Chivalry Must Die!

[Northwind]

OK, that title was a bit of an overstatement, but here’s my point:

There is a lot of talk about the need to respect or protect women. I’m going to argue that we need to do this less. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not some knuckle-dragger who runs around beating up women, etc., but I think that the idea that women are this special class of people that “needs” our respect and protection is actually demeaning. What is commonly called “chivalry” is actually a practice that reinforces the idea that men are superior and women are dependent on men.

The assumption that women need our respect and protection is based on the premise that women are inherently inferior. It assumes that unless men go out of their way to treat women as “special” they cannot stand up for themselves, that they are incapable of advocating for their own needs and desires, and that need men to do this for them. I don’t think any of those are true.

Women are as capable as men and don’t need to be treated like they are infants. Yes, women (in general) are not as physically strong as men (in general). However, unless we are talking about hand-to-hand combat, this doesn’t really make a difference in either of our day-to-day lives. Any anyways, if it was all about relative strength, why don’t people go on about how we need to respect and protect small people?

I would propose instead a system where people respect each other regardless of gender. Unless someone proves otherwise, we assume that all people are capable of standing up for themselves and advocating for their rights and needs – and that we all look out for each other in this regard.

Does this mean that I won’t hold open a door for a woman? No – but I’ll also hold a door open for a man. Does this mean that I won’t ever hit a woman? Probably, but no more than I would refrain from hitting a smaller male. (What if I’m being attacked by a 6’3” woman and she’s beating the crap out of me, can I defend myself?). Does this mean that I will stop appreciating the . . . um . . . physical differences between men and women? Hell no!

In short, ( :rolleyes: ), I think that we need to respect all people more and not assume that women are incapable of taking care of themselves. And lest what I am saying get confused – I am saying that men and women are equal and _not_ that men and women are the same. They are not (thank god!), but we’re not two different species either. We need more chivalry in general and less toward women.

I would be especially interested to hear what the females have to say about this. (And 12 - I _know_ you'll have something to say here.) :)

[Hoolwath]

Wow. The 6'3'' woman must have beaten you to a pulp. :wink2:

Er.... I mean.. I quite agree. :)

[Moose]

It's sort of a sexist contradiction...Usually men are superior when it comes to physical strength, thus including how men think, act, and will carry out their objective. So saying that men and women are equal is true, but at the same time it's not. Women do need to be protected when it comes to this sort of thing seeing as Men are aggressive and usually want more then they can get.

This doesn't mean women are not as equally driven sometimes to do rape, attacks etc. It's more common for men to do it, and that being said, there is a fine line in saying where somethings are superior and others are not.

[banditto]

Damnit moose, whyd you have to beat me to it. But yes, chivalry is less now adays but its more appreciated as well.

[Hellblazer]

Well, I agree with the main point, but if doing that can get you a girlfriend, why not do it? ;)

[mushroom_girl]

It's true that most men are stronger than most women, which is probably where the idea that men should protect women comes from.

Now, when a guy holds a door open for me, helps me carry a heavy object, or helps me with a troublesome task, I don't say, "Stop treating me as an inferior!" I appreciate that they're helping me. But I also assume that it's not because I'm a girl, but because I was struggling. I would help a guy who was having trouble with something and not think anything about it.

If a woman was beating a man up, I'd expect for the man being beat up to fight back. I mean, you can't just sit there and let someone hurt you, no matter who they are.

Everyone diserves respect, but the "rules" of men not beating up women is because generally men are larger and stronger. It's not meant to be degrading.

[Daemon Bloodmaw]

I don't see chivalry as merely being respectful to women. I'm respectful to just about everybody unless they give me a reason not to be.

I'll hold a door open for any woman (I'll also hold a door open if a guy is behind me, not if he's on his way), simply because that is how my dad taught me to be. Walk them to their car, open the door, etc. Put themself before you. That's just how my dad raised me to be towards women, especially ones that I find attractive or that are guests. If a guy is carrying something too heavy and needs help, I'll help him out. I'd be more reserved than I would in helping a woman, but I'd help him out.

As far as being attacked by a woman, I'm a wrestler so I'd grapple and basically attempt to stop her from hitting me without striking. On that same note, I've had people come up to me and ask me if I've ever wrestled a girl in the season, and I've wrestled 2 girls in matches and pinned them both in the first period. Anybody who walks onto the mats, whether its for boxing or any other sport, is there to compete and nobody gets special treatment.

Although if I was in a striking sport I might be a little bothered by it, but I'd imagine the mentality would be similar.

[Moose]

Damnit moose, whyd you have to beat me to it. But yes, chivalry is less now adays but its more appreciated as well.

Because i'm special and ur not.

[banditto]

Fair enough. But another thing about today is, girls who may not have the physical strength to beat up a guy, can have mental strength over him. For example, there is a kid at our high school, who is 6'7'' and weighs about 230. Hes a good guy, and really strong, but he always does anything his gf wants him to do, and he cant do anything about it because she threatens him with things he didn't do or she slandered because of her place on the social ladder.

I think chivalry is fine, until the point that someone is actually starting to take over all of the womans chores or if he continues after she asks him to stop. Other wise, im all for it.

[doubledown]

Some may find it odd that the more "Chivalrous" a nation, the higher the stats for domestic violence and rape are. The idea of putting a women on a pedastal in public is basically masking the feelings of superiority we as a collective nation have over women.

