Chivalry: Another lost art?
 

And it might just go out with our generation Deltona. I think it was heading there at the beginning of our generation actually.

Here is the definition of chivalry: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=chivalry

Since we are now in a more modern world I guess the meaning of the word chivalry would come close to this now:

A few other words that were attached to chivalry were words like, gallantry, honor, generosity, bravery and valor.

I have found that there is one form of service that actually still practices this, and it's the Marines. And I'm sure some of the other services might, but because I have a son-in-law that is in the Marines, I've seen first hand how gallant, courageous and brave these men are. And they still practice such polite manners that most society never uses anymore.

I'm not sure if it was just the womens liberation that solely changed this ideal that women were to be treated equally. I think most of these changes are not really related to either man or woman. You have to remember that technology has been the fasted moving change that has really boomed in the last 50 yrs and is only moving faster. We have become more dependent on technology than any other living source other than water and food.

I personally find it very nice that a young man will open a door for another woman or young lady. But, it's very rare that you see a man/gentleman let a lady have his seat in a doctor's office or any other type of waiting area so she can sit. This is a prime example of chivalry. I think we all play a part in politeness. And I think that is becoming rare in not only women, men.........but in our own children. My children still say, "Yes ma'am/no ma'am/yes sir/no sir." I still practice this myself. Polite manners are just one of the many things that both sexes should practice.

But, now I find that the old fashioned word, such as chivalry, is not considered something in a young man's dictionary. The best model a young girl can have is a father that opens the door for her mother, or classmate who gallantly takes the arm of a young girl at a football homecoming game from having to walk on the field alone because her date didn't show up, or an older gentleman that still has the love in his eyes and the utmost respect for a wife of over 65 yrs at their wedding anniversary by seating her first, pushing in her chair, and then sits himself.

Oh, you say, "But, that happens today." Does it? Maybe it does. Maybe young men are showing respect to their mothers because they had fathers that showed their mothers respect. I know some of you men, or even women, are saying women should be showing respect, I totally agree! And that would be what ladies are to do also. **smirkes**

But, this is about chivalry. It all started a long time ago. Where men were gallant, brave, courageous, courteous, and noble. Is it just that? An old fashioned word for another era gone by? And men should now look at women like themselves---same counterparts? Oh man, I hope this never happens!! LOL! I kinda like smelling different, being softer.........being FEMALE. I'm sorry guys and dolls....but I WANT to be different from men! I want to be held by a strong arm, I like that he smells different from me! I even like that he can be stronger than me. And if I cry, I WANT him to tell me it's okay and hold me while I do. AND that even though I cry, he doesn't think it's a display of my weakness nor does he care but only knows that I just need comforting...........and takes great pride in knowing I am different from him and he finds that he loves this difference in me.

Chivalry. Who practices that anymore? Is it just another lost art that was practiced back through the past? What are your comments to the word chivalry?

I practice it daily. Though I do believe it to be a dying art.

What about courtesy towards men? Women are all about equality right? Who's going to hold my door open? Fuck chivalry. It's an outdated concept that should no longer be followed, because women are not princesses. They should not be held up on a pedestal, because they are not any better than men. If women want men to follow the code of chivalry, then women had better get back in the damn kitchen and do nothing except look pretty for guys, because that's what they did in the Middle Ages and chivalry is a medieval concept.


I do, however, practice common courtesy everyday.

Ancient Chivalry was reputed to be about the weak protecting the strong, the rich the poor, the educated the unenlghtened, and so on.

By that definition, I try to practice chivalry a lot - I try to help them weaker than me in resorces, in intilect, in training.

I also open doors for women.

:D

I do not practice it I live it. I'm honest about everything; I'm loyal, dependable, responsible and respectful. I believe the problem is people have not given up on the chivalry but moreso the idea of respect; too many people in this world seem to believe that respect can be demanded rather then earned;however, all of these qualities make me a nice guy... which means I still lose in the end.

If chivalry isn't dead yet, I hope it dies very soon.

Gilda

I think Karno hit the nail on the head. I find that most women are pretty rude towards men and expect alot of unreasonable things. Like they can hit a man for being rude and its fine. I think they get away with alot simply because they are women. I think equal rights has gone a little far and women can get away with pretty much anything just because they are women.

But personaly I start out polite to everyone I meet and depending on how you treat me may change how I act towards you. I love doing things for my woman though, I will open all her doors, I will stand on the side closest to traffic so that she doesn't have to. Stuff like that.

I practice Bushido. It's like chivalry with katanas.

Chivalry is dead-- And women killed it.

