it limits one to approximating the ideal that one is meant to represent. To an extent, it confers an expectation that the pedestal-resident should concern themselves with performing according to their assigned role rather than going about their ordinary business -- and if these expectations are violated to a sufficient extent, the result is resentment, anger, and abuse.
I’ve been on the receiving end of chivalry gone wrong, so I completely understand where you’re coming from and will even agree to an extent. However, I am accountable for my own actions, so I hold other people to their own as individuals, and don’t assign that horrible example to every man I come across. (Just like any man shouldn’t believe that I’ll behave a certain way, outside of an appreciative “thanks” or smile, in return for a chivalrous act.) And for each bad example I’ve come across, I’ve seen 20 more good to counter it, so I choose to go out there still maintaining my optimistic outlook.

...
The cynicism extends from there; it doesn't mean anything good to me to be celebrated for what I am not in preference to what I am, and I find the suggestion that I should rather tiresome.
So it doesn’t do any good to be celebrated for being a woman, but who says it’s supposed to? And I’m not so sure of the accuracy of this statement, anyway, you've never had a girls’ night out? Women are different by nature, but we recognize it when we want, and don’t when we don’t want? This doesn't make sense to me. Plus, I never said you should; yes, society puts that pressure on us, but I’m not one to let society’s narrow/constricting views dictate my own, especially when most are subject to groupthink and of subpar IQ.

Incorrect. You said that men, upon encountering particular women, want to celebrate the supposed 'differences' that these individuals represent because they are women. That's a pedestal. That these men become 'bumbling idiots' on account of these differences, and this is the source of the power that a female person has -- as a female, not as a person. That's a pedestal. You state that men in the military are not capable of seeing women with whom they might serve as fellow soldiers rather than as iconic representatives of Mommy. That's a pedestal.

And that it is somehow wrong of me to be unimpressed by this 'celebration' and the expectations that go along with it, and to go through life as a human being rather than a comfort object? That is the problem with pedestals.
Why does ‘celebrating’ a woman = putting her on a pedestal, can’t it just mean showing appreciation? Men go out all the time with one another, celebrating being men, does that mean they put each other on a pedestal? I don’t quite grasp why things are taken so out of context and to such extremes.

And I never said you had to think the way I do, or that you were wrong in doing so. I was sharing that I maintain to believe in the good intentions of most men when they’re being nice; to think otherwise would drive me crazy of paranoia and make me bitter.

So is it somehow wrong of me that I won’t look at certain problems of society and dwindle it down to a simple act of a man holding a door open for me? If I felt there was a clear injustice being done, I am one to go out there and do something about it.

It’s all over this thread - men being mistreated or antagonized even when their intentions are just to be nice, so in turn they end up becoming cynical themselves. I don’t want to play a part in that, and I definitely don’t want their cynicism to blow up in my face as it has before, so I decide to ‘pay it forward’ with a kind smile.

---------- Post added 04-14-2010 at 04:25 PM ----------

By putting women on a pedestal and continual treating them like they are less capable than men, it causes people to think that they are less capable and are not true equals.


I’m not bothered (mostly ;]) by what people think of me; I know the truth, which is what's important. I’m in a heavily-male dominated industry, so if anything, it gives me quite an advantage over those with such base ideas. It also helps me pick out the narrow-minded from the more intelligent, so I end up surrounding myself with higher quality people overall.

[Blse]

I don't know how I've managed to get through these 29 years of living as a woman without the benefit of sound advice from a person who has read all about the nature of women on teh internetz and experienced relationships up to four whole dates with actual ones.

It is fortunate that we have the benefit of your wisdom and experience in these matters.

That said, your comments here indirectly illustrate one reason why women may find chivalrous behavior worthy of suspicion. We have here, let us say, a door (operated through the conventional means), a door-opening male person, and a door-entering female person. This does not have to be an exceptionally complicated task; the door is closed, the man opens the door, the woman walks through the door.

But apparently, it is important for the man to conduct the door opening task in a dominant fashion, to illustrate his strength of character through his manly door-opening skills. To show that he is a "go-getter" in this matter of doors, so that he might demonstrate his characteristics of optimum dateability. And why, ultimately, does he need to do these things...?

To get in her pants. Maybe to have a first date with her -- or even four dates!

If this is what is meant to be going on in the head of the average opener of doors... you know, it is suddenly looking a lot more simple and agreeable just to somehow figure out how to do it my own self.

Again you're countering my argument that assertive leaders are sexy with a fallacy wrapped in sarcasm, this time a circumstantial ad hominem. How original.

Surely you're aware that 4 months of intensive study, dedicated practice, work and good old fashioned ENTJ single-mindedness can lead to a better understanding than 10 years of ass-backwards trial-and-error. See just a few hours ago I took a test for a Census Job (seems like an interesting side gig). Next to me was a 40-something year old lady. I finished early with a perfect score, she made just halfway through. I do have experience going back further than 4 months but that history is filled with error because I didn't use my inner ENTJ-assertive leadership personality in dating; I thought I had to put on a nice facade of bubbly. Furthermore, if you think my research is based solely on the "internetz" you're mistaken.

But don't take my word for it. Look at threads right on this forum with women far more experienced than you admitting that "alpha-males" (for the lack of a better word) are sexy. Note that even in this thread not one experienced woman has come out an said that submissive behavior is sexy. No has actually argued that point. CST said it already:

The assertive leader type, characterized by a proclivity towards nice but not too nice chivalrous gestures such as opening doors for women without smiling, has, in my estimation, emerged as the hands-down favorite among the women who post in the Relationships and Dating forum. One need look no further than the men these women have dated, and the men on the forum who've experienced some success at dating, to see that.

So you don't have to take my word for it. If you wish to deny the reality that assertive leadership behavior is not sexy in men, go ahead.

---------- Post added 04-14-2010 at 03:08 PM ----------

Some statements aren't worthy of a serious response.

Yes, because they're painfully obvious in their truthful nature.

Actually, I do appreciate people opening doors for me. I do NOT appreciate people opening doors for me because of my sex. Which is why I open doors for everyone.

Here's question, why don't you open doors for men?

I do if they need help. But otherwise there is a double-standard. I see it as a nice tradition. Ctclough described it well:

Equality of value does not equal qualitative uniformity... It is chivalrous to recognize and be sensitive to gender differences and to value these. When a guy holds a door open for me, and I appreciate this gesture, we are doing the celebration of gender difference happy dance. I think that men being chivalrous and honoring toward women should be encouraged in any small way.


This is part of your theory that ALL interactions between men and women are about some sort of power struggle - showing your dominance and being a leader. In reality, you have NO IDEA why some women are rude when a man opens a door for them. It is purely speculation that it's because men are being "too nice." Again, as someone who actually has door opened for them, I really do not know what you talking about. The fact there exist rude people in the world is true for all things. Some people don't say thank you for gifts. Some people ask too personal of questions to strangers.

When did I say that's my theory? My theory is that women very strongly dislike submissive men; thus, displaying gestures of niceness needs to be done with care so as not to be viewed as submissive. Men who complain of being look down upon by women for "just being nice" most likely came across as submissive. Do I know this for sure? No, I couldn't possibly. But it's the most reasonable explanation around. Given that the current MO employed by the men who complained in this thread isn't working, it seems prudent to conduct, or at least consider, modifying behavior according to the most reasonable theory.


It's interesting that you use the word "backfire" here. It implies that the you were expecting something more than just a "thanks." What is that exactly?

No, not more than a thanks. A nice action should be met with an action of equal caliber. A "hi" warrants a "hi," nothing more. By backfire I mean that a positive action elicits a negative response.

[ctclough]

What has a woman done to deserve it over her male counterpart? Or do you just base it on her being 'smaller and weaker' (Which i dont believe is a rule anyhow and the proffession of such leads many women to see themselves as abnormal - or they just fit themselves into the role of 'smaller and weaker')
AOn the flipside, are we as women supposed to 'honour' men in the way they want?

Tough Love - if you want to be gender blind, then so be it. You may have some biological obstructions, but don't let that get in your way. If women are so huge and strong, we should probably let the NFL and the NBA know --there could be some money to be made. Maybe if we don't say we are weaker, we won't be! That's it! However, I think a male's increased muscle mass and size is a result of something called testosterone, so that could complicate things a bit.