In other countries and cultures where men actually treat women as equals, i.e. not doing anything out of their way for them like opening doors or standing up or anything, domestic violence doesnt really factor for them.

[edit] for those curious about where I'm coming up with this, I learned it through both a sociology class (taught by a real ball-busting feminazi) and an anthropology class (my favorite class so far).

[apollo7]

I don't see any problem with chivalry, I practice it, or try to, 24/7. I know that women are more than capable to handle things on their own, but I'll never hesitate to hold a door open for a girl, or her boyfriend. :dry: I'm courteous to women, not because I think they're weak, but because it is the right thing to do. I'd do the same thing for a guy if I saw he needed help and on many occasions walked up to random people, guy or girl, when I saw that they were having a bad day.

As far as hitting a girl, (in my eyes) there is never a good reason to do it. If men are, by default, faster and stronger than woman then it shouldn't be a problem to avoid getting hit. But men who do it to feel better about themself are just pathetic and if I ever saw it I wouldn't hold my tongue regardless of how much he thinks she "deserved" it. Anything that would follow, which more than likely would if he didn't see anything wrong with his actions, wouldn't be hesitated regardless of his size or any other physical attributes.

[Realist]

I don't see any problem with modern day chivalry--of course guys are going to treat girls different than they treat other guys, is there really anything intrinsically wrong with this? It's a way to create camaraderie among groups of guys and--I can't think of a good way of saying this--respect for the female. Sure, the characteristics which are respected aren't exactly those of the liberal ideal, but you know, sex is a part of our biology and I don't see that we gain anything from denying that.

The assumption that women need our respect and protection is based on the premise that women are inherently inferior. It assumes that unless men go out of their way to treat women as “special” they cannot stand up for themselves, that they are incapable of advocating for their own needs and desires, and that need men to do this for them.

Oh, come on, who today really believes this? You're acting like we live in the Middle Ages or something. Do you really think that a guy who holds doors for girls but not other guys believes that women are "incapable of advocating for their own needs and desires"? (Presumably, the guy wouldn't have opened the door if he thought she could have all by herself!) The flaw here is that you assume that actions which are basically modern flirting rituals of sorts--ways of establishing masculinity in an essentially playful or inconsequential way--have direct real world applications, when there is no such necessary connection. There are lots of guys who say they wouldn't hit a girl but would easily ask her to help them on some project of theirs.

Seriously, Northwind, I think you're being sort of ridiculous here. :cool:

[Realist]

Some may find it odd that the more "Chivalrous" a nation, the higher the stats for domestic violence and rape are.

I wonder what criteria goes into that characteristic. :wacko:

The idea of putting a women on a pedastal in public is basically masking the feelings of superiority we as a collective nation have over women.

Fifty percent of our nation IS women! :)

In other countries and cultures where men actually treat women as equals, i.e. not doing anything out of their way for them like opening doors or standing up or anything

And which country exactly would that be?

[MallaLubba]

And which country exactly would that be?
The amazon. Haven't you seen the movies? And, they kill off the men after they acquire their seed, too. :*dwarf:

[doubledown]

I wonder what criteria goes into that characteristic. :wacko:
Its pretty easy to discern. What one thinks of chivalry, one usually thinks of holding doors open, or standing up when a lady enters, or other such novelties. These things are pretty exclusive to NA and western europe.


Fifty percent of our nation IS women! :)
True, but I would find it hard for you to argue that the half of the population of females hold the same amount of power and prestige as the male half. It is imbalaced, and the ideals of chivalry has kept and to a lesser degree still is keeping that imbalance. The idea of a female president is controversial today, and inconceivable 20 years ago. This is mainly because of these chivalrous notions about having to protect our women from making such difficult choices.


And which country exactly would that be?
Many of the substanence tribes of Africa have equal gender roles, if a man wants to garden he can do so, if a women wants to hunt she does so, these tribes do not enforce gender segregation the way most of the rest of the world does.

[Realist]

The amazon. Haven't you seen the movies? And, they kill off the men after they acquire their seed, too. :*dwarf:

Well, I guess that WOULD cut down on rape stats. :)

[Realist]

Its pretty easy to discern. What one thinks of chivalry, one usually thinks of holding doors open, or standing up when a lady enters, or other such novelties. These things are pretty exclusive to NA and western europe.

So how exactly is this chivalry characteristic quantified? Number of door holdings per population per day? Percentage of population which stands up when a lady enters the room?

True, but I would find it hard for you to argue that the half of the population of females hold the same amount of power and prestige as the male half. It is imbalaced, and the ideals of chivalry has kept and to a lesser degree still is keeping that imbalance. The idea of a female president is controversial today, and inconceivable 20 years ago. This is mainly because of these chivalrous notions about having to protect our women from making such difficult choices.

NO ITS NOT!!!! (This is the problem with liberal education in this country! Sometimes it gets as ridiculous as the fundies!) Do you see no women in power making choices? Look at governers and senators, there are a whole bunch of women in their ranks. Look at Condi Rice. Look at company CEO's. Sure there aren't as many women as men, and some of this can undoubtably be traced to discrimination somewhere along the line (the ineptitude sort of discrimination though, not discrimination in order to "protect" the woman who's trying to get the job) But its not like we don't have any women in power these days.

Many of the substanence tribes of Africa have equal gender roles, if a man wants to garden he can do so, if a women wants to hunt she does so, these tribes do not enforce gender segregation the way most of the rest of the world does.