I know I cant be the only woman in the world that appreciates things like that

Of course you appreciate it, who wouldn't? Women don't have to do anything other than have a twat between their legs and then they can expect men to do things for them. Sounds pretty good to me.

Yeesh. You kiss your mother with that mouth?

Also, where else would a 'twat' be located?

Im trying really hard not to be offended by that comment


Its not working

Hey guys, let's keep it civil in here. ^^V

I believe the issue with chivalry is that it is not uniformly accepted. One might practice chilvarous behavior with his ex girlfriend and be rewarded by a thank you and such, however, with another girl, practicing chivalry may end up getting him scolded. Thus, for us men, who know when to practice it, and when not to?

Personally, I like to do it, the majority of women I have gone out with appreciate it. It's nothing serious, less of an "I think guys should protect/provide for girls" than a "sweet something."

My 2 cents.

I practice it from time to time. And by that, I mean that I forget to do so most of the time. Like opening doors for gals, I forget to do that all the time. In fact, I'm learning to appreciate having gals open the door for me. There also seems to be this subtle race to the door...

Lately, I've noticed that in the work place, some people don't practice it if it's part of a woman's job. Like this one time I was working in a warehouse, none of the gals want you to lift anything for them, unless it's too heavy for just one person. This one gal in particular, every time she asked me to move a large package (which happened to be the heaviest things I've ever had to lift), it was so hard for her to ask. Like she was asking if she could borrow my car and keep it.

On the other hand, when I was working in the mall, this one gal was recently promoted from secretary to a manager. She saw me pass by the office and asked if I could help her move her effects to her new office. Now all her stuff was in a box that was smaller than a micowave, and it held 2 mugs, a few pens, some hand lotion, and a box of tissue with a pink knitted cover on it. Sure, she could have carried it herself in one hand, but I had a moment, so I "helped" her out.

The whole "who opens the door" thing seems laughable today and you really need to take that issue in the context of the 60's and 70's. Small civil gestures (not to be confused with "Chivalry") were routinely accorded to the "weaker sex". In order to confront the entire patriarchal society within which women lived, baby steps were necessary. I am capable was addressed in so many small ways that eventually led to serious changes in the treatment of women where it mattered most; economically, politically, educational opportunities, and entry into a much broader range of job market opportunities. And yet, women still earn less than men with the same qualifications, for the same job.

Is there a single woman here at tfp that personally fought for the equal treatment of women? Is there a single woman here that would trade the progress of women's rights since the 60's-70's, for the "chivalry" of an opened door?"

I can't believe so much is now being taken for granted by the young women of the current generation. The petulance of the young men that don't believe they are shown sufficient respect by women is another surprise. Dayum, people, you get what you give.

I honestly do not see much self-respect, and rarely mutual respect, among many of the members of tfp. Well, this post has likely pissed off everyone. A deserving response to the OP, in my opinion.

Women are not women anymore. They are men with a vagina. That is what we are taught. Thank you womens rights parade you ruined the fun of being different sexes. Now it's just fucking and who gets to wash the dishes after sunday dinner.

Womens rights say women are equal but then you look at these things.

open the door for us
we want different sports
we want to get more free money for college
we want to get hired instead of men

I say unisex bathrooms. Dress like 1984 Macintosh commercial. If we're gonna do it let's do it all the way. LETS BE EQUAL

This is what I hear from the news and from some women. I have also heard women I know say 'men are just better than women' which shocked me and I don't fully agree with. I would like it to be where women do what they are meant to do and men do what they are meant to do. If you're thinking "well what do you think men and women are meant to do?" I think they are meant to do what they did up until 1960's America for thousands of years. But to my disappointment I do not live in those times so until we are there; you are men with vaginas to me. So much for chivalry. Open your own door thanks.

Wow. I had no idea there was such bitterness towards the "weaker" sex. **smirkes**

In this world today it is all about "Me, Me, Me". I really didn't notice it until around the late 80's and early 90's. Because of this, and it all can't be blamed on either sex, because both of them are the product of this. So now we have the breakdown of what was defined as a "traditional" family. That is no longer common ground anymore.

As a few commented, the traditional family went out pretty much in the 1960's. My father was a farmer. Pretty traditional. My mother stayed home with my brothers and I until I was in the second grade. Farming was not going to provide what the family seemed to need alone. So, my mother went to work.
The same for myself, I was working when I met the Boss, had our two children, and I'm still working.

By some of your responses above, I'm amazed at how women are described today. It seems that some of the world has a jagged edged sword. I'm not sure if it's the climate in which you live or because you are surrounded by a different environment than some of us. Interesting though.

