NationStates Jolt Archive


Chivalry and Women in the Modern World

Trammwerk
29-03-2005, 07:50
Well, this is kind of a split off of the "minorities catering to majorities" thread, although I intend for it to be a much calmer and logical inquiry into an odd facet of Western - and specifically American, to my knowledge - culture.

Chivalry is dead, or so they say. Personally, as a man, I like to think that it is not dead with me; I try to show women the utmost respect, hold doors, pay for dinner, blah blah blah.

However, I must ask, is this morally right? The idea that women are weaker than men seems, to me, to be implicit in the concept of Chivalry's treatment of women. So is it right for me to treat women in the way that Chivalry demands [or at least, my modern version of chivalry], or does this somehow breach the equality that I believe all women should be afforded?

As an aside, I would also add that part of the justification [rationalization, excuse, depends on your point of view and what proof you have] for paying single men more back in "the day," or that is, the early twentieth century, was that men generally had to pay for everything. The meals, the dates, the gifts... all of it was part of the courting process, and because men were expected to spend their resources on it, they in fact NEEDED more money in order to make a living, as opposed to women, who not only did not need to spend money on the courting process, but also were receiving gifts from men. What are your thoughts on this? As courtship changes - or stays the same! - in modern society, how does this principle apply or not apply?
Tocrowkia
29-03-2005, 07:52
Chivalry isnt dead to me, either.
BLARGistania
29-03-2005, 07:52
stop confining yourself to gender roles!


had to get that out. Next:

I consider myself to be curteous to women, I try to be polite, I think its just the way men have been raised to be. Of course, I don't mind if the women wants to pay for dinner or the movie, but I don't expect her to.
Potaria
29-03-2005, 07:54
Do whatever you want... However, if nobody holds a door open for me, I won't hold a door open for them. And, personally, I dislike the "guy pays for everything" concept.
Salvondia
29-03-2005, 07:55
:shrug: I refuse to not hold open doors or open car doors etc... for women or for people over the age of 60 or so. Don't happen to care if this makes me a sucker of some sort or not.

Now when it comes to the dinner check, well that I can disagree with.
Akusei
29-03-2005, 07:55
I think modern chivalry isn't about who pays for shit. It should be about treating the woman with respect, as the creature she is. If she is a delicate, emotionally fragile thing, you treat her tenderly. If she is strong and independant, you respect that, and treat her like an equal. If she needs help, you're there for her to cry on; if she needs money and you have some, pay for things; if she needs love, love her; if she needs space, back off
HannibalBarca
29-03-2005, 07:56
Chivalry is not dead for me either. I always offer women assistence in just about anything.

I always open doors for women and I am a little surprised at how many are surprised.

As one woman advice columnist once suggested. Always act like a gentlemen and hold doors for women. Most will appreciate it even if they don't express it.
Potaria
29-03-2005, 07:56
I think modern chivalry isn't about who pays for shit. It should be about treating the woman with respect, as the creature she is. If she is a delicate, emotionally fragile thing, you treat her tenderly. If she is strong and independant, you respect that, and treat her like an equal. If she needs help, you're there for her to cry on; if she needs money and you have some, pay for things; if she needs love, love her; if she needs space, back off

I agree completely.
Failureland
29-03-2005, 07:56
I face the same paradox.

I am a feminist and a strong supporter of sexual equality, yet I embrace some of the principles of chivalry, which can be perceived as sexist.

I really don't know what to do. All I want is to be nice. :(
Dakini
29-03-2005, 07:58
The way I see it, holding a door for a woman became unnecessary when women stopped wearing floor length dresses everywhere.

Seriously. I went to a formal with my boyfriend and we had to walk to the place where we were catching a ride and it was all slushy outside so I had to carry my dress with both hands. As a result, when we came to a door, he had to open it for me as I didnt' have a free hand.

Since women don't wear logn dresses normally, it isn't necessary.

It is, however courteous to open the door or hold it for whoever you're with and whoever is immediately behind you (within reason, of course) as well as if you see someone with their hands full...