Chivalry comes from a man's sense of honor and personal code of conduct. It is internal, unforced, and voluntary, is not dependent upon the honor or worth of the object of said-chivalry.

As far as honoring guys, yup. I extend good manners, and it is a win-win, isn't it. I wouldn't call that "chivalry," though.

You either like the idea, or you don't, I guess.

[Zsych]

Chivalry is all about winning. One endeavors to make small acts of self sacrifice only if one has a reasonable probability of getting something in return for them. Holding one's fork a certain way, chewing with one's mouth closed, saying please and thank you, and opening doors are all investments. We should always have our eyes open for opportunities to leverage these into sex, the ultimate ROI.

That's some of the most disgusting stuff I've ever read. Good will has nothing to do with an expected ROI. Its an attitude, and people who have it deserve to be appreciated.

[Storm]

I was thinking. Some people have fairer skin than other people. Perhaps we need some kind of social code to celebrate these differences. Like, people of fairer skin could let people of darker skin go first in line. You know, because it's a scientific fact that some people are of a darker complexion than others.

@Blse, when all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Not all interactions between men and women is about "being dominate." Also, just because you were better at memorizing some stuff for a test better than some random woman who probably hasn't been in school for decades does not prove that you are better than people with experience because you read a few books and are an ENTJ.

@gecko. Let me clarify. I tried to provide some examples beforehand, but, you're right, I was unclear and messy about it. Manners are meant to convey something. Usually that something is respect and consideration for a person's privacy, home, and person. For superiors, you bet it's suppose to show subservience and deference. For family members, it's suppose to show care for their well being. So, what is it suppose to show when men do things for women that they do not for other men? Put in the best light, it's suppose to show respect for a woman's more delicate nature and that a man is a woman's protector. And this is the problem. Women are not so "delicate" that they can not care for themselves. Women do not need protection from every random stranger male they meet on the street.

And good for you that you do things for men and women, in that case, you do not fall in the category of chivalrous men.

As for the dating realm, are you asking me if a date has ever done anything nice for me? Yes, of course. BUT, I have done nice things for him, too. I have paid for meals at his favorite restaurant, I have run errands when he is too busy, I have bought him gifts when there was not a special occasion. THIS is what brings it out of the realm of sexism. Not people treating each other like trash, but people both giving and receiving on a equal field.

Also, I hate carriage rides.

[Blse]

@Blse, when all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Not all interactions between men and women is about "being dominate." Also, just because you were better at memorizing some stuff for a test better than some random woman who probably hasn't been in school for decades does not prove that you are better than people with experience because you read a few books and are an ENTJ.

The point is that because I'm young and new to the game does not mean I cannot have obtained a better understand than a 29 yo who's not spent as much time studying it (but may have spent her time in denial over the laws of attraction because they do not suit her idealistic, but also unrealistic, vision of how humankind should be). Studying a subject intensively, applying your new found knowledge while deliberately looking to learn as much as you can from each interaction, will get you further than in a few months than just coasting does in a few years. Are you honestly disputing that a concentrated, focus effort on learning a subject will not yield more results, of higher quality, and in less time than a passive approach. If so, beware that your argument flies in the face of what we know on how people learn.

If you desire to counter my argument that women aren't attracted to leader-type personalities, you'll need to do better than an Ad hominem, particularly since I'm not the only making that claim. As a matter of fact, your co-moderator of the relationship forum clearly knows what my argument is most likely correct (shall I quote him again?).

As for all interactions, look at the nature of the interactions described by the men who I responded too. The laws that trigger attraction are likely to blame for their negative experiences.

[firebee]

Surely you're aware that 4 months of intensive study, dedicated practice, work and good old fashioned ENTJ single-mindedness can lead to a better understanding than 10 years of ass-backwards trial-and-error.
...
Note that even in this thread not one experienced woman has come out an said that submissive behavior is sexy.

Dear, my average relationship length is substantially longer than your entire dating experience. I have been in a explicitly D/s relationship with my submissive boyfriend for longer than you have been successfully getting to "the first date" but usually no further with various women. I don't count my dates on my fingers anymore.

It is flagrantly ridiculous for you to characterize me as "inexperienced".

Not to mention that when I speak of my experience with how women think of things, I am not speaking from the perspective of external observations made in the course of successfully dating or having sex with women (although I have done this also). I am a woman. I do not need to refer to authoritative sources such as Wikipedia (which I did not discover at the age of 17 because it did not exist when I was 17, by the way) when I am curious as to what a woman finds attractive. I know what makes a woman hot by reference to my own loins.

It is laughable for you to be attempting to wax authoritative to actual women on the subject of what we find attractive.

Now. In addition to your failure to understand the difference between "strength of personality" and "dominance", you appear to have completely failed to comprehend that this is not necessarily a prime venue for the theoretically foolproof dating system that you have developed in your four months of in-depth analysis. We are not talking about a situation where you may be wearing my collar or where I may be wearing yours. We are talking about the mechanics of extending a simple courtesy, for example the iconic "opening of door", and in what circumstances and to whom it might be extended.

If anything, I could write no better example illustrating the difference between "dominant behavior" and "actual strength" than this continued insistence you have in using even the most trivial interactions as part of a calculated set of ploys to give you a surface appearance of "leadership ability".

Just open the damn door. If a woman with noodle arms has the necessary strength to conduct the task properly without resorting to extensive macho overhead, I should think it would not be beyond the reach of any person to do so.

[Blse]

Dear, my average relationship length is substantially longer than your entire dating experience. I have been in a explicitly D/s relationship with my submissive boyfriend for longer than you have been successfully getting to "the first date" but usually no further with various women. I don't count my dates on my fingers anymore.


The exception does not disprove the rule, my dear. Futhermore, you fail to account for the fact that people with more experience than you and your boyfriend have provided significant evidence in favor my position.


It is flagrantly ridiculous for you to characterize me as "inexperienced".

Not inexperienced, just not very knowledgeable. Knowledge may or may not come from experience. Although it should be noted that compared to some of the users who support my assertion that submissiveness is very unattractive in a man you are inexperienced.


Not to mention that when I speak of my experience with how women think of things, I am not speaking from the perspective of external observations made in the course of successfully dating or having sex with women (although I have done this also). I am a woman. I do not need to refer to authoritative sources such as Wikipedia (which I did not discover at the age of 17 because it did not exist when I was 17, by the way) when I am curious as to what a woman finds attractive. I know what makes a woman hot by reference to my own loins.

And if you find submissive men attractive, you are in the minority. As I've said, don't take my work for it, look at what other women on this forum have said. Look at the statement made by the co-moderated of the relationship forum. Do you honestly believe that your single experience as a 29 year old carries more meaning than the aggregate opinions of dozens of people. Do honestly believe you know better what triggers attraction than scientists who've studies the subject, including the psychologists and anthropologists whose research I've read.


It is laughable for you to be attempting to wax authoritative to actual women on the subject of what we find attractive.

Now this children is what you call an ad hominem fallacy.

And a poor one at that because you're failing to respond to the fact that you are in the minority among women who've spoken out on the subject. Read the thread on "how are you approached?" Read the opinions of your fellow women.


Now. In addition to your failure to understand the difference between "strength of personality" and "dominance", you appear to have completely failed to comprehend that this is not necessarily a prime venue for the theoretically foolproof dating system that you have developed in your four months of in-depth analysis. We are not talking about a situation where you may be wearing my collar or where I may be wearing yours. We are talking about the mechanics of extending a simple courtesy, for example the iconic "opening of door", and in what circumstances and to whom it might be extended.

I have not developed this "system." It's not even a system. It's common wisdom that most women (excluding you), are not attracted to submissive men. The extension of a simple courtesy can be interpreted as submissive behavior thus triggering the negative response.


If anything, I could write no better example illustrating the difference between "dominant behavior" and "actual strength" than this continued insistence you have in using even the most trivial interactions as part of a calculated set of ploys to give you a surface appearance of "leadership ability".

Calculated ploys? Hardly. If continuously emphasized that it should be part of a mind-set, that you should develop your inner strength and become a genuine leader. That's the thing about my arguments... I don't use fallacies, you see. So my argument tend to have this thing called nuance which requires you to actually digest them.


Just open the damn door. If a woman with noodle arms has the necessary strength to conduct the task properly without resorting to extensive macho overhead, I should think it would not be beyond the reach of any person to do so.