I'm all for progress. But something so simple as common curtesey, to simply vanish in todays society towards each other, is very saddening. When I help an older woman with her groceries or an older man with the door, I feel great. If I live long enough, that will be me oneday. By the comments made from a younger generation, I guess I will be on my own.

Elphaba asked if there were any of us single women from the 60's and 70's that are posting here. I am a youth from that generation. I'm not single, but then again, I didn't choose to be. The only kind of sign I ever carried during a protest, not that it was a protest--but more of an awareness of a bygone era, was a sign that read: "I'm proud to be the daughter of a farmer." But, then again, my father was a great example to my brothers, me, to my daughter and son, and also to my husband. I'm hoping that it doesn't die with my children or my chidren's children.

We all set examples to someone. Hopefully, I will always set a good example. I once asked my teenage children, after having a disagreement with the boss about who was the head of the household, "Who is the boss in this house? Who has the final say? Who do you think is the leader of this family?" Neither child paused. "Daddy is Mama." I laughed at the look on their father's face. It was priceless. Just because he wasn't home much, for he worked out of town most of my children's growing years, he thought he wasn't a part of our family. That answer gave him more than just a label, that showed him he was very much loved and respected.

I've not asked the boss what I mean to him. I don't need to. I know I am respected for more than just having a vagina.

I hold the door for everyone--male, female, transgendered and misgendered. What I find amusing is how some (not all) people ignore me when I do it. It's even funnier when I'm at the movies and after the movie dozens of people file past LOOKING DIRECTLY AT ME and don't offer to take over or even hold the door while they pass through so that I can go catch up with my wife who is standing on the sidewalk laughing at me.

I'm not bitter towards women at all. I am courteous to all people, and I hold the door and give up my seat because I want to be nice, not because of some medieval concept that says I have to be extra nice to a certain group of people because they have a vagina and are the weaker sex (ie chivalry).

I hope when you say chivalry that you really mean common courtesy. I will purposely close the door on any woman who thinks that I should do anything for them simply based on their sex. I do things that are nice because I want to be nice, not because of chivalry. I don't owe women anything. I choose to be nice to people because it's the right thing to do.

If you really want chivalry and you really want to be treated as the weaker sex then fine, but you are pretty much saying you don't give a shit about women's equality or what many women fought for in the 60's and 70's.

I would be content with just experiencing plain old good manners, much less chivalry.

Chivalry is a word heavy with subjective meanings, as well as the dictionary definition.

Chivalry (in my mind) goes over and above good manners. It's nice, but not needed. Manners, on the other hand, are sorely missed (as adequately illustrated in this thread). I would never expect anyone to offer me assistance soley based on my sex. And I definitely wouldn't want anyone to offer me *anything* motivated by any sense of obligation, rather than a sincere desire to help a person out who may need a hand.

I think that along with a break down in *chivalry* or manners, there is also a correlating break down in graciousness on the side of the person to whom the assistance is being offered. There are as many reasons for this as for the initial case, but I think it boils down to suspicion of motives. However, at some point one needs to grow past that. On both sides, but mostly I'd think it's the on the person receiving the manners.

"in accepting the gift, you honor the giver."
Rober Heinlein (sp?)

I am shocked (though I shouldn't be) at the anger many men have towards women.

I could care less about defining it with words like Chivalry, etc. but I do open doors for women, I open the car door for them, offer to carry their bags, etc.

I do this *not* because they are weaker or because they demand it. I do it because it is the courteous thing to do. I will also hold the door for a man, though I will not make as much of an effort to do so.

I think it's just rude to get to the door first only to dart in ahead of someone else.

:lol: Aaawww. And I bet that is just ONE of the many things she loves about you too! :D

I know what you mean Vanblah. When you do this, notice their faces. Are they blank? When they file past, do they even smile and say, "thank you"?

Not long ago, I was going into a convenient store. I had my dag gum purse upside down and the latch was open. ALL of my stuff fell out right at the door! JEEZE! Which means I'm in the way of traffic! A few go in annoyed, or either stepping around me, until a man in his 50's kneels down and offers to help me. I grin and say, "Thank you so much. Things like this happen to me alot. I'm a klutz!" He grinned and said, "You are welcome." I looked up and around as still a few are stepping around us both now and I stood up and looked to my gallant savior and said, "I so much appreciate this. It's embarrassing enough to have your stuff all out there, but to happen in a public place and be in the way, is worse!" I'm laughing and he said once again, "You are quite welcome." He then opened the door and waited until I went in first. About a month later, this same man comes to our house with a few of the guys that work with my husband. I looked at him and he at me. I then started laughing and said, "Aaaah.........my gallant knight." He threw back his head and really laughed. The boss asked, "I see you have met my wife. What did she do this time?" I stuck my tongue out at the boss while the rest of the guys were laughing.