Do you have any specific tribe in mind? And who exactly is recording the rapes and domestic violence in these tribes?

[deleryn]

And I had thought this thread was about a player named chivalry or something...

[Glamdring]

I completely and utterly agree with Northwind. It's nice on occasion to be treated like a lady, but I'd rather be treated like a human being. I hate it when guys get stop joking around when I come in the room, or when I play someone who knows that I'm a girl, and they either a) let me win, or b) beat me fair and square and then claim that I won. It's just kind of... lame.

ESPECIALLY in here, where there is no physical strength. There is only mental strength (and I suppose the endurance of your finger muscles). I try not to let it bother me, but it does make me feel looked down upon. Like I'm a child that needs to be coddled.

If you're gonna kick my ass, please gloat about it afterwards. :p That's all I'm sayin'.

[Matt 34.5]

Ive thought about this to, and the conlusion i came up with, was that im reading too much into this. Basicly if the girl felt degraded by being helped all she has to do is say so. I'd rather hold a door for a girl, then a guy, but I hold the door for both. And just because were in the age where woman are ment to be treated equaly, doesnt mean we need to lose the little things that men do for them, its customary and polite. Personaly I think holding a door open for a girl or pulling out a chair only shows respect, not a degrading to her at all.

[insignifiGant]

I completely and utterly agree with Northwind. It's nice on occasion to be treated like a lady, but I'd rather be treated like a human being. I hate it when guys get stop joking around when I come in the room, or when I play someone who knows that I'm a girl, and they either a) let me win, or b) beat me fair and square and then claim that I won. It's just kind of... lame.

ESPECIALLY in here, where there is no physical strength. There is only mental strength (and I suppose the endurance of your finger muscles). I try not to let it bother me, but it does make me feel looked down upon. Like I'm a child that needs to be coddled.

If you're gonna kick my ass, please gloat about it afterwards. :p That's all I'm sayin'.
You're a girl? How did I not know this?
*bows*

[Moose]

I completely and utterly agree with Northwind. It's nice on occasion to be treated like a lady, but I'd rather be treated like a human being. I hate it when guys get stop joking around when I come in the room, or when I play someone who knows that I'm a girl, and they either a) let me win, or b) beat me fair and square and then claim that I won. It's just kind of... lame.

ESPECIALLY in here, where there is no physical strength. There is only mental strength (and I suppose the endurance of your finger muscles). I try not to let it bother me, but it does make me feel looked down upon. Like I'm a child that needs to be coddled.

If you're gonna kick my ass, please gloat about it afterwards. :p That's all I'm sayin'.


Thats true Glam, but then again, I think it's safe to say that all women like being treated with a lil more "interagity" then most men do to each other, afterall men usually do make a lot of sexist jokes when women aren't around, so how would you feel if a bunch of your guy friends started talking about other girls and how the "banged that bitch last night", etc.


People let you win because ur a girl? Wow, I wish I was a girl, maybe then turtling wouldn't get so boring.

[Dove]

ESPECIALLY in here, where there is no physical strength. There is only mental strength (and I suppose the endurance of your finger muscles). I try not to let it bother me, but it does make me feel looked down upon. Like I'm a child that needs to be coddled.

Can't... type... any... longer...

*pause*

Anyways, I always try to be extra polite to ladies. Holding doors, etc. (it's all been covered :p ), but I do agree that somewhere the line must be drawn.

It's about convenience, not about disability, in my opinion. Could a woman open a door for herself? Of course, but it's to her convenience and as a reflection on you as a man to take away a simple task. Another pair of antonyms for this in my opinion is active politeness versus passive insensitivity.

For example, if I'm carrying 80 pounds of sand and need to go through a door, it wouldn't feel like a hit on my manhood if a woman opened the door to be polite and assist.

A situation I ran into just last week was when I took Montana (a.k.a. Fatalis) to the gym. She put her weights down and I picked them up, to which she responded "What are you doing?"
"Helping you out."
"Well I don't need help."
"Ok... just that Seth sometimes wanted me to put his weights up for him."
"Well I'm not Seth."
"Then put your weights up."
"Kiss me."
"Um..."
"MAKE MAD LOVE TO ME!"
"UMMM..." Sorry about that, you know I had to.

Well that's about all I have to say. P.S. the black part never happened I swear.

[Fatalis]

^_^ I can lift my own weights.

[Twelve]

I don't see any problem with modern day chivalry--of course guys are going to treat girls different than they treat other guys, is there really anything intrinsically wrong with this? It's a way to create camaraderie among groups of guys and--I can't think of a good way of saying this--respect for the female. Sure, the characteristics which are respected aren't exactly those of the liberal ideal, but you know, sex is a part of our biology and I don't see that we gain anything from denying that.



Oh, come on, who today really believes this? You're acting like we live in the Middle Ages or something. Do you really think that a guy who holds doors for girls but not other guys believes that women are "incapable of advocating for their own needs and desires"? (Presumably, the guy wouldn't have opened the door if he thought she could have all by herself!) The flaw here is that you assume that actions which are basically modern flirting rituals of sorts--ways of establishing masculinity in an essentially playful or inconsequential way--have direct real world applications, when there is no such necessary connection. There are lots of guys who say they wouldn't hit a girl but would easily ask her to help them on some project of theirs.

Seriously, Northwind, I think you're being sort of ridiculous here. :cool:

Completely agree with Realist here. Go figure.

Glam, if you don't want to be treated like a "lady", then please avoid me. There are certainly plenty of men who don't wish to do so.

