I would describe your actions as chivalrous. And I would describe your actions as courteous. I would also describe you actions as considerate, helpful, nice, etc......

Your second point: How do you know she could have easily handled it? HOw do you know she was faking it? How do you know she expected someone else to do it? And what is wrong with someone coming over to help? I have often helped people with their carry-ons in the overhead bin regardless of gender. If someone needs help they need help... usually, it's the stewardress that comes over to help anyways. Once, I had a stewardress come over to help me with my bag in the overhead (the problem wasn't my bag, it was small, it was the other oversize bags already inside the overhead bin).

you pack the bag - you lug the bag.. you put it in the overhead.. or you check it -- no discussion after that...

Just for the sake of arguement, I usually don't hold my bags overhead after packing to ensure I can easily stuff it into a overhead bin already full of baggage....

Just sayin'.

Um, some people are short and have difficulty reaching the bin.

Your opinion you are entitled to but I would never make you a sandwich :D

Im too short....I always have to have help

I cant give birth and you missed my point I think. It was simply a general definition of what chivalry meant back then.

I missed your point also.. can you say again what it was?

I redefined it in the above post. :) Perhaps you could read it again.:)

Yeah, but what was the point of you saying that chivalry is supposedly about treating women as "givers of life that most men can't live without"?

What were you trying to say by telling us that?

It is a point I am tired of trying to make instead I shall simply ignore it.

you know what? we all have our opinion on what chivarly, gallantry and courtesy is. People were raised differently and believe different things. Just like when arguing politics just because "you" dont think a person should think a particular way isnt going to change how they feel.

Just like mine and Supple Cows differing opinions on what reading romance books means...to me escapism and enjoyment, to her its deplorable....nothing either of us says to the other is going to change our minds. Its one thing to let YOUR opinion be known, its another to belittle someone for how they think and I truly believe a line is being crossed here and some of us need to back up and just say....bless your heart....I dont agree with your thinking on the subject matter.

I prefer men to act like the gentleman that my daddy is, I was raised to believe that if I was respectful to people I deserved that respect back...the thing is I have to remember Im in a different age group than a lot of the "opposers" to this topic and I was raised a different way (ESPECIALLY being in the south).

Clearly there is a divide here.

Simply put both sides are in agreement that people should be courteous to one another regardless of gender.

The only difference in position is whether or not this courtesy should be extended because it is the right thing to do (i.e. common courtesy) or the thing to do because it's what men do for women.

In the end, does it really matter so long as we are all courteous?


I do resent a woman who expects preferencial treatment because of gender (hell, I resent anyone who expects it, for example because you are wealty or nobility, etc.) but that isn't going to stop me from being courteous to them (unless they really push my buttons).


Can we all just take a step back and see that none of us is all that far off from each other's position on this issue?

You are right Mr. Charlatan.

I tend to wonder one thing. For all the people who are swearing we should be courteous so vew are practicing what they preach.

If we were all a tad bit more courteous there would be virtually no attacking in this thread.

It is easier to pay insult than to hold one's tongue. It seems (by reading most posts here) that many do not have an open mind to use any form of courtesy. Although, I find many here that seem confused on "chivalry" and even though I have mentioned other words that describe it like, gallantry, gentlemanliness, courtesy, fairness and politeness; have yet to associate these words as meaning the same thing. Many have described what they think it is and the original post is about one word and it has nothing to do with medieval times or knights.

Now...after reading the posts today, all I can think of is the word Respect. If you have no respect for others or what they say (in a respectful manner), how do you ever think you can even learn about chivalry, gallantry, politeness and just downright good manners? And don't tell me they don't have that in the east, west, north and waaaay over yonder! Because I don't believe it. And if this is really true, and how mankind is fast becoming, then it's going to be a inhuman world. And if you think it's bad now, just wait until there is no respect for any humankind. Meaning man, woman, child or animals.

When I started this thread, it was suppose to be "fun".........opening thoughts/opinions/discussions...........not insults to each other.

And with this, I close. I have no other thoughts in which to give. But, if you are truly interested in what I may say, I welcome you to ask me in a PM.

Good evening,
SB

Disagreement has nothing to do with courtesy. I don't see much attacking in here with the exception of a few comments describing people who aren't from the south.... There may be some jabs being thrown, but to say this is indicative of a lack of courtesy is mistaken logic, in my view.

