Elphaba

Why do you say that?

Wage Comparisons

SugahBritches

".....chivalry is dead and women killed it."

Wooooweeeee! You ain't tellin' me nuttin' new Loser! **chuckles** I'm shakin' my head and grinnin'. I'm also wondering where in the hell is Deltona!??? Jeeze. Del.....if I didn't know better, I'd think you were the last one on the internet that still believes in it.

Lady Sage, you are a peach darlin'. Please keep grinning. You are a breath of fresh air and I always enjoy your posts. I think you have the concept too. Although, I almost understand the hostility. I think because if you have never experienced chivalry, or the acts of a gentlemen just wanting to be a gentlemen, then I can understand why some women feel threatened by it. Especially if they are very independent.

The boss and my brothers (family, classmates, close friends), would tell you that I am a far cry to a helpless female. I'm grinning because if anyone needed to have some "lady" airs about her it was me! LOL! Being a tomboy, was not a simple task for my mother. When she started working, that's when she noticed a big change in me and mentioned this to my father. Soon I was taken out of the field/shop and most of what my brothers and father was doing and put into the kitchen. Yep, the kitchen guys!

My mother never had this talk with me. My father was the one to put his hand on my shoulder and said, "Your mother thinks you need to .......well, be brushed up some." I remember looking at him and he laughed at my look. I'm sure I was totally confused by the terms "needing brushing up". He went on to say that I must see the female side of the world. I needed to learn to cook and be more of a lady. I grumbled for awhile until my father came to a compromise and said that it wouldn't hurt for my brothers to learn to operate the stove too. Hehehe..........but they aren't ashamed of it either, to my chagrin!

I was a late bloomer. I'm always late blooming in almost anything it seems! LOL! But, I do remember feeling rebelious when boys did notice me. One thing back then, they would tease you unmercifully! Especially if they knew you your whole life.

But when I finally knew when I was different or was being paid attention to differently by boys/men, it was a different kind of feeling. That's when I blossomed into femininity. Now, that is not something I'm ashamed of. Although for many years of my youth I wished I was a boy/man, I didn't at that moment in time. And now I fast forward to today and I'm suppose to be a woman who thinks "just because she has a vagina" she shouldn't be treated differently? All my life women----no wait----ladies and gentlemen-- are a thing that is of the past? Some of you almost make it sound like we should all wear the same clothing, cut off our hair, and look all alike. HOW TRULY BORING! Women, no matter what line of work, race, or sexuality you are, should be PROUD you are women.

There shouldn't be a reason for this kind of hositilty. Especially to women and gentlemen that only have expressed their true thoughts. They are who they are. You are who you are. I'm truly surprised that such hostilty can become of just a word as chivalry. How truly odd.

For heaven sakes.........keep me out of the political threads PLEASE! Jeeze.

Gilda

To paraphrase President Bartlett: I'm astonished and yet not surprised at the level of misogyny on display here.

Perhaps it would be better to say I'm dismayed, but hardly surprised.

It depends on what you mean by that. If you mean that traditional families, in the sense of a married man and woman and their children living together in a single household, have ceased to exist, well that's simply not so. These may no longer be the majority, but they're still around, and they're still prominent enough that politicians tend to try to project this image and pander to those who either fit it or want to fit it.

If you mean the idea that this type of family is the only real way to be a family and that others are less has lost popularity, I'd say that it's been moving that way for some time and that's mostly a good thing. Devaluing families that don't fit this mold as unworthy doesn't benefit anyone other than those who want to hijack "family values" as a way of supporting their own demagoguery. This is one of those phrases I think it would be nice to redefine to better reflect our society rather than trying to force those who don't fit it into a mold that doesn't work for them. But that's another discussion.

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

JumpinJesus

I'm trying to figure out what's going on with this thread....
Am I to understand that there are women who want to be treated as damsels in distress and are waiting for a knight in shining armor?

I find this romanticization of bygone eras fascinating for we do it with selective memory. As for chivalry, there were many reasons for its existence and I don't think women - or men - would be too eager to bring back all that chivalry encompassed.

I'm of the mindset that we should put down all our romance books filled with gossamer petticoats, ripped bodices, and Fabio and return to the real world.

Now, common courtesy is something I can endorse...but I find that many people lamenting the demise of common courtesy are as guilty of its demise as those they accuse of lacking it.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

Gilda

A reasonable response. Those last two are essentially the same . The term, by the way, for someone whose gender identity matches her phenotype sex is cisgendered, with genetic, and natal meaning nearly the same thing with very slight differences.