Sometimes, I think we as a society think ourselves out of good things. Women ARE the fairer, weaker sex...which in no way makes them less then men. In terms of biology, fairer and weaker does not equal lesser. It's simply what makes women quite appealing to be honest. Women also have unique characteristics that make them "equal" with men, if you will...the ability to bring life into the world is a huge one, but there is much more.

I admit that men can be "chivalrous" towards women because they want to be demeaning, but this is not AUTOMATICALLY the case, Northwind. No need to put down a good thing simply because there are those who abuse it. With that line of thought, you better leave sex alone.

12

[Northwind]

Hmmm . . . A couple thoughts to comments that stood out for me.

Moose – I don’t understand what you are saying in your first post. As for one of your other posts “so how would you feel if a bunch of your guy friends started talking about other girls and how the "banged that bitch last night", etc.” Yuck. I am happily a guy, but I wouldn’t want to hang out with those losers either.

Double Down – Those are very interesting statistics and strongly favor my point if true. However, I agree with Realist that “chivalry” seems hard to quantify and I’d be very interested in seeing where that data comes from. I worry that the “researcher” might have had a bit of a bias going into that study.

Realist – I do actually believe what I said. It’s true that I was exaggerating a bit to make a point, but I am not talking about flirting here. I am _totally_ in favor of flirting. :) I am talking about a set of entrenched social rules that, at their base, spring not from some cutesy attempt to woo the opposite sex, but from long-standing and historic assumptions that women are not as capable as men and need to be protected. If you need further convincing, trace these ideas back to their origins (e.g., feudal knights, etc.) and see the role of women in society at that time (e.g., women could not own property, had very few legal rights, etc.).

My point is that these ideas are not harmless, but come from a sexist understanding of the world and help perpetuate it. And, while it is true that women are becoming more accepted in places of power, this is a recent development and they have had to fight every step of the way for even the most basic equalities. Women couldn’t even vote until the 20th century. Somehow they didn’t have the same “inalienable rights” that God supposedly endowed us all with.

As recently as 40 years ago, it was virtually unheard of for women to be in any position of power, or indeed, any position other than mother, nurse, teacher, or secretary. I guess the fact that this seems unfathomable at this point speaks to the successes of the feminist movement.

And one more thing. I only _wish_ I had had a liberal education. I’m pretty sure that the vast majority of my teachers growing up were quite conservative. :(

Dr. Ing. -- :)

12 – My problem with so-called chivalry isn’t that some people misuse it. My problem is that the heart of “chivalry” beats with sexist assumptions. Without chivalry and its mindset, the idea of a women president would probably not seem so foreign to so many people. Why isn’t it enough to try to treat _all_ people with decency – regardless of gender?

[Daemon Bloodmaw]

Let's turn this around shall we? Why not focus on the hypocrisy of the feminist movement? Or the civil rights movement?

Every good thing has its flaws with certain members, it's inevitable.

[Realist]

Realist – I do actually believe what I said. It’s true that I was exaggerating a bit to make a point, but I am not talking about flirting here. I am _totally_ in favor of flirting. I am talking about a set of entrenched social rules that, at their base, spring not from some cutesy attempt to woo the opposite sex, but from long-standing and historic assumptions that women are not as capable as men and need to be protected.

Ok, you might be talking about different "rules" than I thought you were here, but you gave two examples in your last post which very much do not support your point here: 1) Guys holding the door for girls but not guys and 2) Guys giving girls special protection when it comes to hitting.

Your assertion that these actions come out of "historic ssumptions that women are not as capable as men" is simply baseless. For one, even if there is indeed a historical basis for these actions, this does not mean those actions today have the same meanings and implications that they once did. For another, you are assuming that these actions have something to do with male attitudes towards female ability rather than the much more plausible idea that they are indeed caused by, as you said, a "cutesy attempt to woo the opposite sex." (though there is something deeper here--I treat girls I have absolutely no intent of attracting different than guys. Its just natural. This doesn't mean I don't respect their decisions or, indeed, don't ask for their help at times.)

As I sarcastically implied in my previous post, no guy who opens doors for a woman believe that the woman cannot open the door herself.

You say you agree with flirting, so I assume this means you must agree that its ok for guys treat girls differently than they treat other guys, at least to an extent? So I've gotta pull Oczam's razor here; what exactly makes it impossible in your mind for all that door opening and not hitting to fall under the category of flirting (I'm using the word very generally here)? Is there really anything significantly different? Why MUST you assume that its based on some kind of oppressive philosophy? Are you against guys buying girls flowers?

My point is that these ideas are not harmless, but come from a sexist understanding of the world and help perpetuate it. And, while it is true that women are becoming more accepted in places of power, this is a recent development and they have had to fight every step of the way for even the most basic equalities. Women couldn’t even vote until the 20th century. Somehow they didn’t have the same “inalienable rights” that God supposedly endowed us all with.

You're fighting old battles. This is the 21st century. It was not too much respect for women that forbid them the right to vote, it was too little.