Vanblah, what I did notice when I emptied out most of my purse that day was that there were more guys my age and maybe a few years younger. But, yet........a man older than me was the one that took the time to help me. But, I have had a few youth (younger than my kids) offer to open doors when my arms are loaded and even times when I am empty-handed. But, you are right, not many acknowledge it. But, I sure do!! I've said a many of time, "Why thank you. You are a gentleman." And if a young girl/woman should help, I acknowledge them also. But, what started as just "common curtesey", probably was expected many years ago. Whereas today, since it's not a common reflex, we notice when people do acknowledge it. :)

whew, I'm glad I read to the bottom of this thread. A lot of the earlier posts were quite offensive.

The last few posts describe me perfectly. I have to say, Vanblah, that happens to me all the time. They'll even make eye contact and just walk by with nary a word. Always wish I could pick them out earlier and let the door go right when they come through, lol.

As Carno said, chivalry is the idea that women deserve to be treated a certain way because they are women. It's like saying you can't do anything for yourself. Honestly, why should I have to push your chair in? Just seems rediculous to me. If I get to a door first I'll hold it open, but you'd better not wait at the door for me to hold it open or I'll just walk through. That seems rude to me. "Hi, I'm a woman, and instead of opening the door for you I'm going to stand here and wait for you to get here and open the door for me because I'm special." I give up my seat on buses and trains all the time, for older(read elderly, people who actually look like they need to sit down, not a 50 year old that looks like he could bench me ^_^ ) people, or people with children, or people carrying lots of stuff, but don't expect me to give up my seat to a woman who can just as well stand on her own.

Common courtesy is something I do on a daily basis, and by the way, I'm 20, so don't think it's dieing out quite yet. I think it has a lot to do with how you are raised. I don't beleive that people are preprogrammed to go out of their way for others. It's something that has to be taught.

This is a fallacy.

Chivalry seems really good in theory. Who wouldn't be for treating women nicely? The issue is, chivalry (assuming we aren't actually talking about knights, lol) is about specifically treating women in a certain courteous manner, a manner one would not afford a man. The fight to have equality in the sexes is a really good thing, but you can't have it both ways. Chivalry was a form of protection society had for women because they were seen as less important and capable as men.

If you think they are as capable and important as men, you shouldn't demean them by treating them differently. It's especially bad for women to declare themselves equal to men, then try and throw the "oh-I'm-a-girl help me flag". That is what Carno was alluding to.

That said, I practice something I call courtesy. I hold doors for women, but it's okay because I do the same for men.

Im feeling quite a bit twitchy about the hostility.... my ignore finger is itchin pretty good...

Heres how it works. You treat your women well and we will be there to return the favor by giving you back rubs and scratchin your various itches. If a man ever talked to me like that in real life...... Gods have mercy on him cause I know I wouldnt!

wow, this thread was very interesting, there seems to be a lot of deep seated feelings and some that I happen to agree with. Carno, you make a good point, although your delivery was eye-catching :)

I will point out that I can see the point that, at a basic level when this concept of Chivalry began, the thought of getting sex from one gender did equate to "I should be nicer to this gender so I can get said sexual favors" Also, it was part of the culture... women were meant to be "taken care of" women were meant to "be held up, be coddled etc." We can't keep that part of the culture without having the other parts that kept Chivalry in place... which was the fact that women were not viewed as equals...

as for myself,
I don't expect anything special because I'm a woman. I do like common courtesy though and I myself try to be kind to everyone which is not related to gender.

I do think Chivalry is dead, at least, i don't feel it has much place in our society, I do think common courtesy seems to be on it's way out sometimes, but each of us can act differently to change that.

sweetpea

I blame feminism, hippies, and bicycles.

Wait, wait, wait. Let me get this straight. If I give a man back rubs and sex and cook him food, he will hold doors for me and shield my frailty from world? Why didn't they tell me this when I was a kid?! I wouldn't have worked so hard for so long to be responsible for myself.

*Sigh* Pan knows what chivalry is and he also knows the rewards of having it including back rubs, scalp rubs and scratches and mass amounts of cuddling and sex from a woman who knows she is not only well loved but appreciated as well.

No kidding! Here I had been working my butt off to be independant just to find out that its ok to lean on another person. Its actually quite nice! (Of course it doesnt always work that way... there are the people on the planet that dont appreciate crap and I wouldnt pee on if they were on fire to put them out but that extends to both sexes.)