Then you explain to the guys who've complained how they can avoid a negative reaction they got.

[firebee]

(but may have spent her time in denial over the laws of attraction because they do not suit her idealistic, but also unrealistic, vision of how humankind should be)

Are you shitting me?

You are honest-to-god characterizing my discussion of how attraction operates in women based in part on how I, being as I am a woman, have experienced attraction throughout my life as "idealistic" and "unrealistic" whereas the conclusions that you have come to based on studying the "laws of attraction" during this semester are... something other than that?

You seriously think it is reasonable to state that I am in "denial" as regards the question of what lights a fire in my nethers?

Do you have any basis whatsoever to demonstrate a connection between these assertions and anything resembling reality?

[Storm]

The point is that because I'm young and new to the game does not mean I cannot have obtained a better understand than a 29 yo who's not spent as much time studying it (but may have spent her time in denial over the laws of attraction because they do not suit her idealistic, but also unrealistic, vision of how humankind should be). Studying a subject intensively, applying your new found knowledge while deliberately looking to learn as much as you can from each interaction, will get you further than in a few months than just coasting does in a few years. Are you honestly disputing that a concentrated, focus effort on learning a subject will not yield more results, of higher quality, and in less time than a passive approach. If so, beware that your argument flies in the face of what we know on how people learn.

If you desire to counter my argument that women aren't attracted to leader-type personalities, you'll need to do better than an Ad hominem, particularly since I'm not the only making that claim. As a matter of fact, your co-moderator of the relationship forum clearly knows what my argument is most likely correct (shall I quote him again?).

As for all interactions, look at the nature of the interactions described by the men who I responded too. The laws that trigger attraction are likely to blame for their negative experiences.

This isn't an ad hom. This was a direct attack on your argument. You have presented your opinion as legitimate because you have "studied" the dating methods for 4 months. I was attacking the legitimacy of such a claim. Once you make yourself a reason to believe an argument, then you are open to critical analysis. My point you are so wrapped up in the theory that women like leaders, that that is the only way you now view interactions between men and women. That "dominance" is all that women look for when they interact with men, never mind if she's married and he's 85.

Again, this is NOT about trying to get a date. This is about social mannerisms. The fact that you keep wanting to conflate the two shows that you do not view this is a social mannerism, but as a way to sexually appeal to women.

[Blse]

Are you shitting me?

You are honest-to-god characterizing my discussion of how attraction operates in women based in part on how I, being as I am a woman, have experienced attraction throughout my life as "idealistic" and "unrealistic" whereas the conclusions that you have come to based on studying the "laws of attraction" during this semester are... something other than that?

Yes, I am. Your arugment reminds me of Sarah Palin: "I live close to Russia so I'm qualified in foreign policy." Your personal experience, as one signle person, is not a good basis for meaningful generalizations. Moreover, it is not sufficient to counter the experiences and opinions documented by more experienced forum members, other than yourself.


You seriously think it is reasonable to state that I am in "denial" as regards the question of what lights a fire in my nethers?

No, you know what turns you on. You just aren't representative of the vast majority of women. Being an explicitly D/s relationship alone makes you unusual and unrepresentative, and quite frankly weird. Nothing wrong with being weird, just don't present yourself as the norm. Thus, when you present your personal experience as reflective of what most commonly triggers attraction in women, you are being unrealistic. My hypothesis is that you would like gender relations to conform to certain vision you have in your head. That prevents you from recognizing that you speak on behalf nothing more than a small minority of women who happen to like submissive behavior.


Do you have any basis whatsoever to demonstrate a connection between these assertions and anything resembling reality?

Yeah, I told you... several times. Check the responses by other women (you're not the only one, imagine) on this very forum. Read the quite of CST in my post and actually think about it. Start there, come back for more...

---------- Post added 04-14-2010 at 04:31 PM ----------

This isn't an ad hom. This was a direct attack on your argument. You have presented your opinion as legitimate because you have "studied" the dating methods for 4 months. I was attacking the legitimacy of such a claim. Once you make yourself a reason to believe an argument, then you are open to critical analysis.

Ah, but I never do so, I never intended to use myself as a support for my argument (I don't put much weight on the experience of just one person, myself included). I only did so because firebee dared me to and I thought "why not." If you're going to argue with me I want to you to analyze the following statement:

Most women find assertive leaders sexy, and view submissive behavior as a turn-off

You may agree or disagree to varying extends and use only rational analysis of the statement made to support your side of the argument. Go...

What do you make of the statement from CST that I quoted?

My believe in regard to fire bee is that she knows she can only win this debate if she discredits me personally, rather than actually taking on my ideas, that are clearly true.


My point you are so wrapped up in the theory that women like leaders, that that is the only way you now view interactions between men and women. That "dominance" is all that women look for when they interact with men, never mind if she's married and he's 85.

I've already explained that not to be the case because my initial arguments were to be seen in the context of the posts I responded to. Look at the initial posts I responded to and the purpose of my posts.


Again, this is NOT about trying to get a date. This is about social mannerisms. The fact that you keep wanting to conflate the two shows that you do not view this is a social mannerism, but as a way to sexually appeal to women.

The two are inter-related. There is an underlying sexual component to these social mannerisms. Chivalry is completely and utterly tied up with sex and gender roles. I know you would personally like to separate these social mannerisms from the sex and relationships, but alas that's just wishful thinking.

Idea:

Hey, ya know what let's make a thread and a poll in your subforum!

[rain]

There seems to be a lot about opening doors here.

I'll typically open them for anyone, and most people appreciate it - and I in turn appreciate other people doing it for me.

That's because you just have good manners: )

[catzmeow]

Studying a subject intensively, applying your new found knowledge while deliberately looking to learn as much as you can from each interaction, will get you further than in a few months than just coasting does in a few years. .

The difference between reading about dating and actually having relationships is about the same as the difference between learning about a subject in school and actually working in that field.

Experience is about a thousand times more important than reading about it.

[Blse]

The difference between reading about dating and actually having relationships is about the same as the difference between learning about a subject in school and actually working in that field.

Experience is about a thousand times more important than reading about it.

Yes, which is why I combine them both. The thing with experience is that there's a difference between passive and active learning. Just experiencing something is not of near as much value as actively seeking to gain the deepest possible understanding from every experience. Seeking to use every opportunity to have as a learning opportunity will mean you're experiences are exponentially more enlightening than if you just experience life without actively seeking knowledge.

[Storm]

Ah, but I never do so, I never intended to use myself as a support for my argument

Perhaps, but when someone attacked your level of expertise, instead of responding "that's irrelevant" you responded with "but I am an expert."

It's like this. Someone says "X is true." Another person says "You can't know that because you're not an engineer." Your response was "But I have studied engineering, and thus, do know that X is true. Especially since I have studied other subjects before, and I know those areas better than other people." My response was "Your study of this subject is not reliable, and experience is better in this field anyway. That you have gained knowledge through study of other fields is irrelevant, as is the fact that you better at study than some random person." Since you have conceded that your knowledge of subject X is dependent upon knowing a particular subject well, then your expertise in that subject is now open for discussion.

Most women find assertive leaders sexy, and view submissive behavior as a turn-off

What does this have to do with anything? Oh right:

The two are inter-related. There is an underlying sexual component to these social mannerisms. Chivalry is completely and utterly tied up with sex and gender roles. I know you would personally like to separate these social mannerisms from the sex and relationships, but alas that's just wishful thinking.


So, the purpose of chivalry is to assert dominance over women; and to reinforce that all relationships men and women - even if they are complete strangers, vary wildly in age, relationship status, or business status- is about setting the grounds for mating opportunities. I don't think I need to say more.

[Blse]

Perhaps, but when someone attacked your level of expertise, instead of responding "that's irrelevant" you responded with "but I am an expert."

Whoa, I never said expert. I said following this lesson has paid dividends so far. That's a vastly different subject.

In hindsight, you're right I should have resisted responding to firebee's challange. Well played, firebee.


It's like this. Someone says "X is true." Another person says "You can't know that because you're not an engineer." Your response was "But I have studied engineering, and thus, do know that X is true. Especially since I have studied other subjects before, and I know those areas better than other people." My response was "Your study of this subject is not reliable, and experience is better in this field anyway. That you have gained knowledge through study of other fields is irrelevant, as is the fact that you better at study than some random person." Since you have conceded that your knowledge of subject X is dependent upon knowing a particular subject well, then your expertise in that subject is now open for discussion.