Paying for dinner is probably also a hold over from when women werent' earning any money. I say that who pays depends on the situation. If you have a husband and wife and the wife is a homemaker, then the husband pretty much has to pay for the night out. If it's the reverse, then the reverse is true. If in a relationship, the woman is a student and earning very little and the man has a full time job, then he should pay, again if the reverse is the case, then it should go the other way around. If the couple are each earning the same amount then they should either alternate payments or go dutch.
Of course, for birthdays and offers of a dinner/movie beforehand then whoever's takign the other out for the birthday dinner or whoever offered beforehand should pay.
Akusei
29-03-2005, 08:02
I face the same paradox.

I am a feminist and a strong supporter of sexual equality, yet I embrace some of the principles of chivalry, which can be perceived as sexist.

I really don't know what to do. All I want is to be nice. :(

See, that's the problem today. I was reading a book by Dr. Laura, and she said that feminism, while it started as a good thing, is now just as damaging as the system it is trying to replace. It looks down on women who want to stay at home and raise their children, saying that they're "selling out" by putting their own flesh and blood before selfish personal goals. It looks down on those who try to establish a meaningful relationship with a man, one where EACH SIDE gives and takes, encouraging instead women to "shack up" with men they barely know and use them for sex while persuing their own personal goals. She goes on to say that it encourages them to put their jobs before their marraiges, and that ruins a lot of marriages. Also, she says it encourages women to leave their husbands and families at the first rough spot because they "just arn't happy anymore", by which they mean they've lost that newlywed feeling.

I think she's a tad harsh, and that a woman DOES have to look out for herself, but not to the extent that she's selfish and egotistical. There's nothing wrong, in my eyes, with persuing your own goals- just don't put your personal goals before your relationships.

Dr. Laura also said that one should give up all outside friends to be with their spouse, which I find plain wrong. If you have a best friend for 20 years, you shouldn't abandon them for a man you've known for 5. She says that a woman shouldn't have male friends, period, outside of her husband, which I find horribly twisted. So I'm not saying I 100% agree with Dr. Laura. It's just something to think about.
Trammwerk
29-03-2005, 08:03
I think modern chivalry isn't about who pays for shit. It should be about treating the woman with respect, as the creature she is. If she is a delicate, emotionally fragile thing, you treat her tenderly. If she is strong and independant, you respect that, and treat her like an equal. If she needs help, you're there for her to cry on; if she needs money and you have some, pay for things; if she needs love, love her; if she needs space, back offYet, this implies that a woman should be treated in a certain way based purely on the fact that she is, in fact, a woman; unless you advocate the same treatment for men who are delicate and emotionally fragile or strong and independent. Then it becomes more equal. Yet doing something for someone based on their sex seems, to me at least inherently sexist.

I really don't know what to do. All I want is to be nice. :(My sentiments exactly.
Greater Yubari
29-03-2005, 08:04
I don't like the "guy pays for everything" concept either. It's obsolete and antique. Apart from that, it puts me into an uncomfortable position.
Salvondia
29-03-2005, 08:06
Yet, this implies that a woman should be treated in a certain way based purely on the fact that she is, in fact, a woman; unless you advocate the same treatment for men who are delicate and emotionally fragile or strong and independent. Then it becomes more equal. Yet doing something for someone based on their sex seems, to me at least inherently sexist.

So what if it is inherently sexist? Doesn't make it bad.
Trammwerk
29-03-2005, 08:06
Dr. Laura also said that one should give up all outside friends to be with their spouse, which I find plain wrong. If you have a best friend for 20 years, you shouldn't abandon them for a man you've known for 5. She says that a woman shouldn't have male friends, period, outside of her husband, which I find horribly twisted. So I'm not saying I 100% agree with Dr. Laura. It's just something to think about.About that. Sometimes it seems to me as though people really do kind of immerse themselves in one another after they get married; even just after being engaged! I've seen it happen personally on a number of occassions, but I of course have only personal observations to draw from.

I have to wonder if this is natural, or good? I dunno. My ideas about autonomy and women's rights tell me no, but thousands of years of tradition tell me that it may be more natural than I suspect.

