Poll: Chivalry

[BGH122]

What the hell is wrong with you people? Did some gentleman come by and steal you girlfriends with an act of chivalry?

I always admired chivalry because it is an extension of how people would idealy act in every situation. I hold the door for anyone, but chivalry is just taking it an extra step for a lady. Ridiculous claims of sexism aside, I just cannot see how that is such a bad thing.

These are not ludicrous claims of sexism. That is an argument ad absurdum [http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/appeal_ridicule.htm]: you have simply declared my claims of sexism ludicrous without showing what makes them ludicrous.

As I have clearly asked of you above, how do you justify 'taking it that extra step for a lady' if this has nothing to do with you either wanting something from her or believing that she possesses or lacks some trait which justifies that extra step?

In today's world, from what I have experienced myself, a good portion of men are jerks. With that said, I think perhaps more guys should be nice and actually treat women with respect and courtesy. Guys these days just don't know how to treat a girl right...etc. Not saying it's all guys though. I found a really great guy, who slowly wooed me as it were and treats me great. <3

I just really hate how in todays society, men just aren't into 'love', but are more into the physical part of a relationship. I mean, what happened to wanting to find someone to spend the rest of your life with? Just no one these days really wants to settle down, or they marry for all the wrong reasons and it ends up in divorce. Probably getting off subject but I feel I must say all this. xD And I am done with that. Onto something else.

I want everyone to treat eachother with respect, women and men alike. And with the whole opening doors thing, I'm so going to open the door for my Tom darling. ;D Of course though, I'm a romantic, if it wasn't obvious. Tom likes to say I'm drunk on love. But I'm just drunk on his love. :3

I'm sorry, perhaps I am misinterpreting you, but are you claiming that men in today's society are jerks because they don't want the same level of commitment as you? How can that possibly result in a logical implication that there is something 'wrong' with them so as to brand them jerks, is it not simply that you desire different things from the relationship and perhaps you should seek men who desire what you also desire?

I do not think you are a 'jerk' because you want a long, monogamous relationship even though I personally do not see any benefit to marriage, why do you think I'm a jerk for thinking differently to you?

 

[HSIAMetalKing]

Chivalry is sexist. I hold doors open for anyone who is close enough behind me-- I never wait too long, of course, because it's a door for fuck's sakes. Treat everyone with the same amount of courtesy you expect for yourself-- but women don't need or deserve special treatment.

 

[CHangedUsername]

Women say men are afraid of commitment.
Thats bullshit.

Look at yourselves ladies. No person in their right mind would commit to THAT.

 

[crudus]

Also, while the notion of Chivalry being sexist is more than accurate, I wouldn't mind seeing it practiced by some of the kids I work with. A boy in my classroom would probably fart in a girls face rather than entertain the thought of actually opening a door for her.

But, would he do the same to another boy? If he's simply treating the girls (however nastily) as he treats the boys then that's progress! Now all that needs to be worked on is making him understand why he should treat everyone with a little more respect.

Most females are big girls. They can open their doors, pull out their chairs, and slaughter their own boars for dinner. People shouldn't be expected to do this for them. Now, if a male wants to do it because he wants to do it (or he like beheading his own swine) then fine, but if her does it because he thinks women can't THEN it is sexism. I don't think chivalry is dead and I think it has its place in our society(however small). I just don't think it should be the norm.

That was amusing, if a little terrifying. However, it appears to me that it is not only the case that chivalry is sexist if (and only if) it's based on a presumption of male superiority: it is sexist if it assumes a quality is present within women based upon their gender. Chivalry seems underlyingly sexist, because when the chivalrous is asked to explain why he caters his politeness to women he has to explain what quality it is that women posses or lack universally (without predicating this upon their gender) in order to justify chivalry and this does not appear to be possible without regressing to sexism.

You seem to have a too broad of a sense for sexism(or are being too strict on the definition). Let's suppose a male opens a door for a female or buys her a drink. When asked if why he says "because I would like to have sexual relations with this woman". He is then asked if he would do such actions towards a male and says no. It seems to me you would call that sexism(correct me if I am wrong).

 

[Superhyperactiveman]

Call me old fashioned, but I was raised to be chivalrous. Quite frankly, any woman that complains at having a man do work for her is clearly a ***** who just needs something to complain about. Sexist my ass. You're a fucking ***** and I refuse to associate with you... though I will still hold the door open for you, because I know it pisses you off.