I seriously hope you're being facetious. You can't really expect me to hand my life over to cooking and spreading my legs in hopes that one day some man will take care of everything and let me idle so as not to hurt my pretty little head trying to be a responsible human being. I was thinking my sarcasm may have been over the line and that I would have a warning coming to me, but this is entirely unexpected. Your response is truly frightening.

I open the door for women. Not because they are ladies, but because I am a gentleman.
I will also open/hold the door for men, children and large dogs. If I'm part of a crowd I will stand there holding the door until some like minded individual (male or female) Says "I've got it' and takes over. I don't do it because they expect me too. I do it because I expect me to.

Of course I'm one of those weird medieval re-creationist so my views might be biased.

I dunno, I get that stuff and I'm very much "on the level" with my woman.

Everyone is different and not everyone appreciates the same thing.

The instant you expect something different because oh-my-gosh you're a woman, I'm going to slam the fucking door on you. You're either equal or you're not. Just because you have The Magical Vagina doesn't make you any different.

Well, that is a handy tautology, but it's still pretty disturbing in the context of what you said earlier. Maybe you're just not realizing the implications of what you're saying.

Sure it's okay to lean on another person, but why should you expect everyone around you who happens to be male to treat you a certain way just because you are female? While I'm on the subject of the above statement, how was it that you just found out that something is okay for you? Why is it that you didn't always determine that for yourself?

This is the real crime that has been perpetrated against women, and it wasn't just the men who did it. Today, the men barely even participate in it. I didn't wait for somebody to tell me it was "okay" to take care of myself. I'm not going to wait for somebody to tell me that it's "okay" to depend a little on my SO if that is what we decide is best for us each. I'm not ungrateful either - I know when I am receiving help and I express my thanks. But I also know that when I receive it from my current SO, he does it because he wants to help me. He extends me little courtesies because he has manners. He goes out of his way for me out of love and not some twisted sense of stewardship implying that I am incapable of doing things myself.

I learned at a young age to "Treat other people how you would like to be treated" and that's how I try to live my life - it's easy to live that way and it's usually polite. I hold doors for people (all people) because it's polite and I would like them to hold doors for me.

I agree with most of the posters here who have said that chivalry is dead and deservedly so. That is because I tend to associate chivalry with treating women a certain way because they are weak and need taking care of. I don't believe women are weak or have a need to be taken care of, thus they get no special treatment from me above how I already treat everyone else. I hold doors for men, I hold doors for women. If a man drops a bag of stuff on the ground I'll help him pick it up as readily as I'll help a woman pick her dropped items up.

Now this is just a generality. Obviously we all hold our mothers, sisters and wives up higher than we hold other women. :)

I also liked this line and found it very easy to agree with:
-Tamerlain

If my post offended anyone it wasn't meant to. I was basicly saying I don't like the way things are. I'm not angry at women.

I've never had a woman hold a door open for me, or offer me her seat or even offer to carry my books to class so why should I do the same for a woman?

Like I said earlier, chivalry is dead and women killed it.

Chivalry is not a lost art, but what happens is that many guys are too eager to please a woman so they act like a butler and put her on a pedestal...thus they appear weak and turn into wimps.

There's nothing wrong with chivalry, but too many guys either don't practice it at all or else they take it overboard.

Why do you say that?

Wage Comparisons

".....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. :D

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! :lol:

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". :D 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! :lol: Jeeze.

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 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.

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.

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. :D 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?????" :D

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :D

ShaniFaye, you are a gem girl!! You have it too! :D 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???!!!:D

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.

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'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! :D

G' KNIGHT folks!

Hehehehe...

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

Very good!
That is correct.

At least we agree on one of the two. :D

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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)

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.

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 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.

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?

Roast beef on rye OK?

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!

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

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.

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....

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?

that pretty much sums up my thoughts warrreagl, I guess when you're raised by old south parents and grandparents you have a totally different perspective on what being a "gentleman" means.

Sultana you said pretty much what I did in my post where I quoted the code of chilvarly....so thanks for that....and I agree on the skinny pants lol

Let's not assume that everyone that disagrees is stubborn and thick-minded. People just think different things for different reasons. I'm not saying chivalry is wrong. I'm just saying you can't practice chivalry and entertain the notion that you are also for equality of the sexes (as far as that can go, of course) without some serious hypocrisy and cognitive dissonence.

I think this issue riles up feathers due to the investment people have in it, much like politics or religion. People have been living their whole lives with a code of conduct, and opposition to that is like a direct attack on them as a person.