Have you ever read Emma, by Jane Austen? She actually mentions the same concept, in kind of a passing, accepting sort of way.
Dakini
29-03-2005, 08:07
See, that's the problem today. I was reading a book by Dr. Laura, and she said that feminism, while it started as a good thing, is now just as damaging as the system it is trying to replace. It looks down on women who want to stay at home and raise their children, saying that they're "selling out" by putting their own flesh and blood before selfish personal goals. It looks down on those who try to establish a meaningful relationship with a man, one where EACH SIDE gives and takes, encouraging instead women to "shack up" with men they barely know and use them for sex while persuing their own personal goals. She goes on to say that it encourages them to put their jobs before their marraiges, and that ruins a lot of marriages. Also, she says it encourages women to leave their husbands and families at the first rough spot because they "just arn't happy anymore", by which they mean they've lost that newlywed feeling.

I think she's a tad harsh, and that a woman DOES have to look out for herself, but not to the extent that she's selfish and egotistical. There's nothing wrong, in my eyes, with persuing your own goals- just don't put your personal goals before your relationships.

Dr. Laura also said that one should give up all outside friends to be with their spouse, which I find plain wrong. If you have a best friend for 20 years, you shouldn't abandon them for a man you've known for 5. She says that a woman shouldn't have male friends, period, outside of her husband, which I find horribly twisted. So I'm not saying I 100% agree with Dr. Laura. It's just something to think about.
Isn't Dr. Laura the one with a doctorate in physical education who claims that being gay is terrible?

At any rate, if anyone makes you give up all your friends, there's a term for that: abusive. Unless your friends are crackheads or something like that, you should get the hell away from anyone who is that controlling.

The rest is bullshit, but it's 2 am... someone else can take care of it.
Trammwerk
29-03-2005, 08:08
So what if it is inherently sexist? Doesn't make it bad.But can true social/gender equality be attained while sexism exists? I would say no. To me, sexism is a normative matter; I consider it a bad thing, because I consider gender equality a good thing, and it seems to me that the two are anti-thetical.
Salvondia
29-03-2005, 08:19
But can true social/gender equality be attained while sexism exists? I would say no. To me, sexism is a normative matter; I consider it a bad thing, because I consider gender equality a good thing, and it seems to me that the two are anti-thetical.

It can't exist in the first place
Trammwerk
29-03-2005, 08:21
It can't exist in the first placeI can sure as hell try to contribute to it, though.
Helioterra
29-03-2005, 08:26
I open doors to everyone. I don't think being nice and polite has anything to do with genders or chivalry. I let my boyfriend pay almost everything but that's because I'm a poor student and he has a well-paid job.
Children of Valkyrja
29-03-2005, 08:30
Chivalry and equality work both ways.
As a woman, I will offer to help any man who is in difficulty, be it carrying soemthing, changing a wheel, or opening the door for him.
I also do the same for women, though I still dispair when I see women not able to work out how to open the catch on their car's bonnet (hood for our American friends) or don't have the remotest idea of where the screwdriver is kept, never mind how to use it.
Equally, I detest the fact that many men couldn't even boil and egg or know how to use the washing machine or hoover or iron.
Matronae
29-03-2005, 08:38
to me, chivarly is a way of being respectful towards women. i am a girl, well i'm 23, but i do like men who hold doors open and what not, but i do like the share in on the food bill.
Helioterra
29-03-2005, 08:40
Chivalry and equality work both ways.
As a woman, I will offer to help any man who is in difficulty, be it carrying soemthing, changing a wheel, or opening the door for him.
I also do the same for women, though I still dispair when I see women not able to work out how to open the catch on their car's bonnet (hood for our American friends) or don't have the remotest idea of where the screwdriver is kept, never mind how to use it.
Equally, I detest the fact that many men couldn't even boil and egg or know how to use the washing machine or hoover or iron.
hehehe yeees, maybe "chivalry" has gone too far every once in a while. I've met women who didn't know how to wash their car windows or how to refuel. I know a guy who didn't know how to boil potatos (he was 23, lived alone over 4 years...)
Del Mar Indy
29-03-2005, 08:40
Jesus guys, here's an idea. Rather than sitting around stressing over whether it's sexist to be nice to girls.... why don't you try being... nice... to... everyone? There, problem solved, it's not sexist anymore and everyone has a nice day out of it too.

Christ.
Trammwerk
29-03-2005, 08:45
Jesus guys, here's an idea. Rather than sitting around stressing over whether it's sexist to be nice to girls.... why don't you try being... nice... to... everyone? There, problem solved, it's not sexist anymore and everyone has a nice day out of it too.