 

[BGH122]

You seem to have a too broad of a sense for sexism(or are being too strict on the definition). Let's suppose a male opens a door for a female or buys her a drink. When asked if why he says "because I would like to have sexual relations with this woman". He is then asked if he would do such actions towards a male and says no. It seems to me you would call that sexism(correct me if I am wrong).

No, this would be heterosexualism, he is not treating her this way because she is female, he is treating her this way because she possesses a number of qualities which he sexually desires, one of which is gender.

To say that it is sexism says that it is something universal across his perception of the entire gender, yet he would not have sex with all women, only those who possess all the necessary traits (unattractive women, for instance, do not posses one of the necessary traits, even though they are still female hence his sex-drive towards this one woman cannot be said to be born of sexism).

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

This is peculiar. However, if they are specifically targeting girls for negative behaviour which they would exhibit towards boys then that too is sexist. However, if they are equally unpleasant to the boys then it is not.

May I ask, are you a teacher or a student in this class?

I work as a teacher's assistant in a special ed class for autistic children. They really are sweet kids, but it isn't a matter of sexism to me. Just plain and simple "girls-are-icky" syndrome. If they weren't mentally disabled, I believe it would just be an easy task for them to grow out of it, yet that is not the case.

Either way, it wouldn't make sense to me that a person treating men poorly compared to women is actually just sexist. To me, it would only be an act of sexism if the treatment is deserved yet denied for the simple fact of differing gender. If a woman is not legally punished for a crime for the fact that she is female, that is sexism. However, I wouldn't consider being asshole to everybody as "progress" in any form.

 

[BGH122]

This is peculiar. However, if they are specifically targeting girls for negative behaviour which they would exhibit towards boys then that too is sexist. However, if they are equally unpleasant to the boys then it is not.

May I ask, are you a teacher or a student in this class?

I work as a teacher's assistant in a special ed class for autistic children. They really are sweet kids, but it isn't a matter of sexism to me. Just plain and simple "girls-are-icky" syndrome. If they weren't mentally disabled, I believe it would just be an easy task for them to grow out of it, yet that is not the case.

Either way, it wouldn't make sense to me that a person treating men poorly compared to women is actually just sexist. To me, it would only be an act of sexism if the treatment is deserved yet denied for the simple fact of differing gender. If a woman is not legally punished for a crime for the fact that she is female, that is sexism. However, I wouldn't consider being asshole to everybody as "progress" in any form.

Yes, exactly. If a treatment is deserved and yet denied on the basis of gender. Are these girls deserving the treatment the boys are showing them? If not, then by your definition, the boys are acting in a sexist manner if they choose to deny the girls said treatment on the basis of gender. Do the boys deserve the positive treatment other boys show them? If not then they are acting in a sexist manner if they choose to deny the boys the proper reaction to their behaviour on the basis of gender.

It doesn't have to be a negative behaviour to be unwarranted.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

Ignore this.

 

[TundraWolf]

Before we begin, just to make it known, I'm also male, also twenty, and also believe that people should be treated and respected as they deserve. Also, I have a long-standing female significant other.

Snip

I can't say I agree. In fact, I've had this discussion with people before, and it seems like such a reactionary response to say that chivalry is dead or, as you say, that it's actually demeaning to women.

All things told, I like to think that I'm a good person. I treat everyone I meet with respect, I open doors for people, I help them pick up items that they drop, and so on and so forth. Maybe that's why I don't agree with you: I like to think that the way I act is chivalrous, so perhaps I'm a bit close to the subject. However, I think what people should come to realize is that chivalry is much more than just being kind to women.

The term "chivalry" comes from the French, as it regards to knights and their conduct in court, at war, and in the general spectrum of their life. Some of those matters might be archaic and outdated at this point (we hardly have kingly courts these days, never mind knights who attend them), but the basic principle is still the same: to be chivalrous is to be respectful of those around you, whether they be your equals or your betters. Back in the day, it was not necessary to show kindness and compassion to those beneath your status, but it could be a beneficial property of your character. And yes, there was a function of chivalry specifically regarding conduct towards women at court, but this was not the only tenet of such behaviour. To focus only on the one gender was deemed inappropriate and not, in fact, chivalrous at all.