That makes sense, although I'd like the discussion to revolve around ideas, not the people making them. Nontheless, let me say this: what if the level of my experience is not reflective of the quality of my expertise? I have described how it is easily possible for the former to be considerably lower than the latter. My expertise of human interactions and sexual attraction are mostly likely considerable greater than those of the averag 38 year old American, although (s)he likely has more experience. Why? Because there is a difference between making an effort to learn and just experiencing things. Experience is without an effort at understanding it is near worthless; that's evident from people making the same mistake over and over. To further support this assertion, I have also been able to show that people with more experiences have reached the same conclusions. This way, if you don't beleive that I'm able to learn about the interpersonal dynamics in the dating world much, much quicker than most people, you can take the word of people whose expertise is derived from a process you place more faith in.


So, the purpose of chivalry is to assert dominance over women; and to reinforce that even relationships men and women - even if they are complete strangers, vary wildly in age, relationship status, or business status- is about setting the grounds for mating opportunities. I don't think I need to say more.

Well that has a certain socially left-wing slant to it, but yes. Chivalry, which is a set of traditions that rely on a gender-specific double standard, is all tied up with sex and mating opportunities. No doubt about it.

[dice]

What's the difference between chivalry and respect?

[Storm]

Oh, Blse, I'm so sorry. I forgot to answer your question about cannotseethe. He was being tongue in cheek.

I think we have very different worldviews. You want to tell people how they are, and you want society to reinforce it through social norms. It appears you place incredible value on traditions and societal standards. I want people to be assumed equals, and differences to be discovered on an individual basis. I do not place high value on traditions or societal standards. Preferring instead to place high value on my own conclusions and logic derived at through a variety of ways.

[Blse]

Oh, Blse, I'm so sorry. I forgot to answer your question about cannotseethe. He was being tongue in cheek.

But is his statement any less true when taken literally?

[Synamon]

But is his statement any less true when taken literally?Here, let me help you, here was the post you've been praising all over this thread and even used to start a new thread:
The assertive leader type, characterized by a proclivity towards nice but not too nice chivalrous gestures such as opening doors for women without smiling, has, in my estimation, emerged as the hands-down favorite among the women who post in the Relationships and Dating forum. One need look no further than the men these women have dated, and the men on the forum who've experienced some success at dating, to see that.
Here was cannotseethe's next post in the thread which said his post was sarcastic and even broke down the point he was trying to make for those of you who don't understand sarcasm:
I was being sarcastic to make a point much like this one.

Such notions as being nice but not too nice contain an implicit expression of entitlement. I do these things to get something. I don't overdo them, because I might not get something. If I do these things and the person is not appreciative, I stop doing them (never mind that a handful of bad experiences with some people says nothing about what the remaining 6.7 billion people on Earth might do). Norms of social graciousness arise, in part, to contravene exactly such self-serving purposes. You're kind for the sake of it, nice for the sake of it, open doors for people for the sake of it. You're fully aware that you might be treated badly in return, but you do it anyway, because that's what gracious people do. Or something.

Yet here we have people putatively in favor of chivalry, that pinnacle of masculine social grace, declaring that feminists killed the notion and they're done with it because they're not treated like the door-opening heroes they seem to feel they deserve to be. There's nothing like arguing in favor of an ideal while simultaneously rejecting it on grounds that the ideal itself dictates you shouldn't legitimize.


CST said it already:

<assertive leader quote>

So you don't have to take my word for it. If you wish to deny the reality that assertive leadership behavior is not sexy in men, go ahead.


As a matter of fact, your co-moderator of the relationship forum clearly knows what my argument is most likely correct (shall I quote him again?).


Futhermore, you fail to account for the fact that people with more experience than you and your boyfriend have provided significant evidence in favor my position.


Moreover, it is not sufficient to counter the experiences and opinions documented by more experienced forum members, other than yourself.


Read the quite of CST in my post and actually think about it. Start there, come back for more...


What do you make of the statement from CST that I quoted?


To further support this assertion, I have also been able to show that people with more experiences have reached the same conclusions.
You are welcome to adopt his mocking post as your mantra, but using something someone said sarcastically as literal proof to back up your claims is ridiculous.

[Blse]

Oh, Blse, I'm so sorry. I forgot to answer your question about cannotseethe. He was being tongue in cheek.

I think we have very different worldviews. You want to tell people how they are, and you want society to reinforce it through social norms. It appears you place incredible value on traditions and societal standards. I want people to be assumed equals, and differences to be discovered on an individual basis. I do not place high value on traditions or societal standards. Preferring instead to place high value on my own conclusions and logic derived at through a variety of ways.

Oh yes, we have different views. As a concluding thought I'd like to add that it's not that I want to traditions to rule people's lives. I just accept that it's the way it is. As a result, of course, I pay a lot of attention to traditions and societal standards.

You are welcome to adopt his mocking post as your mantra, but using something someone said sarcastically as literal proof to back up your claims is ridiculous.

I didn't know he was being sarcastic because quite frankly what he said is true. Look at the thread where I asked the leader vs. submissive question: 70%+ in favor of leader. Look what women said in my "how are you approached thread." Look how people have responded to my posts on attraction in other relationship threads. Look at the guys who act submissives and what they say about their experiences. Look at the guys who act like leaders and what they say about their experiences. You browse this forum more than I, Syn. You know that what CST said is true as much as I do.

PS. CST: There's no tone of voice online, so be prepared to be taken literally unless you make your sarcasm clear in that very posts. There's no prize for ambiguity.

[Synamon]

I didn't know he was being sarcastic because quite frankly what he said is true. Look at the thread where I asked the leader vs. submissive question: 70%+ in favor of leader. Look what women said in my "how are you approached thread." Look how people have responded to my posts on attraction in other relationship threads. Look at the guys who act submissives and what they say about their experiences. Look at the guys who act like leaders and what they say about their experiences. You browse this forum more than I, Syn. You know that what CST said is true as much as I do.
You asked the question with incredibly biased wording and you are lobbying in the thread with every post you make. If you think me or any person with critical thinking skills is going to take that poll seriously then you are further out in left field than I thought.

I do browse the forum and you know what I see? A lot of people who have no idea what they want or what they are attracted to. I'm sure there are people out there who are attracted to whatever image of a man you are trying to project Blse, just as I'm sure there are many who are repelled by the traditional gender roles you are trying to ram down their throats. To each his/her own.

PS. CST: There's no tone of voice online, so be prepared to be taken literally unless you make your sarcasm clear in that very posts. There's no prize for ambiguity.
Since he explained in his next post that he was being sarcastic, you get no prize for reading comprehension either.

[Blse]

You asked the question with incredibly biased wording and you are lobbying in the thread with every post you make. If you think me or any person with critical thinking skills is going to take that poll seriously then you are further out in left field than I thought.

I do browse the forum and you know what I see? A lot of people who have no idea what they want or what they are attracted to. I'm sure there are people out there who are attracted to whatever image of a man you are trying to project Blse, just as I'm sure there are many who are repelled by the traditional gender roles you are trying to ram down their throats. To each his/her own.

Then look at the other threads I refered to. I'm not ramming traditional gender roles down anyone's throat; I'm simply acknwloeding their exsistence and influence. Yeah, sure, it's cool to be a"non-conformist," and everybody's the same, and yada, yada, yada... Fact is most people out there follow traditions, including gender norms. They exsist, whether that how you'd like things to be or not. That's we call them "norms." Most of the people that deny being influenced by these norms, are influenced by them... it's just not hip to admit it, so people pretend to be "cool and non-conformist."

Clearly you've seen the posts supporting my POV. Don't just look at my poll, look at stuff like the "how are you approached thread." Here are few posts showing some other folks on here expressing the view that confidence and leadership counts:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There are just a few.


Since he explained in his next post that he was being sarcastic, you get no prize for reading comprehension either.

Well, I wasn't the one trying to be cool by being ultra-subtle.

[Storm]

Then look at the other threads I refered to. I'm not ramming traditional gender roles down anyone's throat; I'm simply acknwloeding their exsistence and influence. Yeah, sure, it's cool to be a"non-conformist," and everybody's the same, and yada, yada, yada... Fact is most people out there follow traditions, including gender norms. They exsist, whether that how you'd like things to be or not. That's we call them "norms." Most of the people that deny being influenced by these norms, are influenced by them... it's just not hip to admit it, so people pretend to be "cool and non-conformist."