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

SugahBritches

Hey Gilda. Always a pleasure.

Now before we get into a big blown out discussion on traditional issues, I could have easily did that with words like abuse, abortion, work ethics, social services, etc, etc, etc. But, I was explaining only in that the "family" has fallen apart. Meaning in that most children in our society no longer have two parents to raise them. And I'm not saying that one parent can't raise children. I've seen many one parent families making it. But, because of the economny in today's society, it takes two parents working to make it or at least be comfortable.

The great thing about two parents is often they bring to the family two sides of a story. And it's even more rare to find two parents with the same kind of common back ground. For example: I am from a family of some documented heritage. Meaning they are LARGE with many uncles, aunts and cousins on BOTH my faternal and maternal sides. Now the Boss (my husband) is adopted and from a single parent home---atleast since the age of 6 yrs. My children experienced that families are not always two parent. Even though they experienced a two parent family.

**in her Lucy voice** "Was that enough ex'plaaain' Ricky?????"

But, as you say....that's another discussion.

Gilda

Thanks. I have no problem with the idea that two good parents are generally better for a child than one.

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

Carno

I admit my first several posts were invidious and I probably didn't need to add so much, uhh... flair, but now I really can't believe what I am reading, and I would like to understand this better.

SugahBritches - please clarify for me your exact position, without talking about your youth (where did that even come from, and how is it relevant?). You actually want to revert to the time when women were thought of as the weaker sex, incapable of taking care of themselves? You would prefer it that there is no sex equality and women are expected to stay in the kitchen and cook until the man comes home from work? You want men to place women on a pedestal, to be treated like objects and not as human beings, capable of taking charge of their own lives? You would prefer it if your sole purpose in life were to show gratitude to men who would treat you as less than a whole person? That is truly astounding to me.

I do nice things for my SO because I love her and I think she deserves them. I treat her well by virtue of who she is, not what she is. Not because I think she is a glass doll who needs to be protected from the harsh realities of life. I would like to protect her from bad things not because I think she is incapable of handling them, but because I love her and want to see her happy. I have no obligation to treat her well, I do it freely of my own accord. I don't try to do right by her because a medieval concept tells me to, I do it because I want to do it.

I am actually offended for all of the women who fought for equal rights. They would roll over in their graves if they read this thread. To think that some women would like to throw all that progress away simply because they want guys to hold doors open and pull out chairs is truly disturbing. I am glad that I found a woman who realizes that she is a human being and who understands that she should be treated well, not simply because she is a woman, but because she is a wonderful human being.

__________________
http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

Willravel

I think the "weaker sex" thing isn't relevant to chivalry as it is described in this thread. I think that "wearker, sexually" is more apt. Men compete for women. Women might put on makeup and wear uncomfotable heels, but more often than not the man auditions for the woman, not the other way around. How do we compete? Well, in many ways. One of those ways is the preferential treatment of old. Is it bad? No, not unless you treat them like they're less than human. I'm not threatening a woman's right to vote or to be paid equal wages by standing when she leaves or comes back to the dinner table. I'm treating her with respect, and that is something to be admired, not critically subjected to odd assosciations with sexism. Wehn I open a door for my wife, I do so with the full knowledge that she could have opened the door herself. She's quite strong. I do so because I love her dearly. I do so because the act of opening a door for a woman communicates respect, admiration, and even attraction (in certian cases). It's like singing her a song or writing her a poem, but not as embarassing. Am I endangering her gender? Pfft. When I open doors for women I don't know, at the store, at church, at school, I do so out of respect. I doubt any of them walk through the door thinking, "That asshole disrepects my gender!" I'm sure they simply appreciate the gesture.

ShaniFaye

I have thought about my response to this for two days now, and I still cant get it out of my head right.

I have the greatest respect for the women of the past who fought for things such as our right to vote, equal pay for an equal job...stuff like that. I have long disliked the "bra burning, we dont men for anything" equal rights campainers, because whereas I know I am "capable", I know I was not engineered with the same kinds of physical strength a guy was...my upper body can barely deal with the weight of my tits, let alone open a stubborn pickle jar....so you're damned right Im gonna ask a male to do it. Does that mean that I dont think there is a woman out there that cant do it, but I dont at all feel guilty about asking a man.

I personally am weaker than most men I know...physically that is. I have no problem and no qualms asking a man to carry something that I just cant, open a jar or bottle that my hands just wont let me do. I have no problem at all leaning on a man to do some things for me. I am not one that thinks Im invincible just because Im female.