I extrapolate from this that to be truly chivalrous, one must show respect to all people that one interacts with, which is something I strive for. To focus so singularly on the female gender, all under the guise of chivalry, is to go against the principles of chivalry itself. Only then do those sorts of actions start being demeaning towards women, because those men are, in fact, just using their own twisted version of chivalry to achieve their own means.

(I'm all for gender equality, don't get me wrong. But while we're on the subject, I can't stand when women get insulted when someone shows them kindness, like opening a door. I've actually opened doors for women only to have them stop and refuse to go through the held door, all because they believe that not opening the door themselves somehow rids them of the equality that they have fought for. That is an argument that I can never get behind; it seems like it's actually an example of sexism against men, implying that women are better than them. I'm all for gender equality, truly I am; I think men and women should be respected equally. But to so belittle men, simply because they are doing something nice for someone else who happens to be the opposite sex, is simply implying that women are higher above men as opposed to being equal. They are beyond the simple courtesies that men might show them, and thus have a higher status. I know that may not be the intended message, but that is what is conveyed.)

All in all, I suppose I agree with your intended message: people should treat everyone they meet equally and with the respect they deserve. To me, though, that's what chivalry is all about.

 

[Nex-Falx]

I practice Chivalry because the women that I'm attracted to are attracted to it.

I don't want the crazy ... well-worn, nasty, mean-spirited (Etc. Etc.) girls that "jerky" or even "normal" guys can lasso.

I'm a bit of a romantic, so that's what I want.

(Read the Op's post, didn't want the direction the thread MAY have taken to color my response, so didn't read. May have just said something someone else has already said. If so, sorry.)

 

[crudus]

No, this would be heterosexualism, he is not treating her this way because she is female, he is treating her this way because she possesses a number of qualities which he sexually desires, one of which is gender.

To say that it is sexism says that it is something universal across his perception of the entire gender, yet he would not have sex with all women, only those who possess all the necessary traits (unattractive women, for instance, do not posses one of the necessary traits, even though they are still female hence his sex-drive towards this one woman cannot be said to be born of sexism).

Good, I was hoping I was wrong there. However, it does prove a point. In ye-olden days chivalry was expected for various reasons (knightly thing, right thing to do, women sucked at killing wild animals, etc). Now a days chivalry is mostly (if not totally) done for personal gain. I know I have been chivalrous towards females to get with them. When we stop getting benefits from it then most (if not all) of us will stop doing it (simple operant conditioning). If you still count that as chivalry then I have shown you that chivalry can be nonsexist.

 

[silentsentinel]

Ridiculous claims of sexism aside, I just cannot see how that is such a bad thing.

Because they've been brainwashed by femnazis.

They've been told their entire lives that men only want sex. And by being nice no matter how pure your intentions you are secretly trying to get laid.

I treat everyone well. But somehow when I am nice to a woman she thinks I want in her pants. Women are brainwashed and have a sense of entitlement due to feminism.

Question: I'm nice to a girl. She thnks I want sex. WHo brought sex into the picture then?
Answer: not me. Her. Women are obsessed with sex.

The last line of this post amuses me to no end.

 

[BGH122]

-snip-

A lot of what you wrote deals with a semantic argument. I did not intend the word 'chivalry' to mean 'kindness and respect to everyone', I intended it to mean preferential kindness and respect to women as I believe most people understand the term (more properly, this term would be 'gallant', but the word chivalry has come to mean the same thing colloquially).

You did not rebut any of my points, or show how preferential treatment to a particular gender is not sexist, hence it does not appear that you have addressed my argument. However, within the frame of your own argument, certainly it would not be demeaning or sexist in any way to treat women pleasantly because you act this way with all people. You are neither doing it because you expect a reward (as many women will probably assume and thus the negative reactions), nor because you consider women to be inferior/better than men.

Good, I was hoping I was wrong there. However, it does prove a point. In ye-olden days chivalry was expected for various reasons (knightly thing, right thing to do, women sucked at killing wild animals, etc). Now a days chivalry is mostly (if not totally) done for personal gain. I know I have been chivalrous towards females to get with them. When we stop getting benefits from it then most (if not all) of us will stop doing it (simple operant conditioning). If you still count that as chivalry then I have shown you that chivalry can be nonsexist.

Make no mistake, it was done for the same reason in the past (except for the chivalric code, that's totally different as Tundra points out above). Women were reliant upon men to get the boar and had only sex to offer in return.