Christ.It's an inquiry; a discussion. Nobody's stressing. Relax, Del Mar.
Children of Valkyrja
29-03-2005, 08:57
Well Nobody is stressing, but Del mar is right, which was the point I was trying to make.
Every one in my opinion is equal, everyone should be careful to show respect to everyone no matter what sex/colour/religion/et al they are.
But in return people need to make an effort to be self sufficient enough not to be so needy and to be in the position to help each other as well.
Branin
29-03-2005, 09:01
I personally try to be chivalrous, and a gentleman. I will admit that I often fail, and have much room to improve. And I will work to improve that.
Salvondia
29-03-2005, 09:05
Isn't Dr. Laura the one with a doctorate in physical education who claims that being gay is terrible?

At any rate, if anyone makes you give up all your friends, there's a term for that: abusive. Unless your friends are crackheads or something like that, you should get the hell away from anyone who is that controlling.

The rest is bullshit, but it's 2 am... someone else can take care of it.

mmm I like Dr. Laura. Veryn nice looking. :cough: google :cough: images :cough: Dr Laura :cough: in the state that lacks clothing :cough:
Branin
29-03-2005, 09:06
mmm I like Dr. Laura. Veryn nice looking. :cough: google :cough: images :cough: Dr Laura :cough: in the state that lacks clothing :cough:
*cough*no*cough*shudders*cough*gross*cough*
Children of Valkyrja
29-03-2005, 09:19
:rolleyes:
Salvondia
29-03-2005, 09:50
*cough*no*cough*shudders*cough*gross*cough*

lol. Just one more thing she's hypocritical about.
Tiralon
29-03-2005, 09:54
I, myself, am one of the dying breed, known as the Gentleman. I open doors and hold them, carry the heavy bags, stand up and donate my seat to an elder in trouble on a bus, volunteer when no-one else wants/dare to, etc... A friend of mine once stated that it was very friendly of me to do that for her yet it does implement that the other gender is weak. In my eyes they are not: they probably have the most toughest job of all: give birth to children, so let's relieve them as much as we can, won't we fellows?

In this world of pure egocentrism, sometimes chivalry in its modern form can be suprising and nice. Yet chivalry today isn't about being a blind mole for the world around you: if the lady wants to share the bill, let her: it's unconfortamble for both if ou start to argue about this issue. Being a Gentleman is a principal, not a fundamental way of life. The only way that we'll continue to exist, is to be flexible on some points.
See u Jimmy
29-03-2005, 12:02
I, myself, am one of the dying breed, known as the Gentleman. I open doors and hold them, carry the heavy bags, stand up and donate my seat to an elder in trouble on a bus, volunteer when no-one else wants/dare to, etc... A friend of mine once stated that it was very friendly of me to do that for her yet it does implement that the other gender is weak. In my eyes they are not: they probably have the most toughest job of all: give birth to children, so let's relieve them as much as we can, won't we fellows?

In this world of pure egocentrism, sometimes chivalry in its modern form can be suprising and nice. Yet chivalry today isn't about being a blind mole for the world around you: if the lady wants to share the bill, let her: it's unconfortamble for both if you start to argue about this issue. Being a Gentleman is a principal, not a fundamental way of life. The only way that we'll continue to exist, is to be flexible on some points.

I too consider myself a Gentleman, and agree wholeheartedly with your comments.
I am married to a very independant woman, who likes more than she says being treated as a lady.
Aeruillin
29-03-2005, 12:10
I, myself, am one of the dying breed, known as the Gentleman.

Sounds very pompous. Many people act like a gentleman without taking any opportunity to announce it to the world at large. :p
Riptide Monzarc
29-03-2005, 12:17
People are people. Not all men are strong and not all women are weak.

And if you only respect those that respect you first, then there will be a whole lot of nothing until someone generally respectful comes along.