My parents taught me to help those that need it, whether it be male or female, child or adult, old or young. When I see another person struggling in a store or parking lot or wherever....their gender makes no difference to me. Im going to offer assistance and not just pass them by.

To me its not at all hard to see courtesy as a by product of Chilvary. This is the knights code of Chivalry and Im sorry I dont see one word in here that denotes its only to females...

I think a lot of people in the world today could stand to live by this

oh...and I will keep my bodice ripping, throbbing manhood books thank you very much...they are more entertaining than any shoot em up video game I've ever seen.

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

Lady Sage

Knights of the old times were required to learn things OTHER than the art of war and how to wage it. They also had to learn to do things such as play instruments, write poetry or play chess.

__________________
If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
Minds are like parachutes, they function best when open.
It`s Easier to Change a Condom Than a Diaper
Yes, the rumors are true... I actually AM a Witch.

Gilda

I agree with this for the most part, but I think maybe the knights weren't polite in exchange for sexual favors. I rather doubt that a man expecting sexual favors in the medievil settings in which the chivalry code first developed would be so inclined to take "No" for an answer, nor that women were likely to have seen it as their right to decline. Many people of both sexes at the time would have seen women as baby factories, maids, and a life support system for a vagina rather than a whole person.

It's helpful to understand where the specific codes that go with chivalry come from. Some are derived from religious traditions, while others come from, strange as it may seem, practical adaptations to the differences between the sexes as they existed and functioned at the time they began. A great many cultural norms developed as a practical adaptation that fit a particular time but remain or are applied in an overly general manner after the conditions that led to their development no longer persist.

Let's take two of these that seem like silly formal courtesies: Opening/closing a car door and holding a lady's chair for her. Now they seem like quaint leftovers of a formal code that no longer applies, but at the time they developed, they were reasonable accommodations to existing sex roles.

Why should a man open a lady's car car door for her when she is getting in and out of the car? Certainly women are capable of doing this for themselves without any hardship, correct? Of course, but at the time that this tradition originated, this was not so. It actually predates cars. For centuries, the main mode of travel was horse drawn wagons, and women in Western cultures were routinely expected to wear long dresses and a couple of pounds of foundation garments underneath to give them the right shape. Women are also on average four to five inches shorter than men. Stepping into a wagon seat or even a carriage often involved a big step up, while wearing a long dress with a full set of undergarments. As a result, it became the man's resposibility to climb in first and aid the lady in getting in, which would have been somewhat more difficult due to the differences in height and manner of dress.

Now, what does this have to do with cars? Cars replaced carriages, and the eariliest cars still had high step ins and women still tended to wear full dresses all the time, and particularly when going somewhere that would require a car. Thus, it was partly an exptension of an existing norm and partly an adaptation to practical matters.

As we extend into the 40's and 50's, some things have changed, but others have not. The idea that it's good to help a woman into a car persists as formal courtesy, and is still in part a product of practical differences in sex roles of the times. Cars are lower to the ground, and women are wearing pants far more often and even dresses have changed from full, long garments with a bunch of underskirts and fewer, though still extensive, foundation garments, but you'll still find women wearing dresses and skirts most of the time. Men tended to be the ones who bought drove cars, with wives and daughters driving less often and sometimes not at all, a combination of economics (most families had one car) and a persistence of the idea that women were inherently less capable drivers than men.

So we have a young couple going out for the night. It will be the boy or the man driving because that was seen as his responsibility. The lady he's picking up will very likely be wearing a dress, nylons, and high heels, resulting in a somewhat restricting degree of mobility especially compared to the male. She'll very likely be carrying a purse. Purses have become less prominent as a female accessory of late, but at the time every woman carried one full of feminine necessities. When she gets to the car, she needs to navigate entry.

First, we have the door. Doors in 40's and 50's cars were heavy, not as well balanced as today, and latched a bit differently. If not very well maintained, it can take quite a bit of a yank to get the door open and even more to get it closed and latched tightly and safely. Differences in physical strength play a part here.

Getting into a car in a dress/skirt is somewhat different than in a pair of pants. If the way my brother gets in and out is any indication, guys tend to just step in with one foot, flop down on the seat, and bring the other in following, often closing the door at the same time. If you're wearing a dress, especially if you live in an era when you've had emphasized how important it is for a lady to keep her knees together, it works differently. You face away from the seat, sit down with your bottom on the seat, smothing the skirt underneath you with one hand to keep it from bunching up, and either bracing yourself or navigating your purse with the other, your knees facing out, then swivel your whole body, being careful to keep the heels clear and not to snag your nylons on anything as you get in.