As for a liberal education; I was referring to Doubledown, who basically admitted that the libs brainwashed him. :cool:

[Northwind]

*rubs hands together in a "just-getting-warmed-up" manner* :)
Ok, you might be talking about different "rules" than I thought you were here, but you gave two examples in your last post which very much do not support your point here: 1) Guys holding the door for girls but not guys and 2) Guys giving girls special protection when it comes to hitting.
OK, OK, you got me. I don’t really have a problem with the specific “rules” I mentioned. I hold open doors for women all the time (and men) and I can’t foresee the situation in which I would hit a woman (Well, there’s that example of the 6’3” woman who’s beating the crap out of me.:() I was using these as examples of the mindset that women “need” to be respected and protected differently than men. Your assertion that these actions come out of "historic assumptions that women are not as capable as men" is simply baseless. For one, even if there is indeed a historical basis for these actions, this does not mean those actions today have the same meanings and implications that they once did.
I don’t think you can separate current meanings from historical meanings. Either these ideas have a sexist assumption at the bottom of them or they don’t. I think they do as you can draw an unbroken line from the birth of those assumptions and rituals up to today.You say you agree with flirting, so I assume this means you must agree that its ok for guys treat girls differently than they treat other guys, at least to an extent? So I've gotta pull Oczam's razor here; what exactly makes it impossible in your mind for all that door opening and not hitting to fall under the category of flirting (I'm using the word very generally here)? Is there really anything significantly different? Why MUST you assume that its based on some kind of oppressive philosophy? Are you against guys buying girls flowers?
I think Occam’s Razor (which I LOVE by the way – If I weren’t already married (and Occam wasn’t long dead) I just might propose to him) works in my favor here. I think that the simplest explanation is that the same force that gave rise to these ideas is still influencing them today. (And since when is not hitting someone a form of flirting? :rolleyes: Given that logic, I suppose I was flirting with that woman I chose not to run over in my car yesterday.) And I’m not opposed to guys buying girls flowers (if the particular girl likes flowers), but I’m not opposed to girls buying things for guys that they might like either.You're fighting old battles. This is the 21st century. It was not too much respect for women that forbid them the right to vote, it was too little.
Actually, this nicely sums up what should have been my initial point. These are _not_ old battles. These battles continue and, if you look, you can see them everywhere. In the various television and print advertisements that assume that it is the women who should be happily scrubbing the toilets. In television shows and movies that have plots in which men are predators and women hapless (and helpless) victims. In the halls of government which continually tries to whittle down the rights of women to control their own bodies. And on and on. (Read Susan Faludi’s “Backlash” to see how this struggle is very much a modern battle.) As for your second sentence. My argument is that the mindset behind chivalry is too little respect for women disguised as too much.

[Twelve]

12 – My problem with so-called chivalry isn’t that some people misuse it. My problem is that the heart of “chivalry” beats with sexist assumptions. Without chivalry and its mindset, the idea of a women president would probably not seem so foreign to so many people. Why isn’t it enough to try to treat _all_ people with decency – regardless of gender?

Ummm...Hillary Clinton? I think many people see her very much as a president.

And I don't think I have to remind you of strong female leaders of countries in the past, during the days when chivalry was at its prime and women were supposedly treated their worst.

All people are to be treated with decency. But to be against the idea that women should be treated with chivarly...you would have to believe that women and men are exactly the same, rather than what I believe: that women and men are equal in their beautiful differences. Differences that make most of the warriors of history men (and men make the best cooks :) ), while also leading women to be treated with a certain kind of respect often called chivarly, and allowing them to play that extremely special role called "mother".

You seem to have a problem with men and women being different and being treated differently with different expectations...I don't.

12

[Medemia]

Why do I practice chivalry? I don't think it has to do with demeaning my wife or any other woman to say that they need my help. Heaven knows that my wife doesn't need my chivalrous motions. What it shows my wife is that I love her enough to take time out of my plans to serve her. Chivalry is not an act of selfishness but of serving another person with time and action. So when I open the door for my wife, I get the opportunity to serve her. I consider it the same when I get up in the middle of the night to get her some water or change the kids diapers for her. We wouldn't consider those chivalry but just doing something for someone important in your life. Chivalry is a given set of acts of service that have been handed down as polite and are good beginning reminder of how to serve women.
What chivalry is not is what Glam was talking about. Chilvalry is not giving in to every whim, feigning competition or lying to make the woman look better. Those are flirting (and badly flirting at that.) Chivalry should not be used as a way to get into the woman's pants, gain her affection or earn brownie points. This is how it is usually used and it lessens the value of chivalrous acts. Chivalry should be for the sole purpose of being chivalrous.
Does this mean that we are chivalrous to women and then flip the bird to the men? No, respect should be shown to all humans. If you are given a chance to serve another guy then go for it. Help him with his weights. Open doors for him. It really is more socially acceptable for guys to help the women than guys to help other guys but this should not stop people from respecting and serving all.

[nomar]

Why do I practice chivalry? I don't think it has to do with demeaning my wife or any other woman to say that they need my help. Heaven knows that my wife doesn't need my chivalrous motions. What it shows my wife is that I love her enough to take time out of my plans to serve her. Chivalry is not an act of selfishness but of serving another person with time and action. So when I open the door for my wife, I get the opportunity to serve her. I consider it the same when I get up in the middle of the night to get her some water or change the kids diapers for her. We wouldn't consider those chivalry but just doing something for someone important in your life. Chivalry is a given set of acts of service that have been handed down as polite and are good beginning reminder of how to serve women.
What chivalry is not is what Glam was talking about. Chilvalry is not giving in to every whim, feigning competition or lying to make the woman look better. Those are flirting (and badly flirting at that.) Chivalry should not be used as a way to get into the woman's pants, gain her affection or earn brownie points. This is how it is usually used and it lessens the value of chivalrous acts. Chivalry should be for the sole purpose of being chivalrous.
Does this mean that we are chivalrous to women and then flip the bird to the men? No, respect should be shown to all humans. If you are given a chance to serve another guy then go for it. Help him with his weights. Open doors for him. It really is more socially acceptable for guys to help the women than guys to help other guys but this should not stop people from respecting and serving all.