I personally don't treat anyone as special just because of their religion, gender, or race. That has caused me grief, but it was worth it to me.
Bottle
29-03-2005, 12:39
i don't enjoy chivalry, personally. i enjoy mutual courtesy; sometimes i open the door for my fella, sometimes he does it for me. sometimes he pulls out a chair for me, sometimes i do the same for him. sometimes i take him out to a nice date, sometimes he picks up a check to treat me. our manners (and sometimes our money) are used to show each other we still care, to make little expressions of fondness and affection, and sometimes just to be nice for no particular reason. i don't see any reason why he should express those things more often than i do, or i more than him.
Anarchic Tribes
29-03-2005, 12:55
A definition of chivalry: The qualities idealized by knighthood, such as bravery, courtesy, honor, and gallantry toward women.
This is an old word with old meanings behind it. To bring it into the modern world and not be sexist simply replace the word 'women' with 'people'.
'Feminists' that don't want the door held open for them are quite likely missing out on these qualities in their lives and that's a shame.
See u Jimmy
29-03-2005, 13:05
Sounds very pompous. Many people act like a gentleman without taking any opportunity to announce it to the world at large. :p

Possibly, but it was suitable at this point.
Gentleman, doesn't mean soft git. In my experiance there are not many Gentlefolk around, But maybe I have just been unlucky in the people I have met.
Cadillac-Gage
29-03-2005, 13:12
Is Chivalry "Morally Right??" 'kay, who usually picks who: Yah, in male/female relationships, it's the female that sets the prices, and the male who takes the prices. (Using economic terms).

This doesn't mean a total jerk can't get laid by any means, but total jerks usually end up permanently single if they're male-provided the ladies have any self respect at all.

Women decide who gets a long, satisfying relationship, and who gets a one-off-if-he's-lucky.

Chivalry improves your odds of having a long relationship with a woman of Quality. You know the type-she washes her body, has self-respect, is with you because she loves you, not because you've got scads of money to throw about...

Besides, in spite of the best efforts of those unwashed, man-hating, strident, (censored) Extreeem Feminists, Chivalry is not dead-so long as the SCA remains a going concern.
;)
Katganistan
29-03-2005, 13:50
I don't believe chivalry is dead.

If a man holds a door for me, I smile and thank him. If I get there first, I smile and hold it for the person behind me. If I am very tired and someone is kind enough to give me their seat on the bus or train, I smile and thank them. If I see someone else, man or woman, is tired and needs a seat, I call them over and offer it.

I believe in equality and in courtesy -- which despite the best efforts of some, who TEND to be young and selfish -- is definitely not dead.
Katganistan
29-03-2005, 13:52
i don't enjoy chivalry, personally. i enjoy mutual courtesy; sometimes i open the door for my fella, sometimes he does it for me. sometimes he pulls out a chair for me, sometimes i do the same for him. sometimes i take him out to a nice date, sometimes he picks up a check to treat me. our manners (and sometimes our money) are used to show each other we still care, to make little expressions of fondness and affection, and sometimes just to be nice for no particular reason. i don't see any reason why he should express those things more often than i do, or i more than him.

And wouldn't it just be a kinder world all around if we all practiced this? :)
P_nade
29-03-2005, 13:59
Do whatever you want... However, if nobody holds a door open for me, I won't hold a door open for them. And, personally, I dislike the "guy pays for everything" concept.

I think your right there, its more a matter of curtesy than chivalry.

If someone holds a door open for you, do the same in turn. I prefer to pay my own way or half for dinner, however sometimes alternating paying between each other works too. Women desire to be treated equally with men, yet when it comes down to it, most of us still prefer to be seen as weaker in some instances
Weybl
29-03-2005, 14:05
The key word in this whole debate is 'courtesy' a lot of the things men do that are labelled as chivalry are just common courtesy. You go through a door you hold it open for someone who's following you, if you're with that person, if you take someone out for dinner or any meal, you offer to pay. If some whining femenist get's all pissed off because you're simply being nice then that's her problem, i'm yet to meet a woman who doesn't like men exercising common courtesy.
Kryozerkia
29-03-2005, 15:31
The key word in this whole debate is 'courtesy' a lot of the things men do that are labelled as chivalry are just common courtesy. You go through a door you hold it open for someone who's following you, if you're with that person, if you take someone out for dinner or any meal, you offer to pay. If some whining femenist get's all pissed off because you're simply being nice then that's her problem, i'm yet to meet a woman who doesn't like men exercising common courtesy.