Of course, all of this is possible even without help--I do it every day--but having someone there to take care of the door, especially one that is heavy and stiff and difficult to close, is a big help.

Now, you could say that the way women were expected to dress was in part a means of reinforcing their status as less than men, and that was, I believe, part of it, that the expected heels and long skirts and foundation garments in part created the image of fragility, but there was more to it as it originated than simply mean help women because they're women.

Now, as we get into the restaurant, we see the "holding the chair" aspect of this. Keep in mind that, for a very long time, women wore long dresses routinely, and that for nicer restaurants and other events where dressing very nicely is expected, dresses and heels are still routinel expected. Arranging a dress so that it remains comfortable and attractive, without the skirt riding up behind you or bunching up takes a bit more attention than it does in pants. Generally the best way to keep things neat, unbunched, and flat is to perch on the edge of the chair and slide your bottom backwards into the chair, lightly lifting yourself a bit as you do so, or to adapt the car entry method by sitting sideways (if there are no arms) and rotating. The problem here is that you end up a little back from the table, so you need to scoot the chair in following, and doing so in heels is a bit more difficult than in flat shoes. It's a tad bit different with a skirt and top combo, but not enough so as to require a separate description. By far the most convenient method that allows for arranging the skirt attractively and comfortably and modestly is to have a second person slide the chair underneath you as you sit down into it. Helping a woman with her chair originated not simply in response to physical sex, but as an adaptation to how men and women dressed differently.

Now let's imagine that you're teaching a young man proper manners for taking his girlfriend out on a date. Teaching him to open the car door for her and hold her chair is a way of showing him how to make things a bit easier and more pleasant for her, and functions as a way of compensating for her having to wear clothes that are a bit less comfortable, far less practical, and that make negotiating routine obstacles like entering and exiting cars and chairs at the restaurant a little less awkward for her. Would it be taught in all the detail I go into above? Of course not. Likely he was just taught that behaving in this manner towards a woman is polite, and that it would make her feel more comfortable. The underlying reasons have largely (though not entirely) melted away while the idea that these are good manners has not.

This is a classic example of something that happens a lot during cultural evolution. An idea that springs from a practical aspect of the society as it existed at the time become attached to more than one facet of society and remains in place long after the circumstances that produced it have changed.

In the case of the two forms of courtesy towards women that I outlined above, there are actually two elements to it, let's call these A (status) and B (circumstances). When A and B exist as a one-to-one relationship, any adaptation to circumstance B will naturally come to be associated with the status A of the people in circumstance B. This association can be so strong that even when circumstance B changes or is no longer applicable, the assicated behavior/cultural norm remains attached to status A, even when it did not originate there.

Apply this to entering a wagon/car. Take sex out of it entirely, and say it is polite to help the person who is shorter, not as physically strong, who is wearing a long dress, or in the more modern scenario, a dress, heels, and nylons and carrying a purse. That would be accurate, but since this person being described was always the woman, it was quicker and easier to teach it as "hold the car door for women," and while those conditions existed, just as accurate. Circumstances have changed such that it isn't accurate any longer, so many may look at this and think it's silly to hold a car door for a woman who is perfectly capable of opening and closing it for herself. This is true.

It doesn't, however, mean we should abandon the concept of helping someone who may need a little help to make things a bit easier for him or her, entirely when circumstances are similar enough that the same principle applies. When Grace and I went out to dinner for our anniversary the other night, she held my chair for me as I sat down into it, obviously not because of anything having to do with sex, given that there was no man involved, but because that is something that is somewhat difficult for me, and I was grateful for the help because it made a potentially difficult and awkward moment easier for me. When she sat down, the gentleman who escorted us to our table helped seat her because that's how it works in nice restaurants.

Abandoning "chivalry" doesn't mean abandoning courtesy or ignoring reality. Help people who need help for whatever reason. Hold doors for them, carry packages, open jars, whatever. Give up your seat to someone who might be in more need of it than you.

Of course we should treat the sexes equally, but this does not mean treating everyone the same. Accounting for individual differences and treating people in an accordingly dignified and respectful manner is perfectly appropriate, even when the traits that lead you to help someone are sex-linked traits, which can produce the appearance of showing a bias based on sex that is instead based on practical considerations.

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

SugahBritches

Carno, please return to my original post and read it. Actually, just read WillRavel's last post here. He has actually hit the nail on the head as far as man's response.

My stories are a glimpse in my childhood and who I am. If I tell a story, for a grin or a smile, and noones in the mood for it, I suggest you skim over it. And no, you wouldn't hurt my feelings one bit.