This thread is heated because there are many women who have responded here who don't think we've come far enough in the realm of equal treatment and they're seeing some women who they think are all set to turn back the clock all in the name of a someone tipping their hat and saying "Evenin' guv'nuh, ma'am."

While I recognize that as an oversimplification, I think it fantastical that there are those on here who think that simply because we weren't raised on a plantation in Savannah we have no refinement.

We're all guilty of a little slinging in here, I just find it ironic that we're now attempting to backpeddle on that slinging in the guise of courtesy.

*EDIT* Some points were cleared up while I was typing. So I deleted the middle section but left the opening and closing. This is why I should have stuck with my instinct and left this thread alone.*EDIT*

I haven't touched this thread for a few reasons. One, I don't think that the topic is relevant and I think that the argument is going to go round and round for ages. Two, I think that people are not seeing each other's points. Three, there are so many people talking and I'm still not sure why there is still an argument. It seems everyone agrees that people should be nice to everyone. However,

Honestly this thread has so many points, cross points, and tangents, it is hard to organize a response. I think the definitions need cleared up and responding to others by saying see previous post, when there is only one sentence isn't a way to clear up confusion. I'm not sure if people in this thread want armor and damsels back or if they want to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen cooking and cleaning for their husbands. Either way, I know that I don't want either of those things. I like being an equal in my marriage and being an independent person while going through life together. There is power in knowing that you can make it on your own if need be and I can't believe some women would want to turn back time and get rid of that.

To be clear, I wasn't attempting to justify the different treatment so much as explain that there was something more to it than just what reproductive organs the relative people posessed.

The guy paying for the meal is a custom that is now more commonly a formal courtesy based on sex that should likely be abandoned, but it originated in an era when men worked and women generally didn't, and the women who did work made significantly less money than men. Men paying grew out of a difference in ability to pay that was sex linked--it was a product of a circumstance that was linked strognly to sex and thus became associated with sex, even when the circumstances changed.

This doesn't mean men should be expected to pay--that is a custom that should be abandoned in favor of something more equitable, or to truly reflect the origins of the practice, if one person, regardless of sex, is significantly more able to pay than the other, she should be the one to do so. I'm really fine with either arrangement.

My point was that there's something a little more complex going on here than women expecting to get pampered and protected simply because they're women--there is very often a practical history to a custom that may have been lost after the custom was established, and by looking at this, we can find a more equitable way of finding ways to offer each other courtesy.

I'd like to see it made functional. To use the overhead bin example for a moment, instead of framing it in terms of sex, frame the circumstances in a gender neutral manner. If a person is having difficulty loading a piece of luggage for whatever reason--strength, height, a disability, age--and you can be of help, the courteous thing to do is to help this person without stopping to evaluate your relative sexes, ages, and so forth, but that this is a person in need of help and you are capable of giving it.

Two of the factors, height and strength, are sex-linked traits, which would result in a disproportionate number of such incidents being men helping women, which was part of the sex linked norms I referred to earlier, but this would not mean that a man helping a woman meant that he was doing so because he was a man and she a woman, but because height or strength made it more difficult for her than for him. We should evaluate based on individual capabilities, not on superficial irrelevancies.

Obviously, there are going to be times when it goes the other way--Grace, being tall and unsusually strong for a woman has done this many times--and that's fine, it's a good thing, so long as she's mindful enough to think of doing this (most women in my experience aren't) and he's not the sort to get his feelings hurt by being helped.

Apply this general criterion, helping others who seem to need help because they need help and you can give it, and you get a sex-neutral form of courtesy, that, on occasion is going to produce the appearance of sex biased behavior.

Opening the door is something that is almost entirely free of sex-linked built in bias, so we should see roughly the same number of females and males doing this. Sadly, too many women expect to be the recipients of this type of courtesy without being willing to offer it back.

This morning I was going into my office, which is in a building without a handicapped door. Those doors are quite convenient for me--I hit a button with my thigh and the door opens. This building doesn't have this, so I have to approach, put down my briefcase and portable file, and pull open the door shortly before a couple of students, one of each sex, got there. I held the door for them, the gentleman said "Thank you," then propped it open while I retrived my things and went on in. I enjoyed the thank you. It's nice to feel useful like that.

Gilda

This is the core here. Respecting everyone equally. I'd think North, South, East, and West can agree on that.