I think the woman/goddess thing is hilareous. Whenever I watch those Venus leg shaver commercials, and they sing "I'm your Venis" I roll on the ground laughing. Your venus talks to you? That's incredible! Just in case anyone is wondering, a goddess is hardly somnething you want to be. Whether it be Greek or Roman, Asian or Middle Eastern, Northern European or American mythos, most goddesses are bitches.

The question: reporductive capabilites = better treatment?
Well, sorta, I guess. I mean it's gotta be part of the package in some cases, but it can't be the whole thing because I open doors for elderly men, too. That would raise all sorts of biological questios.

Haha, this is hilarious... Do you think you can have a baby without sperm? Men "give" the sperm to women, so maybe we're the "givers of life"! :rolleyes:

In any case, you're not inherently better than men because you can pop out a baby.

Last time I checked I was from the South.

I think chivalry should die because it's a dated idea that has no modern relevance. Way to perpetuate the idea that Southerners are dumb, backwards hillbillies.

Nice. But maybe ... just maybe... you don't understand what's truly going on.

Lots of old south parents and grandparents are very racist too. Based on your logic, am I to understand that since you were raised by old south parents and grandparents that you hate minorities?

Tell that to the young ruffian whom i had to run through for making eye contact with my maiden.

There are so many different pictures that people have of chivalry. As it was years ago before my parents and women's rights and all - I would personally be content to go back to IF men were to treat women with the care and respect that men want. Some men were true gentlemen and cared for their wives and family. There were also those men who enjoyed the power trip of dominating their family. Back then though there was no way out for the women trapped in a marriage like that. Now there is. In the process though we've lost the freedom to enjoy the men who are caring and not power tripping.

I would be perfectly happy to play the submissive housewife, barefoot and pregnant even if they wanted, if I found a man who really did care for and respect me. Who appreciates the things done for him and his family. There's nothing wrong with allowing the man to lead and protect. As long as he IS protecting. Too many men are too self serving to do both. They want the power but not the responsibility. Step up to the plate guys and you might find a few women out there who'll gladly do just about anything you want in return.

double post

Well that's very nice for you, but I really don't want a woman who would be content with that, and I know many women who would not be content with that. Hell, the woman's liberation movement happened specifically because women were not content with that.

I'd rather men and women just be treated as equals.

wow, what a strange thread.

i only have a couple things to say here:
like many have pointed out before, it seems that much of the rancor that keeps appearing here is tripped by the word "chivalry"---so one direction of response has already been done several times above and i'll just do it again--being polite, particularly to folk that you do not know, seems an indication of respect. in this, i like to think i am pretty consistent, tho sometimes doors do slam in the face of the person behind me and i feel a twinge of embarrassment about having been such a fucktard in that moment--but it really is not about whether the person behind me is a man or a woman, it is more that there is a person behind me who probably enjoyed having the door slam shut in front of them about as much as i would. so there it is, for me at least. this has nothing AT ALL to do with "chivalry"...



2. on the word chivalry: jesus christ, why on earth is ANYTHING about the high middle ages an object of ANY kind of nostalgia, seen in any way productive of habits of mind or practice that are worth repeating?

chivalry was mostly about social power.
it was about the fetishization of ARISTOCRATIC women--commoners were just that--so you can find in "the knight of the cart" (from chretien de troyes,12th century i think) a bizarre rehearsal of some kind of sexualized repeat of the martyrdom of jesus on the part of lancelot of the lake, the predictable dynamic of fetishism/elevation to unlimited power and objectification/reduction to sexualized thing of the IMAGE of the lady carried out via the narrator's rehearsal of lancelots adventures in abjection (the journey) and subsequent engagement in yet another tiresome jousting tournament (battle of the penises)....but all of this is directed at the image of an ARISTOCRATIC woman...if you read de troyes text, you also find that good sir lancelot of the lake rapes a "common" woman along the way and that neither the character OR THE NARRATOR give this a second thought.
this because common folk were regarded as PROPERTY like a horse or the bridle you'd tie it up with---like the lackey that would wipe the shit off your shoes---they were not quite human beings----of course they were also not so other than human that you couldn't rape them----but they were not human enough to really worry about.

chivalry was a dick thing through and through.
the ordeal is about the dick: subjecting yourself to mortifications on behalf of an aristo woman who is not yet your property was about giving the dick a legend, increasing its size and value through stories. the idea was to get more property through the process of getting a more heavily ornamented penis. and getting the aristocratic woman was about getting status--if she was married, it was about getting status through patronage---if she was not, it was about getting the woman in order to get the property she represented.