This is a logical fallacy. What you've done is set up a theory, but defined it so that no matter what people say, you're theory remains intact. The theory being that traditional gender norms play into how the vast majority of people really are. If someone says they fall in suit with the gender norms, you're theory is confirmed. If someone says it has not been their experience that gender norms fit them, they are just trying to be "hip."

[ctclough]

Storm,

I am having trouble loading the pages tonight, so I hope this goes through.

I am glad you brought up the point that you see chivalry as domination. How did you come to that conclusion?

When you give the example of dividing people by skin color, you are making a category mistake, since there are no differences in strength or aggression inherent in gender.

When I see chivalry, I see power *restrained* and honor and respect given. When you see chivalry, you see power *exerted* and disrespect. We see different things because of our presuppositions. These poor guys. How are they supposed to know what to do?

[JTG]

It's a touchy subject for just about anybody who gives a shit.

Guys who believe in chivalry get upset when others undermine the idea. I can identify with that a little, because i was raised a proper southern gentleman. In my high school, upperclassmen would yell at you if you didn't hold the door for girls if they were going through as well. It's just the way things were meant to be. Guys held doors if girls were coming through. Maybe the girls showed appreciation, or maybe they didn't. It didn't really matter, and everybody non-verbally understood that it was an appreciated gesture regardless.

After two years in that school, i moved to another state, and the girls at that school would either giggle or scoff/yell at me for holding doors. The giggling wasn't the "aww, he's sweet" kind, either. It was a pretty big shock to the system, and if i'd been a stronger or more mature person then i would have kept doing it. Instead, i became demoralized at being the wierdo and quit doing it for normalcy's sake.

I can understand opposition to the idea of chivalry though. Its traditional proponents (so the stereotype goes) are believers in women being the weaker sex, etc. I can understand a woman not wanting a guy to make a fuss for her, because i don't especially like it when people go to unusual lengths for me.

Then there's the glaring fact, as some people have already pointed out, that some guys who practice chivalry think it entitles them to something. It's the "nice-guy" complex, where some guys think that if they avoid being "jerks like all other guys" then it'll set them apart and they'll be swimming in naked babes who are made incredibly horny by their shockingly refreshing niceness. I think these are the biggest reason chivalry has been ruined for the more or less normal practitioners.

[Blse]

This is a logical fallacy. What you've done is set up a theory, but defined it so that no matter what people say, you're theory remains intact. The theory being that traditional gender norms play into how the vast majority of people really are. If someone says they fall in suit with the gender norms, you're theory is confirmed. If someone says it has not been their experience that gender norms fit them, they are just trying to be "hip."

Well, it's not intended to be that way, it's just what I see. I see a lot of people professing to how independent they are only to follow social norms very closely. Sure there are some exception, but they're few.

[Storm]

I am glad you brought up the point that you see chivalry as domination. How did you come to that conclusion?

Chivalry is about emphasizing the difference between men and women, taking care of a woman, insulating her from all the inconveniences and troubles of the world. It sets up one person as being the caregiver to another, as being the dominate party.

When you give the example of dividing people by skin color, you are making a category mistake, since there are no differences in strength or aggression inherent in gender.

My point was that while there are real, inherent differences between races (different levels of melanin), these differences are rather immaterial in day to day interactions. There is no reason why we need to emphasize these difference in trivial social rituals that have no connection to melanin levels. Such differences are only relevant if one were assessing one's risk for skin cancer or picking out the correct color makeup.

In the same way, men have greater capacity for muscle mass than women - but there is no reason that means we need to enshrine those differences in trivial social rituals that have no connection to muscle mass. What is that about anyway "Let us celebrate that I have 40% more muscle mass than you, while you have twice as much body fat. Therefore, I will open this door for you." The only time strength will come up is when there is something needs doing that requires strength.

When I see chivalry, I see power *restrained* and honor and respect given. When you see chivalry, you see power *exerted* and disrespect. We see different things because of our presuppositions. These poor guys. How are they supposed to know what to do?

People should extend respect to all people instead of basing it upon sex. They should not do so with the hopes of winning something in return. That is true social grace, and true respect.

[ctclough]

JustMel said it so well. Your post reminded me of my little stand against chivalry at the gym.

I do admit that I got so cocky, excuse the gender-bias, at the gym the other day that I did not allow a kind gentlemen (who was double my size) to put my weights away. My muscles were fried, and I was exhausted, but I was proud. "No thanks," I croak. I am equal. I am a tough woman. Hear me roar! I mean, I have biceps, I have abs. I am not a weak woman by any stretch. My feminine pride would not let me allow him to do the chivalrous thing and do all that extra work for me, and so I put every barbell and weight back myself, hurting the heck out of my back with the last barbell. Yup. I was roaring the next day, all right!

The gym is where I take my feminist stand, come what may! Get out of my way, boys. Raaahhhhrrrrr I wish I was kidding.

The guy at the gym - trying to dominate me or be a nice guy? Would he have needed to do this for a man? Not likely. Me, being independent or a complete idiot?

[Storm]

The guy at the gym - trying to dominate me or be a nice guy? Would he have needed to do this for a man? Not likely. Me, being independent or a complete idiot?

Like I have said many many times in this thread, I do not think the answer to this problem is to not accept courtesies. I think the answer is for manners to include social grace toward ALL people. So, if you see an exhausted man at the gym putting his weights away, you go offer to help him if you can. If you're a man, you offer to help to put away everyone's weights who look like they could use it.

I am also unsure as to what you anecdote was suppose to mean. By treating people as equals in mannerisms, I am going to hurt myself? I should just shut up and accept that I am of a delicate nature and require extra protection in the course of everyday life?

As to what this man was thinking? I have no idea. Maybe he's sexist and thinks women are weak and was laughing at you in his head for even being in the free weight section of the gym. Maybe he's a super guy and offers to help everyone who needs it. Maybe it's just the way he was raised and he never thought about it, but is still victim to latent sexism. I have no idea.

[ctclough]

Like I have said many many times in this thread, I do not think the answer to this problem is to not accept courtesies. I think the answer is for manners to include social grace toward ALL people. So, if you see an exhausted man at the gym putting his weights away, you go offer to help him if you can. If you're a man, you offer to help to put away everyone's weights who look like they could use it.

I don't think anyone is arguing against extending social grace to all people. Did anyone argue that we should be rude to the guys? The reality is that these guys can outlift me and have greater stamina due to better lung capacity and cardiac output. We are not equals physically, and they are in a unique position to help (or hurt, I suppose) me. I can either do mental gymnastics to try to deny that, or accept that gender differences are real. The fact is, I can't even lift their barbells if I wanted to, so it's not even a possibility. ;)

OTOH, if a certain "chivalrous" behavior is unwelcome, then pushing it on someone would be most definitely UNchivalrous. And, if there is an expected outcome, that is basically a PUA technique, not chivalry or honor. I've never experienced that one! My lack of experience with the negative side of "chivalry" is likely the reason that I see it as a positive trait.

Also, how is being a caregiver dominant? As a caregiving Mom, I sure feel like I am doing lots of serving and sacrificing and not much 'dominating.' Does this go back to caregiving behavior that is *unwelcome?* Also, we must not confuse "chivalry" with "chauvinism." Nobody is interested in a macho jerk treating a woman like a child.

I'm sure we don't agree, but it is helpful to understand where you and others are coming from.

[Storm]

Could you explain how trivial mannerisms in most settings have anything to do with strength?

This is a different type of caregiving than a parent to a child. And yes, the parent is dominate over the child. When someone is another's protector, they are taking on the dominate role.

[ctclough]

When someone is another's protector, they are taking on the dominate role.

If someone is in a position to be able to protect another, they must already BE stronger. Using that strength to oppress is dominating and UNchivalrous, and using that strength or power to protect is honoring and chivalrous.

That's all I will say on the matter.

[Storm]

If someone is in a position to be able to protect another, they must already BE stronger.

Stronger physically? That's how you were defining it before. So because men are physically stronger, they are women's eternal protectors and caregivers, and their catering to the trivial needs of women is just an extension of men's and women's natural roles as protector and protected?