Word. Wise words spoken there my friend.

[Realist]

I don’t think you can separate current meanings from historical meanings. Either these ideas have a sexist assumption at the bottom of them or they don’t.

You don’t think the meaning of things change over time? I suppose you would consider every kid chanting “eenie meenie miny moe” as some kind of racist? Or what about words; do all words today mean the same things they did in the Middle Ages? Let’s not be absurd here. Just because something meant something in a different time does not mean it currently does.

Your second statement here is equally incorrect. An idea expressed by one person can spring from different beliefs than that same idea expressed by a different person. Just because a Middle Age knight would’ve held the door open for a lady based on an assumption of her inferiority does not mean that’s a reason the modern guy holds the door open for a girl.

I think Occam’s Razor (which I LOVE by the way – If I weren’t already married (and Occam wasn’t long dead) I just might propose to him) works in my favor here.

Heh, let me attempt tp explain better what I meant by “flirting” in my last post. There is an entire “process”, let’s call it a social game, by which guys interact with girls. What is the purpose of this?

Demonstrate class—masculinity—by highlighting difference between guys and girls, a guy attempts to establish himself as socially firmly in the category of the former. This is done by doing what guys do; by identification into a group by following the group social rules. The actual details of these rules are not as relevant as the fact that they distinguish you into the group. Just like not all “gangstas” actually join gangs, and not all “Christians” actually give all their stuff away to anyone who asks, not all “chivalrous” guys actually disrespect women. But if you’re a gansta you’d still better wear the clothes, if you’re a Christian you’d better go to Church and vote pro-life, and if you’re a chivalry guy you’d better open the door for women. It’s all about the play culture. Its all about artificial self-identification. Its all about talking the talk and not walking the walk. It doesn’t affect the real world. (There are some fascinating modern social trends here , but I won’t get into them because they are sort of off-topic)

To show my point here, let’s look at an alternative to the chivalry which has the same goal—the asshole. Girls love assholes don’t they? The asshole puts on an act just like the chivalry guy does, its just a different act—he disrespects the girl instead of respecting her. To show his masculinity. But not actually. ‘cause if it actually gets anywhere and they wanna get into a real relationship, a whole lot of assholes will suddenly learn to compromise. These don’t even have to be firm categories—I observe some guys who switch between chivalry and assholeness all the time; all types of playing; just an extension of flirting.

What about jokes? Do you think every guy who makes a joke about girls is secretly expressing his disrespect for them? Social games.

Some girls like chivalry, some girls like assholes, some girls like nerds, some girls like someone in between, some girls like other types altogether. But none of it really means anything. There is no reason to assume that these social games affect the real life or serious attitude of the guys towards real issues.

So where does Occam’s razor come in? Well, we know very well that social games exist. It’s a very easy assumption to make that the actions of the chivalrous guy are well within this But you assume otherwise. You think that, when a guy opens a door for a girl when he wouldn’t similarly open that door for a guy he is actually asserting his real life intellectual and judgmental superiority over her. By opening the door for her when he wouldn’t for a guy, he is basically saying that she couldn’t open any metaphorical doors in her own life and needs a man to open them for her. You’re making needlessly complicated extrapolations from social games.

There is no reason to assume that a guy who plays chivalry is, in the business world, not going to hire a woman to do an important job. There is no reason that a guy who plays chivalry with the girl he marries isn’t going to give her equal voice in any decision they make. There is the connection you are missing; the connection between the game and real life; it’s a connection you can’t fill and there is absolutely zero reason to assume that any such connection exists. It’s the connection that lib intellectuals theory-peeps never seem to get. And lots of seemingly passive guys beat their girlfriends in private. If you want to make life better for girls, concentrate on real life; not games. Games which most girls are willing participants in.

These battles continue and, if you look, you can see them everywhere. In the various television and print advertisements that assume that it is the women who should be happily scrubbing the toilets.

Sorry that I can’t see this as a major world problem.

In television shows and movies that have plots in which men are predators and women hapless (and helpless) victims.

Which specifically are you thinking of? You must not watch too many movies if you think there are never powerful women shown.

In the halls of government which continually tries to whittle down the rights of women to control their own bodies.

Abortion has nothing to do with feminism. Ok, it does, but it has a whole lot more to do with tradition, science, morality.

Edit: I just thought of something new. I've heard from a lot of stupid people that girls in certain types of revealing clothes are "asking for rape." I'm wondering if you agree that girls in such clothes are expressing their subconsious desire to be raped. It seems a similar argument to the one you're currently making.

[Moose]

I almost figured out a way to state my responses in a clear, objective, and understanding way...but I forgot :*(.