ShaniFaye, you are a gem girl!! You have it too! And you go right ahead and read those books darlin'!! Ain't a thing wrong with reading. Hell, maybe I'll read one! Since I have been accused of reading them anyway, which one do you suggest and I'll run to the library tomorrow???!!!

Maybe I didn't express myself well. Maybe a few missed the boat because they were distracted by the ship? Maybe my youth stories confuse the masses? **shrugs her shoulders** I don't know. I do know that many in this thread "got the idea/concept" while others wanted to address other issues that are still going on today. In other words, it was a simple concept in a confusing world.

Gilda

There's a problem here with denotative and conotative meanings with the word "expect" in relationship to behavior.

Denotatively, it generally means "predicted outcome/behavior". Conotatively, it can be value neutral, meaning simply "predicted behavior," it can carry the additional qualitative meaning "desired outcome/behavior," or even the stronger "requiered behavior."

When I'm approaching the building where my office or classes are held, if there is a young man arriving shortly before me I expect him to hold the door for me. If I'm carrying several large or heavy things, I expect an offer to carry one or more of them for me, which I am happy to accept.

Now, is this an expectation based on sex? In part yes, but it's an expectation based not on what I think a young man should be required to do, but on experience. I expect it for the same reason I expect it to rain when it's cloudy and misty, because experience tells me that's what often happens. I'm not going to be upset with him if he doesn't help me with the door or my books and things, but I am going to be pleased if he does, not because it's something I think he should do based on his and my relative sexes, but because it's something that is going to make an inconvenient task easier.

I specify the guys because women are less likely to hold the door or to offer to carry my things for me, and that's ok. I'm still pleased when they do, but not upset when they don't.

On the other hand, I expect my students to come to class and to be on time. These are expectations based on what I desire and think students should do, not so much what I think they will do.

I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging the general differences between men and women. Asking my brother to open a jar for me rather than my sister isn't sexist any more than it is when I ask Grace, it's acknowledging that he's stronger than she is.

I expect my students to come to class and be there on time. In this context, I mean that as in it's a behavior that is required based on status and based on which I evaluate them. My expectations in this area are sex neutral, as nearly all such expectations should be.

I do expect people to treat me with courtesy and respect, but this is because I expect everyone to do so. Likewise, I treat everyone with courtesy as a means of showing my respect for them as people, regardless of sex.

Gilda

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

SugahBritches

I'll be honest here Gilda. As I said earlier, even I have come to the terms that I don't expect chivalry, but when it does come (like in my story of my purse) I find it so refreshing!

And it's not only that. Any type of curtesey, seems to almost wake you up from a dull sleep. And you know what? It's almost like a surprise. A gift given without asking for it.

Common curtesey should be that. A gift given without the giver asking for it.

I'm going to rest now. I think I've pretty much ran this one word in the ground!

G' KNIGHT folks!

Hehehehe...

Gilda

I agree that the courtesy is nice, but I'd like it to come as a result of someone choosing to do something nice for me as a person rather than out of a sense of obligation based on sex, but because I can't read minds, I choose to be gracious in accepting the courtesy regardless of the motive behind it.

Gilda

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

Carno

The problem that I have with chivalry is that it either demeans women, or it perpetuates a hideous double standard. We have all these women asking why men aren't chivalrous anymore, but how come nobody asks why women aren't chivalrous? Is it because they are already perfect creatures, or is it because they are incapable of following the rigorous code of chivalry?

Under chivalry, the knight would go around doing knightly things and then return to the castle to report to the ladies all that he had done. It was then up to the ladies to accept the knight's deeds and praise him, or reject the knight and possibly send him on a dangerous mission as penance. This tells us that women are the moral custodians of chivalry and implies that they can do no wrong. Chivalry could then be an acknowledgement of women as being our moral superiors, and therefore deserving of being placed on a pedestal.

But maybe it's not that. Maybe chivalry is doing things for women because they need male assistance. Maybe chivalrous behavior is required, because women are not as capable of doing things as men. Maybe they are less agentic, and men have to do it for them.

Why should men be burdened with this code of conduct when women are not expected to follow it? Women are not incapable, and women are not morally superior, so why continue to use the word that implies one of those two things? Why not just have common courtesy, where everyone is expected to be polite?

__________________
http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

SugahBritches

Forget the knighthood for just a moment.

What women are we talking about? Those that already don't want part of any male help and want to be independent from them?

Women are not superior to men. They can't even come close if it is physical. Intelligently, maybe. In some game or sports, maybe. What group of women are you talking about? There are as many groups of women in this country as men. Many with their own aspects of the way women should be or expected to be. From BOTH SEXES.