Making baseless remarks about southern people being more courteous than northern people is as bad as Carno making the generalization that every single woman wanted the womens liberation movement to happen. They didn't. There are plenty of women that <gasp> WANT to be stay at home mothers with no job.

*EDIT*
(Note here for Charlatan, and whoever else might confuse this, I guess i didn't differentiate the two, sorry 'bout that. I don't mean to say that all home mothers are against women's lib, just that I'll bet there are some that are. Which makes Carno's comment an incorrect generalization.)
*END EDIT*

Shocking I know.

Generalizations are bbaaadd, mmm'k?

And there is not a massing of crazy northerners on the mason-dixon line just salivating at the opportunity to march down in wave after wave and grind common courtesy into dust warrrreagl. Trust me. I'm from the south and going to school in the north. I've met just as may nice people that hold open doors and extend umbrellas in the north as in the south. They are few and far between no matter where you go.

Hold on there...

There is a big difference between wanting women's lib and saying that women who want to stay home are not in support of women's lib.

The key difference being choice.


Frankly, the crux of this thread is the big bugaboo of "FEMINISM". I can't imagine that *anyone* here would argue against the concept of equal opportunity and equal rights. The problem is that Feminism is a political football that has been abused by all sides of the debate (like most political footballs).

There is anger and resentment still lingering in the Feminism debate on all sides.

This thread is a product of that ongoing debate.


As I said above. We all agree that we should be considerate to others. It's only in the reasons why we should be considerate that we disagree.

In the truest sense, chivalry the qualities idealized by knighthood, such as bravery, courtesy, honor, and gallantry toward women.

You can be gallant towards men, too.

I can, and will practice the above. Quite frankly, I don't care what anyone thinks about it, I'll do what I think is the right thing. When I shave in the morning, I want to be able to look that guy in the eyes and know that I'm a good man.

While the choice argument is a strong and highly valid argument, I think that women who wish to be independent in every aspect view this choice as a setback. I'm not going to argue whether they're right or wrong, because I happen to agree that freedom of choice should be the goal of every movement. However, when that choice is seen as a return to days of repression and oppression, I can understand a person's anger at those who would make that choice after all the struggle that went into achieving equality.

-------
I had to go back and re-read the OP after sugahbritches' last comment. In it she does state that she does not want to be seen as an equal counterpart to men.

After re-reading it and digesting it a bit, I get the impression that she's lamenting the loss of girls being girls and men being men in the "traditional" sense, so in a way, this thread is evolving in a manner consistent with the OP. It did not start out as a comment on courtesy; it started as a comment on how men treat women in the context of historical chivalry.

Yes, there are differences in men and women, I don't think anyone will ever deny that, but to say that women and men should belong to different classes of citizen is what's causing the uproar. Despite all comments to the contrary, this is the impression I was left with from the OP. I think any heated comments after that are expected from those who got the same impression I got.

There is some dissonance here between this stance:

and this one:

We like to look at history through rose coloured glasses, but a more thorough investigation tends towards a history that is often not as exciting as we thought, and in some cases downright despicable by today's social norms of the West. Those of you citing chivalry as a glamorous old code of conduct can't just throw out the bathwater and keep the baby.

I agree...at some point in time, Feminism no longer was about equality; militant thinking came in with a 'I can open my own car door' mentality and shouting 'male chauvinist pig' and men backed off....
Supple Cow: You weren't even a thought when the Feminist movement started, but you come off as extremely militant as I mentioned above. How you can possibly equate reading romance novels with 'keeping women down' is a mystery to me. Some of us actually embrace our womanhood, with all its strengths and weaknesses, and we realize quite fully we are not second class to anyone. Should we be out perfecting GTA just to prove a point? No more then men should take up sewing to do so....
Toaster: There's a reason women's salaries don't match and the reason is the same as the total hours mismatch: We are still the main caregivers of family, the ones who actually have the kids in that family and therefore are staying home to recover and, in the majority of single-parent homes, we're that single parent. Until all that evens out( and since men can't give birth, it won't), then pay will never be totally equal.
Chivalry as it pertains to the days and legends of King Arthur are indeed, gone. But there are way too many men here who seem to think that a simple act of courtesy is chivalrous and either therefore won't do it or do it with the thought that women are, in fact, deserving of it, much the same way a child needs his meat cut. Both lines of thought are off the mark. Better to do something because it's the right and respectful thing to do, regardless of gender, age or ability.