[Glamdring]

Why do I practice chivalry? I don't think it has to do with demeaning my wife or any other woman to say that they need my help. Heaven knows that my wife doesn't need my chivalrous motions. What it shows my wife is that I love her enough to take time out of my plans to serve her. Chivalry is not an act of selfishness but of serving another person with time and action. So when I open the door for my wife, I get the opportunity to serve her. I consider it the same when I get up in the middle of the night to get her some water or change the kids diapers for her. We wouldn't consider those chivalry but just doing something for someone important in your life. Chivalry is a given set of acts of service that have been handed down as polite and are good beginning reminder of how to serve women.
What chivalry is not is what Glam was talking about. Chilvalry is not giving in to every whim, feigning competition or lying to make the woman look better. Those are flirting (and badly flirting at that.) Chivalry should not be used as a way to get into the woman's pants, gain her affection or earn brownie points. This is how it is usually used and it lessens the value of chivalrous acts. Chivalry should be for the sole purpose of being chivalrous.
Does this mean that we are chivalrous to women and then flip the bird to the men? No, respect should be shown to all humans. If you are given a chance to serve another guy then go for it. Help him with his weights. Open doors for him. It really is more socially acceptable for guys to help the women than guys to help other guys but this should not stop people from respecting and serving all.
I completely and totally agree. You said it much better than I could.

[Daemon Bloodmaw]

You have completely and totally agreed with 2 opposing opinions.

Make up your mind! :p

[Pixel]

Now, when a guy holds a door open for me, helps me carry a heavy object, or helps me with a troublesome task, I don't say, "Stop treating me as an inferior!" I appreciate that they're helping me. But I also assume that it's not because I'm a girl, but because I was struggling. I would help a guy who was having trouble with something and not think anything about it.

If a woman was beating a man up, I'd expect for the man being beat up to fight back. I mean, you can't just sit there and let someone hurt you, no matter who they are.

Everyone diserves respect, but the "rules" of men not beating up women is because generally men are larger and stronger. It's not meant to be degrading.

Very well said. I totally agree with you. I would rep you for the post if I could. :)

[Northwind]

You don’t think the meaning of things change over time? Just because something meant something in a different time does not mean it currently does.

Your second statement here is equally incorrect. An idea expressed by one person can spring from different beliefs than that same idea expressed by a different person. Just because a Middle Age knight would’ve held the door open for a lady based on an assumption of her inferiority does not mean that’s a reason the modern guy holds the door open for a girl.
OK already, I already admitted that my problem isn’t chivalry per se, but rather it was a convenient target for the idea that women “need” our respect and protection. And I readily admit that the meanings of things can change over time. However, do you admit that this isn’t necessarily the case? Simply because words can change meaning doesn’t mean that they necessarily have to. My point isn’t that everyone who practices chivalry is necessarily sexist, it is that the idea of chivalry stems from sexism.

I find your ideas about the “social games” interesting. However, I’m not convinced that this necessarily means that there is nothing but social games in the interactions between males and females. Was there ever a point at which you would have allowed that sexism existed? My guess is that you are trying so hard NOT to see it that you could always find some justification for your ideas.

I am not assuming that every “chivalrous” interaction = sexism. However, I think that, overall, the ideas are harmful. I do think that the more “chivalrous” a person it, the harder it is for them to take women seriously. Treating everyone with equal respect (unless they’re assholes and have got it coming) seems so much more workable as a system for society.

As for the sexist messages in television, advertising, movies, media, internet, etc. – yes – one of these isn’t a “major world problem.” However, I think it is a problem when these messages are systematic (even unconsciously systematic) and ubiquitous.
Edit: I just thought of something new. I've heard from a lot of stupid people that girls in certain types of revealing clothes are "asking for rape." I'm wondering if you agree that girls in such clothes are expressing their subconsious desire to be raped. It seems a similar argument to the one you're currently making.
I’m not sure I’m following your logic here. I think these women are saying “look at me,” I don’t think that is the same thing as “force me to have sex against my will.”

Medemia – I generally agree with what you are saying. I don’t think you’re describing “chivalry” so much as general decency toward your wife. However, I’m not sure how to read how getting up in the middle of the night to change the kids diapers are something that you are doing “for her.” I guess I incorrectly assumed that they were your children too. :rolleyes:

Daemon – I don’t think our good doctor was being wishy-washy at all. I think she correctly perceived that Med and I were not in disagreement about this particular issue. (Give us time.)

12 – Where did I say that men and women were the same? My issue is that it’s fine to treat each other differently, but it is interesting to me that these “differences in treatment” almost always assume that women are less capable.

I would be interested in hearing what more females had to say. Females? (And yes, Hydrant, I suspect that I sort of annoy you, but I'd be interested in your views.)

[Medemia]

Medemia – I generally agree with what you are saying. I don’t think you’re describing “chivalry” so much as general decency toward your wife. However, I’m not sure how to read how getting up in the middle of the night to change the kids diapers are something that you are doing “for her.” I guess I incorrectly assumed that they were your children too. :rolleyes:


If you reread my statement, it was getting up in the middle of the night to get her a glass of water and changing the kids diapers (I meant the changing part for anytime during the day.) Believe me, changing the kids diapers is saving her time, breath and general disgustingness. These two I would consider general decency. Opening doors, putting my coat down so she doesn't get her boots muddy, kissing her hand, things like that I would consider chivalry because they are age-old tradition handed down from one generation to the next as polite and self-sacrifical (although I get mucho pleasure from kissing her hand...)

Now I have to start handing out rep like candy cause I can't rep NW anytime soon... may, be gone for a few months and it keeps track.... stupid rep system.

[Realist]

OK already, I already admitted that my problem isn’t chivalry per se, but rather it was a convenient target for the idea that women “need” our respect and protection. And I readily admit that the meanings of things can change over time. However, do you admit that this isn’t necessarily the case? Simply because words can change meaning doesn’t mean that they necessarily have to. My point isn’t that everyone who practices chivalry is necessarily sexist, it is that the idea of chivalry stems from sexism.