[gecko]

I was thinking. Some people have fairer skin than other people. Perhaps we need some kind of social code to celebrate these differences. Like, people of fairer skin could let people of darker skin go first in line. You know, because it's a scientific fact that some people are of a darker complexion than others.

You continue to focus on the practicality, the need for these behaviors. I don't think anyone is arguing that chivalry is necessary. It is whether or not chivalry leads to sexism that I have been arguing. You have not provided a reasonable basis other than 'choosing to engage in certain behaviors causes one to perceive a negative opinion based on the implications of such behavior being of negative origin, according to you'. I think that your focus is off-point. Consider this: Man is attracted to woman for her feminine figure(think contrasted with male). He sees her differences, and is excited, and attracted because that is his nature. He wants to show that he appreciates her differences, although when he thinks about it she looks weaker than him. He thinks a little more, and imagines he could lift her body with one hand if he so desired. He imagines that he can throw her over his shoulder and run off with her...see where this leads? OR, he doesn't think about this, he simply smiles, and offers her a hand with her groceries to express his favorable reaction to her appearance by showing his respect and appreciation via chivalric behaviors. Causation is not always some form of higher truth. I can admire a woman without questioning my own admiration(wherever such questioning may lead).

@gecko. Let me clarify. I tried to provide some examples beforehand, but, you're right, I was unclear and messy about it. Manners are meant to convey something. Usually that something is respect and consideration for a person's privacy, home, and person. For superiors, you bet it's suppose to show subservience and deference. For family members, it's suppose to show care for their well being. So, what is it suppose to show when men do things for women that they do not for other men? Put in the best light, it's suppose to show respect for a woman's more delicate nature and that a man is a woman's protector. And this is the problem. Women are not so "delicate" that they can not care for themselves. Women do not need protection from every random stranger male they meet on the street.

5th sentence - about superiors. You agreed that traditionally, we are meant to show 'subservience and deference' to them. Does this cause us to inadvertently get on our knees at night and bow down to the almighty boss god? No - in some cases, employees hate their bosses, others do feel that their employers/bosses are deserving of respect. The point is, just because you behave a certain way, it does not turn you into an avatar of that behavior.

[Cygnus]

So if I behave like an asshole, I am not the avatar of asshole behavior?

The the code of chivalry was put in place, gecko, to try to accomplish just what you are saying it will not do, ironically. Medieval times was more a might makes right era, equal rights and equal treatment was not it's hallmark...Nobles were supposed to be raising the bar and setting the standard of how civilized men were to conduct themselves. Part of the code was specifically to be gallant towards women (gallant: Courteously attentive especially to women; or even flirtatious; amorous.)

[gecko]

So if I behave like an asshole, I am not the avatar of asshole behavior?

Last I checked, one can behave contrary to one's inner state.

The the code of chivalry was put in place, gecko, to try to accomplish just what you are saying it will not do, ironically.

To brainwash its practitioners against their will? That is what I said it would not do...

Medieval times was more a might makes right era, equal rights and equal treatment was not it's hallmark...Nobles were supposed to be raising the bar and setting the standard of how civilized men were to conduct themselves. Part of the code was specifically to be gallant towards women (gallant: Courteously attentive especially to women; or even flirtatious; amorous.)

In 1862 Lincoln freed the slaves. Thanks for the history lesson.

[Cygnus]

Did a search on brainwash within the topic, only see it in your reply to me. I took the summation of your point, "The point is, just because you behave a certain way, it does not turn you into an avatar of that behavior" and implied chivalry was a code that hoped to improve behavior by displaying and embracing its "virtues" and striving to become an avatar of chivalry. There is credence to the saying, "Fake it until you make it". I think you under estimate the power of patterned, habitual behavior and its impact on yourself and others. I do not have anything to add on chivalry, just pointing out you have narrowed your perspective a bit much.

[gecko]

Did a search on brainwash within the topic, only see it in your reply to me. I took the summation of your point, "The point is, just because you behave a certain way, it does not turn you into an avatar of that behavior" and implied chivalry was a code that hoped to improve behavior by displaying and embracing its "virtues" and striving to become an avatar of chivalry.

"The point is, just because you behave a certain way, it does not turn you into an avatar of that behavior" Such that practicing chivalry does not automatically brainwash a man into a sexist, despite its origins being partially steeped in the physically weaker aspect of the female human. In no way have I advocated "becoming an avatar of chivalry" nor "seeking to improve one's behavior by embracing the virtues of chivalry". I am simply attempting to explain why chivalry is not inherently negative(does not promote chauvinism), is different from showing common courtesy or manners, and is a unique aspect of males.

There is credence to the saying, "Fake it until you make it". I think you under estimate the power of patterned, habitual behavior and its impact on yourself and others. I do not have anything to add on chivalry, just pointing out you have narrowed your perspective a bit much.

It is funny you say that; I find such sayings to be hopelessly drab and actually detrimental to my self-control. And I think it is hard for you to call my perspective narrow when it is clear you have no idea what my perspective actually is!

[Storm]

So, you're admitting that chivalry is sexist. (We're talking about general chivalry, the kind that strangers engage in, not trying to impress a date.) Yet, think that just because it's sexist behavior, does not mean the person engaging in it is sexist? Why engage it in at all? What is the point? Habitual behavior and treatment of others in distinct way can lead to the belief that the behavior is there for a reason. Unless you think that people don't think about the reasons for things.

[JustMel]

Like I have said many many times in this thread, I do not think the answer to this problem is to not accept courtesies. I think the answer is for manners to include social grace toward ALL people. So, if you see an exhausted man at the gym putting his weights away, you go offer to help him if you can. If you're a man, you offer to help to put away everyone's weights who look like they could use it.

I am also unsure as to what you anecdote was suppose to mean. By treating people as equals in mannerisms, I am going to hurt myself? I should just shut up and accept that I am of a delicate nature and require extra protection in the course of everyday life?

As to what this man was thinking? I have no idea. Maybe he's sexist and thinks women are weak and was laughing at you in his head for even being in the free weight section of the gym. Maybe he's a super guy and offers to help everyone who needs it. Maybe it's just the way he was raised and he never thought about it, but is still victim to latent sexism. I have no idea.

It's most probable that a man would see a woman's offer of help to put away his weights as her hitting on him or an invitation to hit on her. Social conditioning is what it is and most men see a woman's offer of help either emasculating or as a come on.

[Cygnus]

"The point is, just because you behave a certain way, it does not turn you into an avatar of that behavior" Such that practicing chivalry does not automatically brainwash a man into a sexist, despite its origins being partially steeped in the physically weaker aspect of the female human. In no way have I advocated "becoming an avatar of chivalry" nor "seeking to improve one's behavior by embracing the virtues of chivalry". I am simply attempting to explain why chivalry is not inherently negative(does not promote chauvinism), is different from showing common courtesy or manners, and is a unique aspect of males.



It is funny you say that; I find such sayings to be hopelessly drab and actually detrimental to my self-control. And I think it is hard for you to call my perspective narrow when it is clear you have no idea what my perspective actually is!

Storm's stance is easy to understand and consistent with her thinking. You displayed, gecko, is you like to argue. That one type of action is not inherently negative, while elsewhere you argue another type of action is. If action has no impact on altering people's behavior, thinking and feeling, it would not be negative or positive...


*now back to me being hopelessly drab*

[Tough Love]

Women, why should we treat men with a different type of respect than we treat women with? Is it right, is it fair? Shall we let the men sit at the head of table, carve the meat and socialise while we run about serving dinner? Should we take it on ourselves to clean up after him, do his laundry, fold his socks and make the bed every day? Should we defer to him in regards to finances? In other words, should we continue to present ourselves as the meek, subservient women?
I grew up in a house where both parents worked, they upheld traditional idea of family life, and slowly i watched my mom getting more and more washed out. She questioned her own sanity at points, she was overworked, overtired, increasingly neurotic and all in all, unable to deal with the pressures of being a working woman with a family. When it comes to the real things in life, it isnt the flowers, the chocolates or the opening of a door which creates comradeship and love, it is doing things together, creating things together and mutual respect. I have no doubts my father respected my mother for what he was brought up to believe was good and right, but due to the changing world and changing roles of women, my mother needed him to change as well.


I have sworn not to turn out that way.

[Rudy]

I don't think chivalry is dead in all circumstances. My dad told me once that if a man really wants to be with you, he will rise to the expectations that you set. I think that's true. If you allow a man to treat you like crap, he will. If you expect a man to be chivalrous, and he is genuinely interested in you, then he will.
One of the best posts in the thread; should have ended here, essentially.