I don't think anyone advocating chivalry is actually referring to the historical nitty-gritty oppressive aspects of it. But rather, I think they are espousing the positive courteous aspects of it. All the stuff that Seaver mentioned reminds me of the Marine Corps. In that sense, how could chivalry be viewed as a bad thing? So, maybe we need to see chivalry in a modern context as opposed to this archaic form that no one is advocating but that naysayers keep going back to.

Personally, I can play an FPS as well as any of my male friends, and I still read bodice rippers. Ustwo's right...it's mostly about it being female porn in my case.

Does the latter somehow make me less feminist? I somehow think not. Actually, most heroines in recent romances, even ones set in historical circumstances, give as good as they get.

Does it make me respect and expect common courtesy less? No.

Do I believe in chivalry? I think it's an outdated concept that most people, whose knowledge of the time from which chivalry comes is romantic at best, usually confuse with the idea and expectations of common courtesy.

A side note: as for my belief in feminism, I think it is about choice, and I am pretty militant compared to most of my friends. Yet, when the time comes, I won't regret the choice to stay home and nurture my children--because it was just that, a choice.

To clarify, I'm using feminism in the sense that Charlatan used it above.

I'm not sure why you said this in response to my comment about wages. I certainly wasn't disputing anything you've written there. In order to do those things, one does have to leave work or spend less time working, which plays into what I spoke of earlier.

Eh, it was late and I lost my connection, along with my train of thought.
What I meant to say was, that there seems to be this line of reasoning that states 'women want everything equal, so why should we be 'chivalrous', when, in fact, nothing CAN be equal given those points. Does this mean we garner more respect and chivalry because of it? Not really, yet I find the young male respondents making the assumption that we are saying just that, while stating that we're 'equals' so no expectations of chivalry are legit. So, yes, I agree that we are NOT equals, but your post seemed to come across with an anger about it. My apologies if it was misread.
Damn train of thought derailed again:
I'd also like to point out that, just because some women find doing for their men to be satisfying to them does not mean anyone has the right to knock them for it. If a woman is happy catering and the man in her life does his part, who are we to criticize that? The only time anyone should take issue with it is if it's one-sided or bordering on abuse. I don't feel that just because any woman likes to cook for him, scrub his back or whatever, she's making herself less a human being. When something works, everyone else should just back off and worry about themselves.

Just had to respond because Spec and I had coffee today and we were talking about the man paying. He bought me coffee and I called him a chivalrous fellow. :lol: I know he didn't pay to have sex or because he was the man. But the thing is that he knows that I'm out of work and even though I brought money to pay, he was helping out. It was courteous and something that a friend does. Also, there have been times when we've bought him dinner or drinks so it's a trade off.

As I mentioned before, I think we all agree that courtesy is important. Being considerate to all people has nothing to do with women's lib or chivalry. It has to do with being human and a friend.

but he got it anyway? :p

HAHA! No...:lol:

I'm surprised of all the posts in here you got anger from mine, but that's not what I intended. I was just pointing out there are actual reasons women make less than men, and it isn't because they are women. It's because of the workplace choices they make. On an individual basis, you can't find good data to support differently. Or at least, I can't. Once you get the whole group, you can definitely see where certain choices women on the average make could and should make them recieve less money.

Actually, it IS because they are women.
First, there's maternity leave, generally 2-4 weeks prior to delivery, 6 weeks after. So right there, you're talking 8 weeks less per year in the workforce. While parenthood is, ideally a choice, it isn't always.
Single parenthood: A disproportionate amount of single parents are women. This isn't always a choice and the jobs they take to support their families is not always an optimum choice as well and many take two or more lower paying jobs due to their personal economics and situations.

I blame Elanor of Aquitaine for the confusion. Befor she got involved, chivalry was more of a devotion to God than a devotion to women.

I think what Toaster was saying is that there are things that women choose that cause the disparity. Having children is a choice.

"Accidents" don't make pregnancy compulsory; they are the consequences of making the choice to risk pregnancy (especially if not being careful) and engaging in sex.