All I’m saying is that you can’t use the historical basis of chivalry as evidence for the motivation of the current practice. You need other reasons.

I find your ideas about the “social games” interesting. However, I’m not convinced that this necessarily means that there is nothing but social games in the interactions between males and females.

What are your reasons to believe contrariwise? Although I spent a whole lot of words to describe what I was saying; I think my view is pretty simple and widely understood—that there is a separation between social interactions and “real world” ideas and practices.

Was there ever a point at which you would have allowed that sexism existed?

Sure, as I said; concentrate on real life things. There is a truly damaging sexist attitude which has been seriously eroded in the last century but still exists; there are still guys who will assume certain false things about females. These sexist attitudes can make it harder for women to advance career-wise and come into power in other ways. However, this sexist attitude is entirely separable from social chivalry. We know this because women have continued to advance in our society even as men continue to treat women differently than other men in the social sphere.

I am not assuming that every “chivalrous” interaction = sexism. However, I think that, overall, the ideas are harmful. I do think that the more “chivalrous” a person it, the harder it is for them to take women seriously.

I think there’s a contradiction here—if not every interaction of chivalry is sexist; then sexism can be separated from chivalry. This means that chivalry can survive even as we stamp out sexism; i.e, your entire point is unnecessary.

Treating everyone with equal respect (unless they’re assholes and have got it coming) seems so much more workable as a system for society.

I can’t agree—not because treating everyone equally is in itself a bad thing, but just because it denies the reality of human interactions. We are naturally creatures of the group, of the tribe, of the clique; part of human self-identity has always been our need to categorize ourselves into sections. And part of that categorization is to treat insiders—people who share your category—different than outsiders. To deny this is to create an amorphous, indefinite system in which everyone feels out of place.

A more realistic, and as far as I see, equally beneficial goal, is to treat everyone with a certain degree of respect. You can be generally helpful, moralistic, comforting, etc. without treating or respecting everyone the same.

As for the sexist messages in television, advertising, movies, media, internet, etc. – yes – one of these isn’t a “major world problem.” However, I think it is a problem when these messages are systematic (even unconsciously systematic) and ubiquitous.

The thing is, in today’s media environment there are a lot of contradictory messages. The fact that one advertisement perhaps suggests a stereotypical view of women does not mean that women are forced to morph themselves into the suggested stereotype. There are many other models of femininity in the media which express different characteristics. This is not to say that there aren’t some consistent or more prevalent stereotypes, of course there are; but I think we’d be underestimating ourselves if we believed that people can’t think independently to overcome these ideas if that is what they want to do. To a large extent, we choose how we present ourselves to the world.

I’m not sure I’m following your logic here. I think these women are saying “look at me,” I don’t think that is the same thing as “force me to have sex against my will.”

Of course it’s not. Just like a guy opening a door for a girl isn’t saying “you are inferior to me and need man to make all of your decisions for you.”

[Northwind]

We know this because women have continued to advance in our society even as men continue to treat women differently than other men in the social sphere. True! But I would argue that there has been a noticeable decline in “chivalrous behavior” and in differential treatment of genders that corresponds with the rise in women’s power in society. I think that this is some support for my point that much of that is related to deep-seated ideas about female inferiority. I think there’s a contradiction here—if not every interaction of chivalry is sexist; then sexism can be separated from chivalry. This means that chivalry can survive even as we stamp out sexism; i.e, your entire point is unnecessary. Don’t be so black and white about this. Isn’t it possible that, while not every act of chivalry = sexism that they often correlate with each other? A relationship doesn’t have to correlate at the r=1.0 level to say that they significantly correlated. My point is that they influence each other enough that we are better off trying to reduce both simultaneously. Once sexism is truly dead, I won’t have a problem with chivalry. I’m just not holding my breath the former to happen. (And yes, I do realize that the original name of this thread can be taken in a black and white manner. However, I said in my first sentence that that title was a bit much and meant to be a provocative statement. I think my other comments have been more measured.) This is not to say that there aren’t some consistent or more prevalent stereotypes, of course there are; but I think we’d be underestimating ourselves if we believed that people can’t think independently to overcome these ideas if that is what they want to do. To a large extent, we choose how we present ourselves to the world. And I think we’d be underestimating media if we didn’t think that it had _some_ effect on the way we see the world. (The problem is that so much of our perceptions and beliefs are unconscious and, until we stop to think about them critically, are not within the realm of “our choices.”) I’m not sure I’m following your logic here. I think these women are saying “look at me,” I don’t think that is the same thing as “force me to have sex against my will.”
Of course it’s not. Just like a guy opening a door for a girl isn’t saying “you are inferior to me and need man to make all of your decisions for you.” Touché. As I said to Jonspen in a recent rep. “You gotta bring you’re A-game when you go up against Realist.” (Though, in all fairness, while wearing a hugely revealing outfit is no excuse for rape and should be every woman’s right, there are certain situations in which it’s not a good idea. The same could be said for chivalry. While there are instances that it can be harmless, that doesn’t mean that it’s generally a good idea.)

[speaker4thedead]

It's sort of a sexist contradiction...Usually men are superior when it comes to physical strength.
i thought this till i play fighted with my mum
i wont be doing that again in a hurry :)

[insignifiGant]

I open doors for all my bitches.