Is chivalry dead?

[Hader]

If you can vote and play in a proffesional hockey team, then you can open a door by yourself.

Maybe it's just me but even the team I played on 4 years ago didn't use the doors on the bench.

 

[BrionJames]

Chivalry isn't dead. I do hold doors open for old folks, but that's called respect. I hold doors open for children because I want them to see an example of a good person. I hold doors open for women because doing that was something taught to me when I was little. Chivalry isn't dead if a female friend of mine is cold, I offer her my coat. Things I grew up recognizing as something men do, because they are men.

 

[MarxII]

Using terms such as "the fairer sex" is what I mean with reducing someone to their gender and attributing them characteristics. It's not necessarily condescending in the "get back to the kitchen" type of old-school misogyny, but it's an articulation of gender in a way that limits the way we perceive gender. The truly pervasive brain-worm is gender as a rigid dichotomy that carries certain characteristics. I'm not yelling at you in any way I'm just so tired of the idea that gender should carry a certain behavior.

I supposed you don't mean it the other way when you talk about chivalry right? Or does it go both ways? Would you like a women to take out your chair as a gesture of affection?.

I think you may be articulating the very point I am trying to, indirectly.

While gender as a rigid dichotomy is something I would agree is an anachronism unfit for modern society, I would argue further that conduct that could be described as chivalrous is by no stretch, or at least not necessarily, an immediate jump to viewing people based solely on gender and nothing else. You mention the term 'fairer sex,' and there I find a most excellent example. In that phrase you will find nothing condescending, and offense only with those who are looking quite actively for something to be angry at. Indeed, were you to ask me I would most candidly reply that not every woman out there could be even remotely described as fair. Or if you'd like to put it another way, not every woman is a lady.

But one asks the question to find little in the way of response (and here I do not include you, specifically) save for a deal of "I treat everyone EQUAL! Everyone is the SAME! See how modern I am!" This, I would propose, misses the point entirely. At least with regard to such gestures as the door or chair maneuver, such gestures carry no more sexism than gender-specific pronouns.

And of course, let it be said that he who holds the door for a comely young lady and leaves it closed for an elderly man or harried parent with baggage to match is no gentleman. Chivalry, as many in this thread seem tireless in failing to notice, is more than such flattering acts as may be hoped to help secure a lady's favor.

 

[conflictofinterests]

Depends on what flavor of chivalry you're talking about. Duties towards countrymen and fellow Christians tends to be upheld among smaller communities, and is plainly visible in times of crisis. Plenty of people remain faithful to their respective churches. With gender equality, women fall less under the purview of chivalry/courtly love and more under duties to countrymen and fellow Christians.

 

[zehydra]

chivalry towards one gender is sexist. So no.

 

[Flare Phoenix]

No, it is not dead; just needs to be redefined a bit. The one thing that really pisses me off is how people feel the life of a man is worth less than the life of a woman. You can't even really say men are stronger than women anymore. I know several women that would be able to kick my ass if I ever got into a fight with them (most of them for that matter).

In my opinion, anyone who says you should open doors for women and do stuff for women because they are weaker than men is a sexist. If you're doing something to be nice then that is different, but doing something purely because they're a woman is deplorable.

I mean why can't it work both ways? Why can't women hold the door open for the man occasionally? I'm just a little sick of people think women should always get their own way in a relationship; men don't exist purely to be a slave to them, you know...

 

[infohippie]

The problem with Chivalry is that it is aimed only at women. I hold the door open for everyone and anyone who is nearby. Old men, young men, old women, young women.

I also am not a man myself.

There is a better name for Chivalry that fits well in equal society. Politeness and manners.

Saelune has it right, there's really nothing else that needs to be said after this. If I'm first through a door, I will hold it for anyone who is coming after me regardless of sex or age. When someone else does this for me, I thank them and don't concern myself with whether they're a man or a woman.

 

[Flare Phoenix]

The problem with Chivalry is that it is aimed only at women. I hold the door open for everyone and anyone who is nearby. Old men, young men, old women, young women.

I also am not a man myself.

There is a better name for Chivalry that fits well in equal society. Politeness and manners.

Saelune has it right, there's really nothing else that needs to be said after this. If I'm first through a door, I will hold it for anyone who is coming after me regardless of sex or age. When someone else does this for me, I thank them and don't concern myself with whether they're a man or a woman.

Yeah, there is a difference between common decency and chivalry. This whole notion that women need to be given special treatment is a load of crap. For me it is a proximity issue: if someone is right behind me I'll hold the door open for them regardless of gender (I once held a door open with my foot while my hands were full for a man), but if they're far away and not making any real effort to come through the door (walking slowing; chatting to their friends) I don't have all day to wait for them.

Basically everything comes down to a case by case basis. With more women asking me out on dates, more women should be paying for dates as well (I am a firm believer of whoever does the asking for the date is the one that should pay).

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Snip

Well, Chivalry kind of never existed.

Chivalry was basically an invention by Romantic writers to bring honor to Knights, to make them seam romantic and just. In real life, a code of chivalry technically existed, but no knight kindly informed the grieving wives of their enemies of how they killed them. No, when Knights came to a conquered town, they raped, pillaged, and plundered anything with two legs.