If they guy is an asshole, then yes, we will, especially if he makes it obvious he still holds sexist views, as in the case of my ex. When a guy flauts the fact that he his chivalrous and that he deems it wrong for a woman to do something a man was tradtionally supposed to, then, yes, there is a reason to whine and get pissy.

If however, the guy does act courteous in a way that is still chivarlous without the song and dance, it is tolerable. Especially when they say, "no dear, I'm paying for this. You keep your money for the next time we go out." is probably the better way of saying. Also, if they still act like gentlemen without being assholes about, then yes, that is what modern chivalry is.
Dempublicents1
29-03-2005, 15:36
I think it is sweet when a man or woman does something "chivalrous" for another. Personally, I don't get mad when a guy holds a door open/etc as long as it doesn't seem like he's doing it out of a belief that I am somehow inferior.
Kryozerkia
29-03-2005, 15:45
I think it is sweet when a man or woman does something "chivalrous" for another. Personally, I don't get mad when a guy holds a door open/etc as long as it doesn't seem like he's doing it out of a belief that I am somehow inferior.
I agree.

When it done out of common courteousy, it is a good thing.
Freeunitedstates
29-03-2005, 15:54
One time, i opened a door for a girl. She turned to me, visibly offended. She asked me, "Did you just do that because I'm a girl?"
I answered her, "No, I did it because I'm a gentleman."

Being kind to people is a way to show your respect for them. Being 'good' is only a matter of showing compassion for others.

On a technical matter, chivaly was used by knights and lords as their code of honor. A parallel would be Bushido*, the samurai code of honor. So, I guess it would depend on your definition on whether or not chivalry is dead.

*Literal trans.- The Way of the Warrior.
Sableonia
29-03-2005, 16:08
I think it is sweet when a man or woman does something "chivalrous" for another. Personally, I don't get mad when a guy holds a door open/etc as long as it doesn't seem like he's doing it out of a belief that I am somehow inferior.

I agree. I think it is wonderful when someone is "chivalrous" toward me.
I am trying to teach my children this way of behaving.
They open doors for me, carry groceries, help me at home, etc.
I am hoping that I am raising men who will make good husbands some day. :)
Bottle
29-03-2005, 16:33
And wouldn't it just be a kinder world all around if we all practiced this? :)
i sure think so. my dad used to say that money and happiness were like manure...they do much more good when they are spread around.
The Chocolate Goddess
29-03-2005, 16:58
I agree. I think it is wonderful when someone is "chivalrous" toward me.
I am trying to teach my children this way of behaving.
They open doors for me, carry groceries, help me at home, etc.
I am hoping that I am raising men who will make good husbands some day. :)

Then I applaud your efforts because this world needs more courteous (instead of chivalrous) people around...
Renshahi
29-03-2005, 17:19
I believe firmly in Chivalry, but I accept both the good and bad associated with it. I will hold open doors, refrain from cussing and spitting infront of women. If my woman is insulted, I defend her. But I also hold to the "barbaric" and "chauvanistic" appeals.
I pay for the check, I drive the car when we are together. I work while she takes care of the house and child. If their is a disagreement in the household, I will listen to her points, but in the end, I have the final say. That also means I am ultimatly responsible. If we dont have enough money to live off of, than I would be failing in my duties.
Now do I think my wife inferior? Not at all. Both of us will admit she is smarter then I am and I have no shame in saying that.
The fact is, in this day and age a woman will do what she wants. If mine didnt like me being in control, she could leave, just as well as I could leave. Both of us find a way to work together, but with me in the lead. Now I have met others families where the wife has the pants on- I wont say it dosnt work, but I will say I have found things dont work as well. There is practicallity to Male control.
Ekland
29-03-2005, 17:23
Chivalry is the Martial Code of Conduct for a Medieval Knight, drop all the romantic bullshit you may think about it, it was pure brutality. As a rule guide to combat it condoned every cheap shot and dirty trick possible for winning (smashing the genitals was encouraged, etc, etc) in single combat. As a instrument of the Feudal System Knights where responsible for Civil Order which happened to mean forcibly oppressing anyone lower on the caste scale. Also in the morally bankrupt Middle Ages Knights where generally responsible for the general attitude of indiscriminate rape and murder of women and their husbands, Chivalry of course had no problem with this as long as the woman was of a lower class.