A decent guy will treat a woman "chivalrously" if she wants to be treated thus, and won't treat her thus if she doesn't.

The reason this is true is that the good element at the heart of chivalry, the gem that we can extract from it, is that it is a method by which to express respect, caring, etc. towards someone. If it is not serving this purpose, if the person does not desire it, then the gem dissolves; chivalry continued in spite of this is, at best, self-aggrandizement.

The difficult aspect, of course, lies in how to treat women who are strangers; that is, should one engage in "chivalrous" behavior when one doesn't know if the person desires it? I would lean towards no, though this is less of an issue, as most "chivalrous" behavior comes up in dating situations, where you could probably figure out soon enough whether it was desired.

Cannotseethe also made an excellent point, which I want to re-emphasize: for those men who complain because your chivalrous actions are not met by positive responses, I suspect you are doing them for the wrong reasons. Such an act done for the right reasons is its own reward; if you're doing it for the benefit of the other person, as you should be, then the act itself will be pleasing. However, in this case, take care are to evaluate when such acts are actually desired.

[gecko]

So, you're admitting that chivalry is sexist. (We're talking about general chivalry, the kind that strangers engage in, not trying to impress a date.) Yet, think that just because it's sexist behavior, does not mean the person engaging in it is sexist? Why engage it in at all? What is the point? Habitual behavior and treatment of others in distinct way can lead to the belief that the behavior is there for a reason. Unless you think that people don't think about the reasons for things.

If men possess an instinct to protect women, why not cultivate it? It can be argued that we are all sexist in some form, unless we reject our physical form. Else all males would display asexual behavior, and all females would display the same. I still haven't seen a compelling model of how chivalry leads to sexism.

---------- Post added 04-15-2010 at 02:57 PM ----------

Storm's stance is easy to understand and consistent with her thinking. You displayed, gecko, is you like to argue.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

That one type of action is not inherently negative, while elsewhere you argue another type of action is. If action has no impact on altering people's behavior, thinking and feeling, it would not be negative or positive...

You are oversimplifying. If actions based on an idea based on reality creates sexism, then I don't understand how you can justify any action at all. See how pointless that was?

*now back to me being hopelessly drab*

Indeed.

---------- Post added 04-15-2010 at 03:10 PM ----------

the good element at the heart of chivalry, the gem that we can extract from it, is that it is a method by which to express respect, caring, etc. towards someone.

Yes.
To suppose that chivalry leads to sexism without acknowledging that it can be a force for good as well is one-sided and pessimistic.

[cannotseethe]

If men possess an instinct to protect women, why not cultivate it? It can be argued that we are all sexist in some form, unless we reject our physical form. Else all males would display asexual behavior, and all females would display the same. I still haven't seen a compelling model of how chivalry leads to sexism.

If men possess an instinct to fling poop, why not cultivate it? It can be argued that we are all scat-heaving apes in some form, unless we reject our physical form.

Which we do on a regular basis for such activities as poop-flinging. Elevating the male-as-protector conception to the level of instinct has no bearing on how we structure our social interactions; to think otherwise is to apply the naturalistic fallacy.

[ctclough]

Shall we let the men sit at the head of table, carve the meat and socialise while we run about serving dinner? Should we take it on ourselves to clean up after him, do his laundry, fold his socks and make the bed every day? Should we defer to him in regards to finances? In other words, should we continue to present ourselves as the meek, subservient women?

Tough Love, you are making a false dichotomy between appreciating chivalrous behavior and being a strong, assertive woman. You can be strong, assertive, feminine, and appreciative of men's chivalrous manners. A man allowing a woman to do double the work, running herself ragged, is decidedlly UNchivalrous, discourteous behavior. At the same time, a woman who allows herself to be taken advantage of is not exhibiting strength, but weakness. This is a separate issue from chivalry.

I do agree with your other points, although how to build a life together is a separate issue again.

[Paradox101]

Chivalry is not dead, but it is on life support! The good thing about the lack of chivalrous men is that it makes it easier for women to filter out partners for potential relationships. I'm not saying that all men who hold open doors are ideal, but I would say that it is a good starting point that should be on a relationship screening checklist.

The next most important thing to find out is why the person is performing the chivalrous act (we'll use door holding as the example). There could be a variety of reasons but the reason you want them to be doing it for is respect. Just as when a man leads a woman on the dance floor, he should not be commanding her to follow, he should be proposing the next step, giving her the invitation to follow.

[Tito]

I think Chivalry is dead, and i think women killed it
IE. women's rights activists
do you guys think its dead or alive
My perception (as a male) is that its probably dying, but I'm chivalrous; so as long as I'm alive you can be guaranteed that it will continue to exist at least in a tiny portion of this planet.

Once I'm gone, well... lol. ;D

[pip]

Yes. Stop hitting it.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Let's have some equality instead, it's far nicer anyway. :)

[Tough Love]

At the same time, a woman who allows herself to be taken advantage of is not exhibiting strength, but weakness. This is a separate issue from chivalry.


And a man isnt letting himself be taken advantage of when he continuously shows chivalric nature? Maybe its just me that sees these men as either fakes or pushover's... I just dont need that type of 'help' therefore to me it seems unneccesary. I would LIKE for men to be chivalrous overall if it meant that i didnt feel obliged to uphold other old traditions, but i will not take something i cannot and will not return and i am ready to admit that the former attitude is selfish and misguided - And undoubtebly due to social conditioning.

Maybe im just a different type of woman :S

[Jeremy]

Quite frankly I am not particularly impressed with most women I meet, and I have absolutely no desire to protect, honor and cherish them. I would be more likely to shove them in front of a speeding bus for pure amusement.

[JCrow]

Yes it is dead, and women killed it.

[firebee]

Yes it is dead, and women killed it.

Which is as it should be, is it not -- given that one of the primary concerns of chivalry is the question of how women should be treated?

[Vermillion]

I don't think it's completely dead but it should be. If men and women are equal then there should be no special favors given to either. For example if a women intentionally talks shit and provokes a man and gets the shit beat out of her, its no worse than if a guy had done it.

[Dimitri]

Chivalry is not dead, but the feminists are sure trying hard to make us think it is. Chivalry can't die as long as there is at least one man alive that will still open a door for a lady. And I will be that man not because I value the person but because I value the ideal and the act itself. Its the same reason I am going into law enforcement for the nobility of the ideal.

[cannotseethe]

Chivalry is not dead, but the feminists are sure trying hard to make us think it is. Chivalry can't die as long as there is at least one man alive that will still open a door for a lady. And I will be that man not because I value the person but because I value the ideal and the act itself.

It's not very chivalric to say that (some class of) women is attempting to kill chivalry. Or is your brand of chivalry only concerned with the state of building entrances and not the general question of how men treat women?

[sms444]

I don't think it's completely dead but it should be. If men and women are equal then there should be no special favors given to either.

Yes yes yes! Maybe taking it a little too far, but I always think it's an extremely positive/attractive trait in a potential partner if she is insulted by typically "chivalrous acts" from me or others.

[gecko]

Yes yes yes! Maybe taking it a little too far, but I always think it's an extremely positive/attractive trait in a potential partner if she is insulted by typically "chivalrous acts" from me or others.

lawl. "Like, you totally misunderstood me for someone i'm not, but you're hot!" How do you know it was the chivalrous act, rather than your face she was insulted by?

[sms444]

How do you know it was the chivalrous act, rather than your face she was insulted by?

lol, it could've been my face (nobody has commented either way on it in the "real life picture thread" yet, which is probably a bad sign), but I generally learn of the women that are insulted by chivalry by having a conversation with them, not by dropping a door on their faces.

[MikeC]

Honest chivalry is best displayed without a devilish grin that says "I want to get into them tight jeans of yours" :devilish:

[Autsu]

the parts that imply women are useless are dieing but not dead and the rest are alive and healthy.... so no... chivalry is not dead

[lancelot]

I think Chivalry is dead, and i think women killed it
IE. women's rights activists
do you guys think its dead or alive

No, don't think it's dead.