 

[Ftaghn To You Too]

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.

Chivalry is putting women above men. Therefore discrimination. Therefore bad.
Abuse is harming. Therefore bad.
Equal rights is being "chivalrous" to everyone. Not just women. Not just men. Everybody.

Therefore:
Chivalry = Bad
Abuse = Bad
Equal Rights = Good

 

[spartan231490]

In the modern times we live in many people believe that chivalry and equal rights can't go hand in hand. But chivalry is the small things you do, such as hold a door open for a women or pull the chair out for them or wait for them to sit before sitting yourself. And I'm here to ask the Escapist, can equal rights between genders and chivalric values be maintained together? Or is it one or the other in an absolute sense?
And why?
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?

It is one or the other in an absolute sense. for equal rights to exist, then men would not be expected, asked, or wanted to be any more polite to women than they are to other men.

No, it's not too much to show respect to women. It's too much to show them more respect than you show men, just because their reproductive organs are on the inside instead of the outside.

 

[spartan231490]

Snip

Well, Chivalry kind of never existed.

Chivalry was basically an invention by Romantic writers to bring honor to Knights, to make them seam romantic and just. In real life, a code of chivalry technically existed, but no knight kindly informed the grieving wives of their enemies of how they killed them. No, when Knights came to a conquered town, they raped, pillaged, and plundered anything with two legs.

I'm quite sure that there were some knights who followed the code of chivalry to the letter, just nowhere near as many as those who acted like you describe. People weren't so different back then than they are now. Some few are good. some few are truly evil. The rest are basically selfish creatures.

 

[AgentNein]

Alright, I was going to come in here to say a few things but it seems that BGH122 and Fagotto beat me to essentially every punch, and arguably put things better than I would've anyway.

And to HAILFIRE, do you honestly not see that we're talking about a spectrum of treatments? That not putting women on a pedestal doesn't equate to abuse?

I'm I'm you're friend and I start treating you like a king, and one day you tell me to knock it off, does that justify me suddenly treating you like shit? Because that's where your questionable logic is leading.

 

[X10J]

Usually I'll do nice thinks like holding the door, and the like. When people thank me I say "Ohh, don't thank me, I'm only doing it to spite the British."

 

[kickyourass]

If the idea that holding the door open for someone is polite has somehow become outdated then consider me officially old fashioned.

 

[Flare Phoenix]

Not every woman is a feminazi. I do nice things like hold doors open for people in general, and whenever possible, I insist on opening doors, paying for things, all that good stuff for my girlfriend, because I want to do nice things for her, and neither of us are constantly caught up in pondering how each of our actions is politically correct or whatever.

Well there is a difference between wanting to do nice things for people, and been expected to do it based on your gender.

 

[Zaik]

Dead and hopefully gone forever. It's not really relevant anymore.

 

[Uskis]

I think you may be articulating the very point I am trying to, indirectly.

While gender as a rigid dichotomy is something I would agree is an anachronism unfit for modern society, I would argue further that conduct that could be described as chivalrous is by no stretch, or at least not necessarily, an immediate jump to viewing people based solely on gender and nothing else. You mention the term 'fairer sex,' and there I find a most excellent example. In that phrase you will find nothing condescending, and offense only with those who are looking quite actively for something to be angry at. Indeed, were you to ask me I would most candidly reply that not every woman out there could be even remotely described as fair. Or if you'd like to put it another way, not every woman is a lady.

But one asks the question to find little in the way of response (and here I do not include you, specifically) save for a deal of "I treat everyone EQUAL! Everyone is the SAME! See how modern I am!" This, I would propose, misses the point entirely. At least with regard to such gestures as the door or chair maneuver, such gestures carry no more sexism than gender-specific pronouns.

And of course, let it be said that he who holds the door for a comely young lady and leaves it closed for an elderly man or harried parent with baggage to match is no gentleman. Chivalry, as many in this thread seem tireless in failing to notice, is more than such flattering acts as may be hoped to help secure a lady's favor.

First off, no, I'm not articulating your point in my post

You contradict yourself a bit in my opinion. You agree that the rigid dichotomy of sex-based gender is an anachronism, but still defend reproducing it through using constructs like "fairer sex". It's not apparently condescending, but it is attributing a certain characteristic to persons based on their sex, which becomes problematic, since the idea of a sex being fairer excludes them from certain actions. Women doing jobs or actions not being associated with what accords to the idea of "fair" will be seen as "not normal". My point is not that you should treat all people "SAME", but that we should move away from treating people on basis of their sex, and what the norm dictates. This will give us a freedom to not have to conform to sex-based gender stereotypes.

That's why I have a beef with chivalry. It's a one-way street with regards to gender. Holding the door is a bad example, because it falls under the category of general politeness, but holding the chair is a great example. Does it work both ways? Can a woman do this as a romantic gesture, or would that be seen as taking away the masculinity of the man? Chivalry is a tired stereotype in my opinion. It is exactly just those small gestures in our society, since no-one links it to all that other obsolete code-of-conduct described by another poster earlier.