But: Unless a woman spits out a kid every single year, this would only account for a loss in wages in any year that a woman bears a child. If you only ever have 2 kids, and you work for 35 years before you retire, that should be 33 years of regular pay. I don't think it's having kids that is causing a very large part of the disparity in pay.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate issue: I have a friend who says that any woman who thinks it's appropriate for a man to buy her things and pay for the dinners and such is a whore, plain and simple. Why? Because you're essentially paying for sex, as far as he's concerned. The only girls he'll date are ones that realize that both people should be sharing things equally. Now obviously, if one of you is much better off than the other, there may be some accomodations... but by and large, it should be fairly 50/50.

His test is to go on two dinners with a girl, each of similar value. On the first, he offers to pick up the check. If they allow, and don't insist they split it, he waits to see what happens on the second date. If the girl offers to pay because he paid the first time, then game on! Otherwise, if she expects him to continue paying, she's essentially a prostitute in his eyes, and no relationship ever developes.

Note: I won't tell you how many women he's had sex with, but he's only ever dated 2 women. One for a few months, the other for about a year. Hence his constant decree of "women are whores". lol

I actually agree. I open doors for my wonderful boyfriend and offer him seating if it's limited, since he has a bum knee. On the other hand, he's also wonderful to lift heavy stuff for me, open doors, pull out my chair, etc. I happily bend down to pick stuff up since it's harder on him and deal with things that are easier if you're smaller, and he does the stuff that's easier if you're larger. (He's nearly 100 lbs. heavier and almost a foot taller.)

The Rule of Thumb also was started in the same period. The Rule of Thumb in England meant it was okay to beat your wife, so long as you didn't use anything thicker than your thumb. ;)

Just when you fine folks here thought I was gone!!! :lol:


:D You might be the last of the last SirLance. Or at least.........in the truest sense (of the word "chivalry"), the last.

Question for you, SirLance...........I noticed your avatar and location. Do you think the word "chivalry" is still used in some of our forces today? And if so, describe what you think it truly means in our forces. And I don't mean just "towards women". I mean the ideal of the word.

I just had the thought of what military would always use in drastic measures. The phrase of, "Women and children out first......" Does this still apply in our armed forces today?

Or if any military member here can answer these questions...........please feel free to do so.

When I was in the army, there were few women so I can't speak well to that. Also, there were no women in combat specialties (and still aren't), although female US soldiers have been killed in forward postings.

I can tell you that our enemies use women and children, and that I've been fired upon (and fired at) both.

There is no chivalry in a firefight, there is only chaos met by training. Things do not happen slowly...

I was a special operations senior sergeant (18Z), kind of the team leader, sometimes they call us the team daddy. It's hard to explain, there isn't an equivalent civilian job for this OS...

The motto of special forces is "de oppresso liber" which is latin meaning "to free the oppressed." Is that not chivalry? Is that not the goal of bravery, courtesy, honor, and gallantry? To treat each person as special, even the uneducated, barefooted, african tribesman who doesn't know what (or if) he'll eat tomorrow? Do we live that? In my unit, we certainly did.

Is it still the case? Yes, I believe it is.

Hope that answers your questions, SB.

Yes sir, it most certainly is! Thank you so much for replying SirLance. I realize you are limited to your time and I sincerely thank you for giving me this much.

Yes sir, it answers my recent questions. However, it only gets me started for more! :D

You and your men take care sir. And I do thank you kindly for answering so soon.

The irony here is that Carno is an officer with the Marines, I believe. I hope that doesn't deflate your romanticism of this whole thing.

And I do believe that the whole "women and children first...." idea applies pretty much everywhere, not just in the military.

I think SugahBritches misunderstands me. It's not that I don't believe in being courteous and gallant and everything else, it's just that I don't believe I should be that way because a medieval code tells me to be that way.

First and foremost my parents raised me to be polite and courteous to everyone, second I choose to be that way because I see the value in it, and third my position as a (soon to be (I commission in six weeks)) military officer dictates that I be polite and courteous.

As a Marine, I would never want someone to look at me and think to themselves how nasty I look or act. I always try to conduct myself in a manner becoming that of a Marine officer. My point in this thread was never that I see no value in being polite and courteous, but rather that I don't see any value in an outdated moral code. The original post asked what I thought of the word chivalry, and I gave my thoughts on the word. My posts weren't critical of being nice to people, but rather I was being critical of an archaic code of conduct and what it means.

I was never taught the code of conduct that is chivalry in the Marine Corps, but I was taught customs and courtesies that simply reinforced those taught to me by my parents.