all of this functioned within a system of property relations and assumptions that derive from that system of property relations that from any modern viewpoint was truly foul.

i have long been vaguely confused about how this flinstone notion migrated over time to mean something vague like being nice to women. i suspect it owes something to virginia cavalier society made up of the second sons of the british artistocracy each and every last one of whom was well and truly fucked within the system they aped here simply because they were born in the wrong sequence--primogenitur was a problem for second sons, you see. so cavalier society was in part a land of make-believe, of compensation within which certain aspects of aristo-life were reworked into markers of social distinction that functioned in the surreal little world of 18th century virginia.

the notion of "being protected" is at best a derivative of the logic of chivalry--a kind of late-period twisting around of the notion, which was not at all about protecting you from the world--on the contrary, it positioned you within the world, made you as aristo-woman an object within the world. it didnt even really involve you as a human being--it was about your image and the separate life of your image--which itself acquired its value as a function of the legnths to which various cretin aristo boys were willing to go to ornament their image-penises for you.

if by chivalry one is referring to the kind of stuff that the aristocracy did at the interpersonal level at a later phase of european history, then the situation is not much different or better--but the situation had changed and the aristocracy was largely defuntionalized (by the time you get to louis xiv in france at least, the kind of military organization that was being has left the feudal system far behind)--and even in that context, none of these rituals had to do with protecting women, with elevating women, not really. read some stuff from the period of louis 14--read "the princess of cleves," the letters of madame de sevigne, or even or the duc de saint simon's memoirs...geez....it seems to me that if you think chivalry was a good thing, you really dont know what you are talking about.

Beware, ma'am. The panty-wad people are bursting blood vessels over this one, too. I'll hold my umbrella over your head for you while this horseshit continues to rain down on us from "above" (a little southern humor there). Can I get you a sweet tea while we wait? How's your mama and them?

i totally agree. this whole gender role thing bothers me, and thats exactly what chivalry is all about, gender roles. i don't want a woman who wants a permanent submissive role, and i don't want a permanent leader and protector role. my ideal is an equal relationship. the whole system is based on the assumptions that there are neither women who are more assertive nor men who are more passive than their predetermined gender roles suggest.

this discussion reminds me a lot of another one I've read on some blogs about who makes the first move in a relationship, something that's traditionally the man's place. women who never make the first move as a matter of principle, including many who have feminist ideals, say they assume that if the guy is interested, he'll make a move, and they don't want to risk rejection from someone who's not interested, and because leading the chase makes them feel, you know, desirable and appreciated. this seems to suggest that a guy will always make a move if he's interested, and, somehow in contrast to a woman, doesn't fear rejection and doesn't have a need to feel desirable himself. this may get me the typical tfp response that they should just get over it (and accept their role) and do it, but the reality is there are a lot of guys who aren't able or willing to get over it, and if she were the more assertive type who might otherwise approach him but for the assumption that it's the man's role, thats two people who could possibly be perfect for each other and together but aren't.

And many of these women, have come to the realization that what they really wanted wasn't to play the same game the men play but to have a family, only its too late. When I was 21 like you I felt the same way about my then GF, now wife. She was in engineering college, and I didn't want 'just a wife'. Well 15 years later, shes not an engineer, she has no career, and thats just fine with both of us.

I have several friends only a few years away from not being able to have children and I can see its effect on them. Its quite sad.

This sounds like you're asserting superiority over the male sex now...

And all the women in the world, fertile though they may be, can't make a child without a male. Women would die off just as quickly without men, as men without women. Neither sex is "more" important.

I read the posts in this thread a while back and didn't feel I had anything to say that hadn't already been said, then something happened that made me post in here today.

I sprained my ankle last week and spent a couple of days on crutches. The first day I was entering a building and saw a woman and a man coming the other way through the door. I opened the door and stood back so they could get through. (Which is no small feat with crutches) Neither of them acted as if they noticed that the door had been opened for them, much less by a gimp. Roughly the same scenario repeated itself 3 more times that day. Not one person offered to hold the door for me, despite the fact that I was on crutches and nobody thanked me for opening the door for them even though it was a great inconvenience to me to do so.

I wasn't looking for thanks or help or attention, it is simply second nature for me to hold doors for anyone, without regard to sex.

Anyway that got me thinking about this thread. Is chivalry dead in society? It's highly likely. Is courtesy dead in the general population? It seems so. Have they died within me? Not on your life.

Well, i'm reading this thread in one window and typing this in another, everyones making such good points, but i'm gona be up all night reading and won't be arsed to respond when i'm finished.

To me chivalry is a difficult issue, common courtesy is a large part that seems to be thrown around and discarded.