[Carol]

If you define chivalry as opening doors and helping to carry things, no it is not entirely dead, but it is gasping. I suspect there are regional differences. In Wisconsin it is safe to say men maybe 50 and up still make efforts to open doors for women. I have noticed that if I am wearing a dress and heels I get more doors opened for me by men of all ages. Which I am guessing is related to the notion that a feminist might snap at a guy for opening a door, and I must not look like a prototypical feminist when in a dress and heels.
I am not angered by chivalry and I am a feminist. Chivalry is not something that will get in the way of me making money or getting opportunities.

[Autodidact]

This just in:

1. Chivalry is, in fact, a form of chauvinism, since its central assumption is that men and women are not equal, and that the latter are weak and require the aid and protection of the former.

2. Turns out that, despite #1 -- and for whatever reason -- chivalry is harder to kill than everyone thought.

3. Even more surprisingly, turns out the feminists aren't too unhappy about #2...

EDIT: For the sake of thoroughness: I'm not big on chivalry, but I have very high standards of courtesy.

[Carol]

"assumption is that men and women are not equal, and that the latter are weak and require the aid and protection of the former"

Ludicrous stuff, that. I mean a door has a weight that the average able-bodied human - maybe age 5 and up can open. We all know I can open a door. The act of opening a door for me is a kindness. And now that chivalry is not standard, it is more than ever optional and pleasantly surprising.

I don't think I would enjoy a world in which all actions, clothing, language, etc of differing sexes must be equal. I would cling even tighter to my lipsticks. It boils down to how much do I earn vs. a man, do I have the opportunities I want in career etc, do I have a right to my own body... The "personal is political" has never worked because women and men enjoy their differences too much. Also it is incredibly divisive-a strategic and political nightmare for the feminist movement.

[Autodidact]

I'm not saying that women are weak, I'm saying that's the assumption (however false it might be) that underlies "chivalry". Anyway, if chivalrous behaviour is merely equal to kindness, then why don't we call a philanthropist "chivalrous", or Mother Theresa "chivalrous"? We're talking about a very specific breed of kindness here: that is to say, the kindness shown to women by men.

By the way, what exactly do you mean with the "personal is political" part of your post? What is incredibly divisive and a nightmare for the feminist movement?

It's possible, in any case, that my view of chivalry isn't shared by many. But I definitely feel that it's belittling to show preferential treatment to any able-bodied person, man or woman. It's possible, also, that chivalrous behaviour started out as a means of courtship, that is, males vying for the female's favour (and hence breeding rights -- if you pardon the naturalistic parallel)...

[Carol]

The phrase "the personal is political" has been reinterpreted over and over, but boiled down in common parlance [people were still talking about these things when I went to college and we didn't laugh at feminism yet] to the notion that individual women should march lockstep with a feminist recipe for clothing,, makeup, associations with men, etc. or their feminism was in question. In this context, to happily accept the opening of a door would be the act of a turncoat. Quit thinking for yourself. Feminism says "snarl".
(History on "personal is political" here To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

"Chivalry is, in fact, a form of chauvinism, since its central assumption is that men and women are not equal" inspired my train of thought but I didn't explain enough.
Yes, we should have equal rights.
No we are not equal in other respects. There are negatives in this difference. There are positives. I will continue to welcome the opportunity to have a door opened for me as I find it to be a positive. And it is the context. I take it as a courtesy because it is quite obvious that any able-bodied human can open a door.
If a man were to try to take the controls of, let us say the backhoe that I was capably steering, he would get an elbow to the eye. I know a woman who works on rooftops as part of her job. She never complains and she carries the same stuff the guys do. She fits into the team. Incidentally, when she comes to a job site, strangers assume she is the supervisor because on construction sites most women present are supervisors. In this context, nobody attempts to be chivalrous. In that _context_ it would be insulting to her standing on the team.

[Leg]

Here where I live chivalry alas doesn't exist anymore...

I use to behave chivalrously but I don't think it works really well nowadays

[zibber]

Feminism ruins everything.

I bet feminists caused global warming also.

[Tactical Panda]

Feminists win the war over work and the number of openly career minded females increase. Production, transport, and consumerism increase alongside the expansion of the international workforce. Logically an increase in CO2 emmissions follow these trends.

The internet is a serious place.

[catzmeow]

Feminism ruins everything.

I bet feminists caused global warming also.

We are definitely responsible for the Gulf Oil Spill and the melting of the polar ice caps. It's all part of our fiendish plot to emasculate men and drive a dagger into the heart of chivalry.

So far, things are going according to plan.

[Tough Love]

^ WWII was a blast!!

[catzmeow]

^ WWII was a blast!!

Indeed. Stripping men of their jobs in factories and manufacturing plants was a piece of cake, too. They didn't know what had hit them.

[catzmeow]

I think thats when they REALLY started hating us.

Actually, I think that started when we persuaded them that men should do body hair removal--for their own good--of course.

[Carol]

"we persuaded them that men should do body hair removal"

For the record, I had NOTHING to do with that.
(Not that there's anything wrong that.)

[Autodidact]

I'm hairy. And I like it. :p

Back on the chivalry issue... I'm starting to think that what is known as chivalry today is actually courting behaviour, like and colours of male birds or the efforts of cuttlefish. Its purpose is to bring the female around and view the chivalrous man favourably; I mean, if he opens the door, pulls out your chair, and pays for dinner then he can't be so bad to have around. And he does have a nice smile... It makes sense that, with greater social equality for women, the abolition of planned marriage, contraception and divorce and the ever-so-slight slippage of moral standards, that the playing field for courtship, dating and sex is wide open and hence any one male simply has more contenders than in previous centuries. Consequently courtship becomes more and more refined. The amusing part of it is that, far from disenfranchising women, chivalrous behaviour is now shown to be symbolic of woman's powerful position as far as breeding rights go. Thus feminists should welcome chivalry. Rather turns the tables when viewed in this way, doesn't it?

Opinions?

[leviathans]

Here's an interesting text called The Fraud of Feminism by E. Belfort Bax.

The text is good and logical although a bit old, so the thing about criminal woman is not true anymore and it might not represent modern feminism well, but it really explains logicaly why he thinks Chivalry is not a good thing.

Here's some good quotes :

"It is plain then that chivalry as understood in the present day really spells sex privilege and sex favouritism pure and simple"

"It is a cheap thing, for example, in the case of a man and woman quarrelling in the street, to play out the stage rôle of the bold and gallant Englishman "who won't see a woman maltreated and put upon, not he!" and this, of course, without any inquiry into the merits of the quarrel. To swim with the stream, to make a pretence of boldness and bravery, when all the time you know you have the backing of conventional public opinion and mob-force behind you, is the cheapest of mock heroics."

Edit : I guess I can't post the text, neither can I post the link... Whatever... You can search it on google if you really want...

[katrin]

This thread is so interesting but it reminded me that chivalry and chivalrous actually have several meanings each. To me "chivalrous" is a positive adjective. I can explain why using definitions from merriam-webster[dot]com. I've added italics.

Chivalry
1 : mounted men-at-arms
2 archaic a : martial valor b : knightly skill
3 : gallant or distinguished gentlemen
4 : the system, spirit, or customs of medieval knighthood
5 : the qualities of the ideal knight : chivalrous conduct

Chivalrous
1 : valiant
2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of chivalry and knight-errantry
3 a : marked by honor, generosity, and courtesy b : marked by gracious courtesy and high-minded consideration especially to women

Only definition #2 relates directly to "chivalry", the bolded definitions are actually quite positive. Continuing on....

Valiant
1 : possessing or acting with bravery or boldness : courageous <valiant soldiers>
2 : marked by, exhibiting, or carried out with courage or determination : heroic <valiant feats>

High-Minded
marked by elevated principles and feelings

Courteous
1 : marked by polished manners, gallantry, or ceremonial usage of a court
2 : marked by respect for and consideration of others

So, a chivalrous person may be either male or female, although when I call someone chivalrous, I am most often using it to describe a man who supports women's rights (elevated principles), is a friend to women, respects women, doesn't objectify women, and stands up for women against sexist men who do denigrate, disrespect, and objectify women. Not to say that women can't stand up for ourselves, but it's good to have allies. Plus, adult men who display these qualities make strong role models for boys.

To me, such men are generous, honorable, respectful, considerate, high-minded, bold, and certainly brave--especially when one considers that they often have to defend their own masculinity to other men as a result of their support of women.

The whole "opening doors" thing is pretty much irrelevant to me. :tiny: