Is chivalry dead?

[thylasos]

Perhaps. But basic politeness isn't. I open doors and so on for anyone. It doesn't matter which way their reproductive organs are aligned.

 

[hailfire]

I don't know, why are nerds so obsessed with chivalry?

Either be polite to everyone, or at least don't be a dick.

Lots of "Nice Guys" [http://www.heartless-bitches.com/rants/niceguys/niceguys.shtml] in the nerd subculture.

Uh... I forgot about them.

The "girls hate nice guys" routine is almost as cringe-worthy as when they talk about how chivalrous they are for the incapable lady-folk.

and thus you have proven that the theory really is true. girls hate nice guys, and would be far more attracted to a man who lets the door slam in their face, just to show how much of a badass he is. and they say we're dumb...

 

[Shirokurou]

If the thrill is gone, then it's time to take it back.
If chivalry is dead, then let's make something new.

 

[Woodsey]

I don't know, why are nerds so obsessed with chivalry?

Either be polite to everyone, or at least don't be a dick.

Lots of "Nice Guys" [http://www.heartless-bitches.com/rants/niceguys/niceguys.shtml] in the nerd subculture.

Uh... I forgot about them.

The "girls hate nice guys" routine is almost as cringe-worthy as when they talk about how chivalrous they are for the incapable lady-folk.

and thus you have proven that the theory really is true. girls hate nice guys, and would be far more attracted to a man who lets the door slam in their face, just to show how much of a badass he is. and they say we're dumb...

How has anything you've quoted proven that?

 

[TonyVonTonyus]

Chivalry is a code of honour that knights follow (chivalry coming from the french word chevalier which means horseman or cavalry rider). As long as people follow that particular code it's not dead but there has been a definate lack of manners and class among men or most of them at least...for example, my friends.

 

[hailfire]

Accepting gender difference? You mean girls are physically incapable of opening doors now? Or are they all so feeble that doors are too heavy for their delicate frame? I mean really, chivalry doesn't acknowledge any real differences.

I think he was more referring to gender roles, which I support. I mean, obviously not anything that disadvantages either gender, but I think it's socially healthy to maintain distinction between the two genders as long as there's no harm done to either.

I was in fact referring to gender roles, though I should have know that that would immediately be taken as "women belong in the kitchen". I think the people who read into that and decided that because I respect women I'm a misogynist must have had something happen to them in their lives that makes them not trust men. they don't trust men because chivilry is dead. see how this is a vicious cycle?

 

[Bakuryukun]

Why can't you just hold the door open for the boobed AND non-boobed alike? Seems like an easy enough solution to me.

 

[BGH122]

It's interesting that you think I'm immediately telling women where their place in society should be, when I'm more concerned about the male gender role. You see, I went to an all boys boarding school, had about 180 blokes of my age living in the same building as me. 2009, I shared a room with 19 other people. This place was male. And I don't mean full of men, I mean the entire culture was masculine to the core. I liked that, sure there were one or two that didn't, but it really gave me a harsh contrast to the outside world where being male is almost... unnaceptable.

And that's simply not what I said. Gender roles are not always going to be harmful and restrictive. What's harmful about a male knowing basic fixing skills are a woman knowing basic cooking? Cutting off a career to anyone based on sex, skin colour or age is and always should be unnacceptable, but I don't think encouraging gender roles is harmful itself.

Because what you're proposing could be handled by simply hanging out with men who agree with your view of masculinity and that wouldn't force anything upon anyone who didn't want it. This seems like a very selfish theory, akin to "I like these things therefore all men should like these things". What becomes of the boy who doesn't like to rough and tumble? Who doesn't like fixing things? Tough luck? Such gender roles bring nothing positive and actively bring harm, not only in the form of alienation, but make it harder for (using your examples specifically here) women to become engineers and men to become cooks or nannies. For what benefit?

Accepting gender difference? You mean girls are physically incapable of opening doors now? Or are they all so feeble that doors are too heavy for their delicate frame? I mean really, chivalry doesn't acknowledge any real differences.

I think he was more referring to gender roles, which I support. I mean, obviously not anything that disadvantages either gender, but I think it's socially healthy to maintain distinction between the two genders as long as there's no harm done to either.

I was in fact referring to gender roles, though I should have know that that would immediately be taken as "women belong in the kitchen". I think the people who read into that and decided that because I respect women I'm a misogynist must have had something happen to them in their lives that makes them not trust men. they don't trust men because chivilry is dead. see how this is a vicious cycle?

What tripe. No-one mistrusts men because chivalry is dead. And end to chivalry doesn't entail 'anything goes'. The logical opposite of chivalry isn't 'abuse women'. Being treated like an equal doesn't bring resentment, being treated hatefully brings resentment.

 

[BGH122]

I don't see a good reason for gender roles. People vary and some might argue that they cause harm to those who naturally don't fit into those roles. Examples being ridicule or abuse.

Noone is normal, there's basically no such thing when it comes to humans. I understand what you're saying though, and it is a shame that such harassment occurs. To me though, on a social level, I think it is possible to have gender roles in a society without discrimination ocurring.

It's theoretically possible

No, it isn't. Unless the gender roles are identical (in which case the term becomes descriptively worthless) then gender roles are necessarily discriminatory because they predicate certain behaviours on specific genders.

 

[inquisiti0n]

I believe that they can be current in today's society, women can still have the same or even more rights then men in many situations, but does that mean we have to stop treating them how most of them deserve to be treated? Is it too much to show some respect to the female gender?

^Comical.

Of course there's many things wrong with the assumption that anything less than treating women better than men is a form of disrespect, but the more noteworthy thing in this post is that OP is a guy (if his profile page is to be believed). Obvious white knight is obvious.

If you (not directing this at OP necessarily) really feel obligated to act chivalrous towards women, then at least understand some basic things: 1) Unless you're trying to court a girl who's also firmly fixed on laughably archaic gender roles, chivalry won't get you far. 2) Realize how condescending and smug you sound when you try to play this behavior off as if you have the moral highground. 3) You're probably a sexist. Treating men "badly" in comparison to your demeanor towards women is nothing to be proud of. 4) Most people think you're ridiculous.


Oh, and the reason so many "nerds" gravitate towards this concept of putting women on a pedestal is because they feel that it's their only way to get any female attention.

 

[hailfire]

It's interesting that you think I'm immediately telling women where their place in society should be, when I'm more concerned about the male gender role. You see, I went to an all boys boarding school, had about 180 blokes of my age living in the same building as me. 2009, I shared a room with 19 other people. This place was male. And I don't mean full of men, I mean the entire culture was masculine to the core. I liked that, sure there were one or two that didn't, but it really gave me a harsh contrast to the outside world where being male is almost... unnaceptable.

And that's simply not what I said. Gender roles are not always going to be harmful and restrictive. What's harmful about a male knowing basic fixing skills are a woman knowing basic cooking? Cutting off a career to anyone based on sex, skin colour or age is and always should be unnacceptable, but I don't think encouraging gender roles is harmful itself.

Because what you're proposing could be handled by simply hanging out with men who agree with your view of masculinity and that wouldn't force anything upon anyone who didn't want it. This seems like a very selfish theory, akin to "I like these things therefore all men should like these things". What becomes of the boy who doesn't like to rough and tumble? Who doesn't like fixing things? Tough luck? Such gender roles bring nothing positive and actively bring harm, not only in the form of alienation, but make it harder for (using your examples specifically here) women to become engineers and men to become cooks or nannies. For what benefit?

Accepting gender difference? You mean girls are physically incapable of opening doors now? Or are they all so feeble that doors are too heavy for their delicate frame? I mean really, chivalry doesn't acknowledge any real differences.

I think he was more referring to gender roles, which I support. I mean, obviously not anything that disadvantages either gender, but I think it's socially healthy to maintain distinction between the two genders as long as there's no harm done to either.