And as we have already posted, not everyone has common courtesy or at least shows it all the time. This meaning men and women.

Women of my generation like the thought of independence. We do. However, because of motherhood, working, taking the kids to dance, ball practice, keeping the husband happy, etc.......often like to think that we are cherrished and loved.

I have been married for over 26 yrs. Marriage is not something to scoff at. Sometimes it takes work, devotion, patience and love (from BOTH parties). As I said in my last post to Gilda, it's not that I ask for it or even demand it, I don't. But, when it is given, without bitterness or thoughts of how issues concerning what society thinks of women or the movement of movements, that is when it is most appreciated. Given without any attachments expected back.


Maybe I have my answer Carno. Maybe chivalry no longer exsists. At least until the next time a gallant gentlemen comes to my rescue in my time of need. Heh. Hey JJ!!! Hand me a pen, will ya! I might try my hand at writing some romance novels! They say it only takes a "creative" mind. Heh.


PS.........Deltona, you owe me BIG TIME BUDDY!!!! Jeeze.

Carno

What does that have to do with chivalry?

You don't really understand what chivalry is and what it encompasses and what the implications of it are. Chivalry is men doing things and women validating those actions. That's the basic concept of it. The man does the deeds and the woman acknowledges that he did the right thing. Women expect men to do the "chivalrous" thing and hold the door open, and men expect the acknowledgement that he did the "chivalrous" thing.

That is not the same as a man holding the door open for someone to be nice, and the other person expressing appreciation. That's just common courtesy. It's common courtesy to hold the door, and it's common courtesy to express appreciation.

Hopefully chivalry is dead, but long live common courtesy.

__________________
http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

Supple Cow

This thread really makes me want to vomit. Did I wander into Stepford? Are you real, SugahBritches?

All I am reading here from the "ladies" defending "chivalry" is a bunch of aimless, self-contradictory rambling. The OP was about "chivalry" and there were two things that happened - people disagreed over whether the word 'chivalry' was appropriate for what the OP was referring to, and people disagreed over whether one should expect certain behaviors from others people based on sex. The disturbing thing that surfaced is that there apparently exists a cavalcade of women who don't live in reality and are prepared to do as much whining as necessary to try and drag everybody else into Fabioland.

Please for the love of reality STOP IT. This is extremely distasteful to me personally, and I have a feeling some other people who have posted in here would agree, but they are not as determined to march the march of bannination that this thread has driven me to. This makes me wish I had never posted in the Ladies Lounge and never defended its existence in personal discussions I've had with various moderators.

This kind of thing is exactly what I think went wrong with the women's movement. This is what 'keeps us down'. The women's movement wasn't about claiming our right to be irrational, entitled creatures. Nobody has that right. For the sake of brevity, I'll leave out what I think about the implication that Fabio books are for girls and shooting games are for boys. Let me just take the statement and point out exactly what the problem is:

When people play video games and go on murderous rampages, they don't for a moment delude themselves into thinking this is real life, that they will ever do this or that they should ever hope to be able to do it outside of the video game. When women read novels that star Fabio and watch Sleepless in Seattle over and over again, they start to think they can go around acting like the world owes them something. And it's not just anything - it's a whole lot of ridiculous behavior that has no place in reality. Sure, that's kind of the definition of romance, and romance is peachy, but romance doesn't pay bills and romance doesn't raise the kids and romance sure has hell doesn't give you self respect or fulfillment all by itself.

Everytime I hear some woman complain about how hard it is to be a woman, I just wonder to myself if it really is as hard as she says it is or if maybe she's just expecting a little too much out of everyone and everything but herself. Most of the time it's the latter. The ones for whom life really is that hard don't usually have the time or resources to be watching You've Got Mail or reading about that swashbuckling Fabio.

__________________
"I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty-six times I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."
(Michael Jordan)

SugahBritches

Very good!
That is correct.

At least we agree on one of the two.

jorgelito

I think people are confusing chivalry and common courtesy....

Nothing wrong with either. I don't see how chivalry is bad. We don't live in medieval times and I see chivalry as being, well, common courtesy. SO what's the problem here? Why all the anger? What does gender have to do with any of this?

I'm chivalrous. I hold the door for everyone and give up my seat for anyone who looks like they could use it (chicks with kids, the elderly, both genders).

I was in crutched for two weeks this spring and not once did anyone ever give up their seat on the bus for me (I'm a guy if it matters). I think chivalry is dead cause people are just rude these days and too selfish.

Hey I've got a good story of this lady who was chivalrous. I was trying ro cross the street carrying 7 12-packs of soda (they were on sale). Halfway across, the bags broke and I dropped them. Then the light changed. but my goodness, a heroine appeared out of nowhere (an old lady at that - some chick in her 40-50s) and helped me gather up the sodas and actually helped carry them back with me all the way back to my apartment (half a mile away).

I see that as chivalrous. People are against this? People are against people helping each other and being courteous?

Carno

That is not chivalry, that is common courtesy.

They are NOT the same thing. Yes, her actions were chivalrous, but that is still not chivalry, because chivalry was only meant to apply to men.

__________________
http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

Supple Cow

No, I think people are just against using the word 'chivalry' for 'courtesy' because what you are talking about is not chivalry.

__________________
"I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty-six times I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."
(Michael Jordan)

Gonth

I have to agree with Carno here. In my mind chivalry and common courtesy are two very different things.

When you were helped at the store, SugahBritches, the man did not help you because he was chivalrous, he did it because he was a nice guy. In your eyes this may be seen as chivalry but I'd bet you a whole lot o' money that he didn't see it that way.

This might be the reason for all the seeming negativity in this thread? If so its kinda sad that so many of us are getting so bent out of shape over so small a thing. Thats the reason for this forum no? To have debates about interesting topics and not get bent out of shape?

I don't know, just seems like people are getting really angry about this. Which is somewhat amusing because we are talking about being courteous to people. Come on folks, relax a bit. :P

__________________
You are the most important person in your world

JumpinJesus

I don't think people are getting angry. I think people are trying to figure out why some of us want to return to days gone by using some romantic notion of how men should act towards women based upon a culture that was highly misogynistic.

We have to wonder whether the OP either 1) didn't know the difference between chivalry and common courtesy or 2) knew the difference but didn't think it would cause this much of a commotion.

No one is arguing that people shouldn't treat each other with courtesy. We are arguing that the idea of men acting in such a fashion seems to require women acting in an obsequious manner. In this regard, this flies in the face of equality and of everything women fought for in the ongoing quest for equality.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

Halx

Where I come from, women get offended or suspicious if you go out of your way to help them.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Ustwo

Chivalry died when women got the right to vote.

Do you want to be equal or do you want to be objects?

Now someone make me a sammich.

Whoever made the comparison was incorrect.

Romance novels are to girls what penthouse is to boys (at least in the days before the internet).

Its porn in 'girl form', nothing more.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Gonth

I would just like to say that I am a 20 year old male and I thoroughly enjoy supernatural romance books. Christine Feehan is awesome. Actually, I'd say its better than porn, but porn is quicker, and if I want to get off I'm usually too lazy to read.

Continue on with the thread.

__________________
You are the most important person in your world

spectre

I'm with JJ, Carno, and everyone else arguing that chivalry and courtesy are two different things. I hold the door for people, be it a man or a woman. I'll help just about anyone, but I won't do it just because it's a woman, I do it because I should do it, not because some antiquated moral code tells me I should look down on someone else as being weaker than me and cannot handle anything on their own.

Common courtesy is something we need a lot more of these days. When I had to go around on a cane a couple months ago, there were a good number of people, both men and women, who would hold the door for me because they saw me with the cane and a heavy backpack, trying to get around. I always appreciated that a lot, but there were a few that actually let the door swing back to smack into me, again, both men and women.

Why's it such a big deal to have people be courteous to everyone because they want to instead of to only half of the population because of some archaic and demeaning moral code?

(I'm moving this to general discussion because I think it's better suited for in there, and I like all of the attention it's gotten so far, so let's bring in an even bigger crowd for it)

__________________
"Fuck these chains
No goddamn slave
I will be different" ~ Machine Head

Toaster126

Wage comparisons don't take into account the fact that men in general work more hours, work more dangerious jobs, don't take maternity leave \ have more uninterupted time at work, have more experience, and put up with more inconvienences as far as things like scheduling. Not to mention entering, leaving, and reentering the workforce.

__________________
"The question isn't who is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me." (Ayn Rand)
"The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers." (M. Scott Peck)

aKula

Though they're both similar words I'd use the word gallantry rather than chivalry. Chivalry has more to do with the moral code of knights. Cervantes' masterpiece shows the foolhardiness in trying to live by such a code due to romantic notions drawn from fictional works. As for gallantry (I'm speaking of the treatment of women in a differential and courtly manner by opening doors etc.) any notion that this behaviour is required is also clearly archaic.

__________________
"I am the wrath of God. The earth I pass will see me and tremble." -Klaus Kinski as Don Lope de Aguirre

analog

I almost pissed my pants, I laughed so hard.

I agree that there is a HUGE difference between common courtesy and chivalry.

Common courtesy: Awesome. Common courtesy is good for absolutely everyone.

Chivalry pretty much requires that women are treated (at the very least) as lesser people, in need of men's help. Archaic.

ShaniFaye

Never having seen either of the movies you mentioned in your post Im not sure what meaning Im supposed to take.

Supple Cow, I'd like to know how you can sit there and tell me that when I read a romance book I am deluding myself. How does my chosen form of entertainment (and yes I back up what Ustwo said....its my version of porn because looking at pictures of any naked person doesnt get me going, the written word DOES). How does my reading a romance book differ than reading Harry Potter, or whatever? THATS WHY ITS CALLED FICTION, it is escapism, I'm a highly intelligent woman that knows the difference between a work of fiction and real life....and you can sit there and say all day long you cant compare video games and romance books, but I will argue with you all day long. They are both something thats fun, something that lets you forget about the "real world" for just a little while, something that allows you to forget real world "rules" while you're indulging in it....it does not necessarily mean that anyone that partakes in it is delusional and I highly resent the implication that because I prefer that kind of entertainment I am less of a woman. Playing video games where you rule the world and blow things up doesnt pay the bills or raise kids or give you self respect either now does it? But yet thats ok?

Out of curiosity, do you think all books are bad? Do you think every person that reads any kind of book is deluding themselves because its not "real life". Or is it just romance readers you have a problem with?

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

maleficent

Roast beef on rye OK?

__________________

Sultana

I imagine that, in part at least, Chivalry was an overstated and perhaps blown out of porportion (sp?) version of courtesy, because there was very little gentleness towards women in the days of yore, which did contribute to modern civilization. Gilda's excellent post illustrated the plain ole non-inherently physical (could I possibly say it less eloquently?!?) differences women experienced, what with the gigantic dresses and all. I think theadoption of the ideals of chivalry helped in part to build the foundation for today's "Common Courtesy". It was an exaggerated form for that society. Remember that Chivalry, as a concept, did not deal only with the treament of women. It was a code of conduct for a specific class of men, and for those who aspired to that class--and being able to change one's class was a very new concept in the Middle Ages.

I also agree with aKula's input regarding gallantry--it's a good point. Thanks!

It's all in one's point of view. For example, one could look at the crazy (at least to our modern mind) restrictive clothing women wore all through history, and one could view it as A) A rediculous affectation to illustrate women's simple-minded devotion to fashion and impressing/attracting the opposite sex, or as B) A form of domination by men over women to keep them helpless and weak.

Hell, I look at what's on the runway today and wonder: WTF? But it's selling (or variations anyways, dependant on one's modern societal "class"), and there's still a reason for that. Join me in the revolt against the "Skinny Pant" this season! If you are not with me, you are against me!

__________________
"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath.
At night, the ice weasels come." -

Matt Groening

My goal? To fulfill my potential.

Lady Sage

It isnt about treting women as lesser objects... its about treating women as the givers of life most men cant live without.

__________________
If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
Minds are like parachutes, they function best when open.
It`s Easier to Change a Condom Than a Diaper
Yes, the rumors are true... I actually AM a Witch.

Ustwo

Yes with brown mustard AND mayo.

Umm sorry but what the hell does that even mean? Because you have a uterus I should get the car door for you? This seems to be getting into the female goddess territory, which is just silly in my book.

Any healthy female can give birth, be it a rodent or a human, but only the special ones get to make me a sammich.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

warrrreagl

No, my dear, you're not. And you're living in the most perfect place in the world for it, too. That is, until we finally have enough Northern invaders come here and force what THEY want down our throats. Not only do they want chivalry dead where they live, they also feel obligated to kill it in places that is none of their freakin business.

My father would slap the side of my head if he ever saw Grancey have to open a door for herself. And for those who don't understand what's going on, just ask Grancey who truly has the power in that situation. The art of chivalry is very subtle and often lost on the stubborn and thick-minded.

And here, too, is the rub. If I were to travel to your parts, I would keep that in mind, adjust my behavior accordingly, and not make it my personal crusade to ram MY chivalry down the throats of someone else's neighborhood. All we ask down here is the same reciprocal courteousy. When in Rome....

__________________
Living is easy with eyes closed.

maleficent

so women should be put on a pedastal because they can pop out babies? surely you can't be serious...

So if a woman doesn't have children either by choice or by chance... then are they lesser then women who do?

__________________