There is no modern Chivalry, the code was abandoned along with the Feudal system. Nobility of course liven on and usually entailed "Gentlemanly behavior" from which what you so erroneously call "modern Chivalry" arose.

Call it common courtesy, call it being a gentleman but for the love of God don't call it Chivalry.
Renshahi
29-03-2005, 17:27
One time, i opened a door for a girl. She turned to me, visibly offended. She asked me, "Did you just do that because I'm a girl?"
I answered her, "No, I did it because I'm a gentleman."

Being kind to people is a way to show your respect for them. Being 'good' is only a matter of showing compassion for others.

On a technical matter, chivaly was used by knights and lords as their code of honor. A parallel would be Bushido*, the samurai code of honor. So, I guess it would depend on your definition on whether or not chivalry is dead.

*Literal trans.- The Way of the Warrior.

On the technical aside, Bushido and Chivalry and some major differences. According to Bushido, a Samurai who failed his lord would be expected to commit suicide through Seppuku (self Disembowlment). His wife, who was now tained by her lords dishonor, would request to kill her children and then herself. In addition, Chivalry had set manners and customs of courtesy to women. Bushido had no such concept other then the fact that women were totally subservant to their husband. Samurai could have one wife but as many courtisans as they wanted-all in the same house!
SilverCities
29-03-2005, 17:30
I believe firmly in Chivalry, but I accept both the good and bad associated with it. I will hold open doors, refrain from cussing and spitting infront of women. If my woman is insulted, I defend her. But I also hold to the "barbaric" and "chauvanistic" appeals.
I pay for the check, I drive the car when we are together. I work while she takes care of the house and child. If their is a disagreement in the household, I will listen to her points, but in the end, I have the final say. That also means I am ultimatly responsible. If we dont have enough money to live off of, than I would be failing in my duties.
Now do I think my wife inferior? Not at all. Both of us will admit she is smarter then I am and I have no shame in saying that.
The fact is, in this day and age a woman will do what she wants. If mine didnt like me being in control, she could leave, just as well as I could leave. Both of us find a way to work together, but with me in the lead. Now I have met others families where the wife has the pants on- I wont say it dosnt work, but I will say I have found things dont work as well. There is practicallity to Male control.

Now I have to disagree with this, not on the fact you found a system that works for you but that Female led relationships suffer. My life bears out the Opposite. I am the Dominant in the relationship... I pay the bills, I make the major decisions... I make the money...I am also a fine mother, and I am doing better now then when I had a male dominated relationship. Takes all kinds..

As far as Gentlemanly behaviour goes...I am liberated enough as a woman to appriciate Genlemanly behaviour in men, I do not take it as they thinking I am weaker at all...
Renshahi
29-03-2005, 17:39
I read your post SilverCities and I wont disagree with you that female led families dont work, I just often see them not working. I think a good deal of it comes from our surounding environments. I am in a-well lets just say a male dominant profession with other Type "A" personalities. My wife was actually suprised by our behavior. She had musician and artist friend as that was what she did for a living. The first time we got a flat tire, she was stunned when I told her to wait in the car while I changed it myself.
Now I dont know your background or profession SilverCities, but I would wager you are around other strong women or atleast not quite so Male dominated.

BTW I saw the CAPS on the word Dominant-was there added meaning to the word or just how you typed it?
SilverCities
29-03-2005, 17:48
*laughs* very observant... I am Doninant in all aspects ;) But yes I was raised in a very Female Dominant family and my profession is rather service oriented actually... but I still have to make most of the decisions. I tried having the traditional relationship but it frustrated me to no end when I knew I could run the show better... and it led to the eventual breakdown of the relationship. Thankfully I now have a Fiancee how is more then willing to Let me be the headstrong woman that I am and is content letting me run the show.. *smiles*
Renshahi
29-03-2005, 18:24
*laughs* very observant... I am Doninant in all aspects ;) But yes I was raised in a very Female Dominant family and my profession is rather service oriented actually... but I still have to make most of the decisions. I tried having the traditional relationship but it frustrated me to no end when I knew I could run the show better... and it led to the eventual breakdown of the relationship. Thankfully I now have a Fiancee how is more then willing to Let me be the headstrong woman that I am and is content letting me run the show.. *smiles*


Well in any event, Heres a toast to Dominants (on either side of the Gender coin) and those who let themselves be submissive of their
Whispering Legs
29-03-2005, 18:55
I'm not with the whole chivalry thing - it was beaten out of me when I was younger by feminists in the 1980s who said it was demeaning.

