Altorin said:
The idea of chivalry makes sexist men think they can somehow act nice to get past the defenses of women and when it doesn't work, they get indignant, and feel that they deserve some sort of cookie for being nice.
See, a lot of people have stated this but this appears to miss the point that the anti-chivalry crowd I'm espousing are stating. I'm not arguing that chivalry is bad because it's manipulative; people are all manipulative whether or not they like to admit it. I'm saying that chivalry is bad because it is
ideologically worthless; it achieves nothing that can't be done in a way that wouldn't entail enforcing gender roles upon the unwilling. Unless there's some valid justification as to why women deserve different treatment to men (and 'I want to sleep with them' isn't good enough unless you want to sleep with
all women) then there's simply no logical reason for chivalry.
I appreciate that your views may differ, I'm not trying to say that mine is 'the only' good reason to dislike chivalry.