I was in fact referring to gender roles, though I should have know that that would immediately be taken as "women belong in the kitchen". I think the people who read into that and decided that because I respect women I'm a misogynist must have had something happen to them in their lives that makes them not trust men. they don't trust men because chivilry is dead. see how this is a vicious cycle?

What tripe. No-one mistrusts men because chivalry is dead. And end to chivalry doesn't entail 'anything goes'. The logical opposite of chivalry isn't 'abuse women'. Being treated like an equal doesn't bring resentment, being treated hatefully brings resentment.

umm, yes, the opposite of good is bad. the opposite of chivilry is abuse. abuse causes women not to trust men. therefore men should keep being good to women, even if women don't like it. that way, eventually they will trust us, and we wont get our heads bitten off for trying to be a decent person.

 

[Psymon138]

It will not die as long as I draw breath good sir!

OT: I don't see chivalry as being exclusively directed towards women. I consider myself chivalrous, but I hold doors for people/offer to help carry things/etc for everyone. Male, female, hermaphrodite, whatever. Chivalry is basically synonymous with common courtesy in my book. Going the extra mile to help someone out never hurts.

 

[BGH122]

umm, yes, the opposite of good is bad. the opposite of chivilry is abuse. abuse causes women not to trust men. therefore men should keep being good to women, even if women don't like it. that way, eventually they will trust us, and we wont get our heads bitten off for trying to be a decent person.

So your argument is:

Chivalry is good.
The opposite of good is bad.

The opposite of chivalry is abuse.

You can see why this argument doesn't work, right? Your argument is predicated on the notion that chivalry is good ... which is the entirety of the point we're contesting.

 

[hailfire]

I believe that they can be current in today's society, women can still have the same or even more rights then men in many situations, but does that mean we have to stop treating them how most of them deserve to be treated? Is it too much to show some respect to the female gender?

^Comical.

Of course there's many things wrong with the assumption that anything less than treating women better than men is a form of disrespect, but the more noteworthy thing in this post is that OP is a guy (if his profile page is to be believed). Obvious white knight is obvious.

If you (not directing this at OP necessarily) really feel obligated to act chivalrous towards women, then at least understand some basic things: 1) Unless you're trying to court a girl who's also firmly fixed on laughably archaic gender roles, chivalry won't get you far. 2) Realize how condescending and smug you sound when you try to play this behavior off as if you have the moral highground. 3) You're probably a sexist. Treating men "badly" in comparison to your demeanor towards women is nothing to be proud of. 4) Most people think you're ridiculous.


Oh, and the reason so many "nerds" gravitate towards this concept of putting women on a pedestal is because they feel that it's their only way to get any female attention.

first of all, you're basically saying that the only reason people are nice is because they are incapable of courting women. it seems you're one of those women who only is attracted to assholes, and feels the need to belittle anyone else. there is something wrong with you if you're only attracted to people who are mean and hateful.

secondly, I happen to find girls who respect gender roles very attractive, mainly because I'M A MAN. MEN are attracted to WOMEN. when women are really manly, it's a huge turnoff. I hate women who refuse to wear dresses because that would make them femenin, because it's not that they hate dresses, it's just that they hate society, and want to destroy it because they have a childish need to disrupt order.

thirdly, we do have the moral high ground. are you really trying to say that men should be dicks to everyone? I'd hate to live in your ideal world.

 

[hailfire]

umm, yes, the opposite of good is bad. the opposite of chivilry is abuse. abuse causes women not to trust men. therefore men should keep being good to women, even if women don't like it. that way, eventually they will trust us, and we wont get our heads bitten off for trying to be a decent person.

So your argument is:

Chivalry is good.
The opposite of good is bad.

The opposite of chivalry is abuse.

You can see why this argument doesn't work, right? Your argument is predicated on the notion that chivalry is good ... which is the entirety of the point we're contesting.

chivalry is being good to women. abuse is being bad to women. it's a very simple progression, that leads to an obvious conclusion.