Now, I only open doors for men, because I'm doing it as a friendly gesture. Unless a woman makes it clear to me that she expects me to be friendly, polite, and helpful, I go out of my way to let the door slam in her face, especially if she's carrying an armload of groceries.

Really, I try to help everyone - I'll pay for lunch for whoever I invite - male or female - because I figure if I invite, I pay. I open doors for people regardless of gender - but for the past 25 years I've gone out of my way to slam car doors on assholes (men) and bitches (women) who think that I'm trying to somehow demean them by being nice.
UpwardThrust
29-03-2005, 18:58
Well, this is kind of a split off of the "minorities catering to majorities" thread, although I intend for it to be a much calmer and logical inquiry into an odd facet of Western - and specifically American, to my knowledge - culture.

Chivalry is dead, or so they say. Personally, as a man, I like to think that it is not dead with me; I try to show women the utmost respect, hold doors, pay for dinner, blah blah blah.

However, I must ask, is this morally right? The idea that women are weaker than men seems, to me, to be implicit in the concept of Chivalry's treatment of women. So is it right for me to treat women in the way that Chivalry demands [or at least, my modern version of chivalry], or does this somehow breach the equality that I believe all women should be afforded?

As an aside, I would also add that part of the justification [rationalization, excuse, depends on your point of view and what proof you have] for paying single men more back in "the day," or that is, the early twentieth century, was that men generally had to pay for everything. The meals, the dates, the gifts... all of it was part of the courting process, and because men were expected to spend their resources on it, they in fact NEEDED more money in order to make a living, as opposed to women, who not only did not need to spend money on the courting process, but also were receiving gifts from men. What are your thoughts on this? As courtship changes - or stays the same! - in modern society, how does this principle apply or not apply?


Just think of it as kindness ... I do the same for friends ... or just anyone walking in a door behind me ... let her pay every once and awhile too

I let me gf ... though on average I pay more often ... I do so because I make more then her , but when money gets tight around tuition pay in time of course I will let her buy me some subway or something :)
UpwardThrust
29-03-2005, 19:00
I'm not with the whole chivalry thing - it was beaten out of me when I was younger by feminists in the 1980s who said it was demeaning.

Now, I only open doors for men, because I'm doing it as a friendly gesture. Unless a woman makes it clear to me that she expects me to be friendly, polite, and helpful, I go out of my way to let the door slam in her face, especially if she's carrying an armload of groceries.

Really, I try to help everyone - I'll pay for lunch for whoever I invite - male or female - because I figure if I invite, I pay. I open doors for people regardless of gender - but for the past 25 years I've gone out of my way to slam car doors on assholes (men) and bitches (women) who think that I'm trying to somehow demean them by being nice.
I had a "friend" like that too ... you should have seen the "talking (screeming)" I got when I let her go ahead of me in the lunch line when I was in high school :p
Trammwerk
29-03-2005, 19:26
Chivalry is the Martial Code of Conduct for a Medieval Knight, drop all the romantic bullshit you may think about it, it was pure brutality. As a rule guide to combat it condoned every cheap shot and dirty trick possible for winning (smashing the genitals was encouraged, etc, etc) in single combat. As a instrument of the Feudal System Knights where responsible for Civil Order which happened to mean forcibly oppressing anyone lower on the caste scale. Also in the morally bankrupt Middle Ages Knights where generally responsible for the general attitude of indiscriminate rape and murder of women and their husbands, Chivalry of course had no problem with this as long as the woman was of a lower class.

There is no modern Chivalry, the code was abandoned along with the Feudal system. Nobility of course liven on and usually entailed "Gentlemanly behavior" from which what you so erroneously call "modern Chivalry" arose.

Call it common courtesy, call it being a gentleman but for the love of God don't call it Chivalry.I'm aware of the historical roots of Chivalry, but I prefer to think of it in the context the poets and writers of the age - and the ages that followed - wrote it in. To illustrate, read Le Morte D'Arthur.