Now, I do realize that on the TFP I am not always a shining beacon of courtesy, but in person I conduct myself much better, as I hope anyone who knows me can attest.

"""
To dream the impossible dream
To fight the unbeatable foe
To bear with unbearable sorrow
To run where the brave dare not go
"""
(The Impossible Dream, from The Man of La Mancha)

That is all.

Thank you Carno for your post. I deeply appreciate it. I thought long and hard about even posting after JJ's post. I had just decided that I wouldn't bother. But, I sure feel better after your post. Thank you.

BTW, is customs and courtesies all that bad???? :D Just asking, because my daughter loves the ideals of what the Marines stand for and I'm glad to know her Marine husband shows her the respect and love that she deserves. But, I already knew that before he ever became a Marine and before he even knew my daughter.

Worst thing with people today is the idea that the entire world owes them something.

How many time have you walked down a sidewalk and a person is approaching you straight down the middle forcing you to get off? I have this happen all the time while jogging so I started not getting out of the way of people smaller than me.

So far I've had four collisions and none of them have had the guts to say anything when I spin them around or knock them down.

SB, I left the army in 1985 (wounded, took disability & medical discharge). Sorry if I gave the impression I am active duty, I am not. But I do pray for our boys every single day.

Hear hear! It's how you behave that says what kind of man (or woman) you are, not what code you claim to adhere to.

Nobody "taught" me chivalry, but a lot of people, staring with my parents, did teach me how to conduct myself, and I think "chivalry" is the word that best describes that code of conduct.

to quote my Journal from about 9 months ago:

To answer why my last post may have seemed caustic, allow me to explain.

Throughout the course of this thread, I have read comments by "Southerners" who claim that "Northerners" can't possibly understand what it's like to be raised properly and how it is our wish to shit all over the South with our un-cultured ways - or words to that effect.

I've read comments about how, if there is any chivalry left, it must exist in the military, particularly in the Marine Corps.

My experience has shown me that believing such absolutes is foolish and naive. The rudest, most inconsiderate people I ever came across were in the South. Does this mean that I think all Southerners are this way? No, nor would I ever make the argument that Southerners are rude and inconsiderate, but some are. Just like everywhere else.

I also spent 5 years in the military. You might be surprised to know that a lot of people in the military are just as rude and inconsiderate as others in the general population. You should hear the way some men in the military talk about - and to - women. To me, the notion that the Marines are chivalrous is reminiscent of the recruiting ad that shows a Marine in a Knight's costume or Richard Gere in "An Officer and a Gentleman". It's marketing. It's not real life.

My comments about romanticizing groups of people is something I take issue with because it doesn't recognize that people are individuals and one will never be able to peg a group of people as having qualities that no one else possesses, especially when it comes to the issue of courtesy.

This is an excellent point. Not everyone in the military is a "good" person. People are still people no matter if they are Senators, Governors, Presidents, doctors, Northerners, Southerners, black, white, purple, fat, skinny, clean shaven, Marines, soldiers or airmen, etc, and people will always suck.

And honestly, I know plenty of Marines who treat women like shit.

I believe this also. My only wish is that more people would use it---through out the world. And that no matter what state, country you live in or race, gender, cultural backgrounds----or what career in which one chooses, would see the need to practice it.

Chaucer’s contemporary description of the knight in his Canterbury Tales sheds light on the true spirit of chivalry:

There was a knight, a most distinguished man
Who from the day on which he first began
To ride abroad had followed chivalry,
Truth, honor, generousness and courtesy.
He had done nobly in his sovereign’s war
And ridden into battle, no man more,
As well in Christian as in heathen places,
And ever honored for his noble graces …
He was of sovereign value in all eyes.
And though so much distinguished, he was wise
And in his bearing modest as a maid
He never yet a boorish thing had said
In all his life to any, come what might;
He was a true, a perfect gentle-knight.
Speaking of his equipment, he possessed
Fine horses, but he was not gaily dressed.
He wore a fustian tunic stained and dark
With smudges where his armour had left mark;
Just home from service, he had joined our ranks
To do his pilgrimage and render thanks.

If women think that holding open doors is what is at the heart of chivalry, they need to aim higher. I don't think chivalry is a medium through which males and females interact. It is beyond gender relations.

The "death" of chivalry wasn't brought about by women's social movements. Chivalry was done in be the general moral decay of society... but that is another thread.