Some aspects of 'chivalry' are starting to die for me, such as a man paying for a meal. On small things such as drinks e.t.c i will do this, but simple economics comes into factor with meals, because i'm usually broke. Other things to me depend on the situation. Going out for an evening (e.g. into town, theatre, meal e.t.c) requires holding doors, pulling out chairs (assuming the bloody waiters don't get there first), taking a hand when walking, simply because that is the way i was brought up. From where i'm standing that is what you do on a proper night out. Its a bit like going to see the queen, you damned sure don't go in anything but tails. You want to tell me not to do that, fine, i'm not gonna listen.

Simple nights out don't need that type of fuss, a trip to the cinema is a world away from les miserables, and doesn't warrant the same response.

I don't do it because i consider the female sex to be weaker or anything like that, i do it because it is my right and privilege to as an Englishman and a Gentleman. My father and grandfather taught it to me, i will teach it to my son and grandson. Now, of course, i will also teach them not to go out of their way for any old person woman mind you, so yeh, it does relate back to sex, but so does most of the rest of human behaviour. As for pandering to every beck and call of any woman who cries help, thats called being a tool.

Giving up a seat on the bus, holding doors, helping frail people around, thats all common courtesy and should be practised without thought.



I'm sure i've missed a few points, so lets see what the reponse to this is, and whether i'm on track or not.

I was originally going to post similar experiences that I had when I had to walk with a cane and carrying a heavy backpack around a few months back. Very few people could say so much as a "thanks" for it, and a few people would just let the door slam behind them as I was right there. To me, it's not about the archaic code, but about not being an asshole.

I've given up a seat on the bus and held doors and helped little old ladies across the street more times than I can count.. because at the time, it seemed like the right thing to do... it's amazing to me the number of people that dont.. or will be sitting in the seats specifically reserved for the handicapped and senior citizens and NOT give up the seat...

What aggravates me more than anything is the sense of entitlement that some people (namely women) have about having men do things for them... I've been on more than one flight where this woman (usually blonde with cleavage) who feighs a struggle with her suitcase and getting it into the overhead, she always gets some gullible male to put it in the overhead... She was perfectly capable of doig it herself, and if she couldn't she should have checked the damn thing... It's the expectation that someone else would do it for her...

How do you hold up doors for others in Americaland?!? In Sweden we usually position ourselves so that it's obvious you expect the next person to "catch" the door, then when that person has "caught" it, you let go and move on, so you hold the door for the one after you - regardless of gender - and that's it. It's like a relay race, but with a door. Some idiots don't participate, but generally I think Swedes are pretty good at holding doors for eachother, and particularly at my university. Maybe that's because the main building mostly concists of corridors full of doors. *shrugs*

About the clothes as a reason for "chivalry", I've lived rough wilderness life in 14th century style dresses, I've carried a heavy standard in full ball gown regalia: high heel shoes, nylons, fluffy underskirt, gloves, silly hat. No problem. No problem at all. There are very few things I can do wearing trousers that I can't do in a dignified manner wearing a skirt. Like climb between rows of seats in lecture halls. :o

Anyways, I prefer common courtesy equal to all over chivalry. Because nobody wants the door in the face and if everyone holds the door for the next person, nobody will get the door in the face and nobody will be left holding the door for ages.

hahaha, that's exactly what i do. maybe it's just that americans are much more into niceties like "thank you" and the ever-present totally vapid "how are you?" (as if they even want to know if you're miserable) and pointless small talk in general, and we expect a higher level of service from places like restaurants, so i guess some of that carries over into day to day life. americans are just very awkward with silences, they always feel it has to be filled and that includes the moment of someone holding the door i guess. :lol: myself, Ive never really expected a higher level of service from other people than what I'm getting. i find the whole small talk with strangers thing extremely awkward, and this is just a minimalist form of small talk. it doesn't have to be constantly acknowledged precisely because it is COMMON courtesy. (I suppose for certain definitions of common courtesy the thanking could be included, but not mine ;p)

i'll add that i'm sure there are "courtesy" situations where i would have acted differently in hindsight, but when its actually happening i often have this debilitating combination of anxiety and social awkwardness that causes me to do nothing or the wrong thing because i just don't know what is the right thing to do at the time. speaking for all of us, don't take it personally, i don't mean any disrespect, and i'd love to be a social butterfly managing all such situations smooth as butter, but unfortunately we are not all wired that way regardless of the lofty expectations of american society. :lol:

She's capable of deciding for herself who she wants without needing a man's protection [/cross thread reference pointing out filths hypocrisy]

:lol: ;)