 

[tthor]

who cares? :3

 

[crudus]

Make no mistake, it was done for the same reason in the past (except for the chivalric code, that's totally different as Tundra points out above). Women were reliant upon men to get the boar and had only sex to offer in return.

If I remember correctly, sex for fun in that era was looked down upon(heavily, like to the point of outlawed). Sex was only for procreation.

 

[IrishBerserker]

Your "pre-equality" statement isn't technically accurate, both the pre-christian Vikings and Irish practiced a form of chivalry, and both those societies viewed women as, if not superior then, at least, equal to men.

As far as why I practice chivalry, its because of both my upbringing and my religion. In my religion women are considered to be sacred because they bear children and due in part to their sanctity they are superior to men.

Oh that'd be interesting, if true, to research and puzzle over why those cultures developed chivalry. However, I can find no proof of your claims since neither Viking chivalry nor even any clear information on Viking gender concepts returns on a Google search, if you've any proof for your claims I'd love to see it because it's quite an interesting point.

Unfortunatly, I to am having trouble finding my source, as I learnt of this quite a while ago.

Though, one source I did find was in this link: http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/wedding.shtml, Which talks about Marrige in viking society and the right a woman had to divorce her husband. Though by todays standards some of the reasons for divorce are quite foolish (ex. clothing issues).

Women were also able to divorce their husbands in Celtic(Irish) culture

There is also proof that women in both Celtic and Viking cultures activley participated in warfare.

from what I understand, women in Cletic culture also had extensive sexual freedom (not sure if it was the same in Viking culture)

As far as my belief in the sanctity of women goes this was shared by both the Vikings and the Celts. The only evidence of this I have right now, is the fact that my religion is that of the Vikings/norsemen (which holds many similarities to that of the Celtic/pre-Christian Irish)

-

If I had more time I could find more/better evidence to back my claims.

 

[tthor]

If we're talking about the old "holding doors open for them", or "offering my jacket/jumper when it's cold"... Then I guess that makes me chivalrous.
Note, however, that while I'll give priority to a girl in this regard, I'll still offer to a male. It's become a habit of mine to hold the door open for anyone that's close enough behind me to warrant it, and if a good male friend of mine is shivering while I have a jacket or jumper on, I'll still offer it to them.

As said already (to a certain extent at least), a lot of what was once considered "chivalrous", like my aforementioned examples, are now just common courtesy.
Though a lot of that, much like chivalry, seems to be almost extinct too. :S

Pretty much this. Although "common courtesy" it seems, much like common sense and common decency are about as common as snow in Brazil.

sadly, so true...

 

[BGH122]

Make no mistake, it was done for the same reason in the past (except for the chivalric code, that's totally different as Tundra points out above). Women were reliant upon men to get the boar and had only sex to offer in return.

If I remember correctly, sex for fun in that era was looked down upon(heavily, like to the point of outlawed). Sex was only for procreation.

Not in the time of the hunter gatherer, as I believed we were referring to. But it was little better in the Medieval era, certainly the church praised monogamy and was anti-promiscuity, but men would still ultimately get sex (even if it were marital) or respect (important bargaining chip for work) for their chivalry.

-snip-

Hm, well it seems, if you're correct, that to act in an unchivalrous manner would be a foolish thing to do if it was considered the societal norm. This could be the forcing factor for men to become chivalrous? Unsure.

It's still sounds quite sexist if women were considered somehow sacred. So it appears the chivalry is still based upon sexism.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

Yes, exactly. If a treatment is deserved and yet denied on the basis of gender. Are these girls deserving the treatment the boys are showing them? If not, then by your definition, the boys are acting in a sexist manner if they choose to deny the girls said treatment on the basis of gender. Do the boys deserve the positive treatment other boys show them? If not then they are acting in a sexist manner if they choose to deny the boys the proper reaction to their behaviour on the basis of gender.

It doesn't have to be a negative behaviour to be unwarranted.

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass of whether a kid should also include boys in his daily abuse because it may or may not be an act of sexism based on his unclear motive. My only purpose in being there is to make sure these kids don't become sociopaths because they have a harder time understanding the same things other people can, and telling them that it's not good for them to punch girls in the arm if they don't include the boys will only confuse them and drive them even further down that path.