Is chivalry dead?

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Or is it just being kicked while down?

Seriously, in this modern day and age it seems that being a gentleman is not only rare, but often scorned. Even other women seem to scoff at it. Either you have the feminists who seem to think it is degrading to them somehow, or you have those who just like the 'bad boys'.

I have a friend shall we say who is probably the sweetest person I've ever met, and can't stand how guys seem to treat her. Yet she is so used to it that a guys she's just strictly friends with can make all sorts of really raunchy comments about her or others and its 'just a joke'. Really would have liked to knock this guy on his bum but how can you when everyone else thinks it's 'all in good fun'.

Crude humor can be amusing... but some things just aren't funny even when said in a teasing manner. But now it's just the norm.

It really depresses me at times...

[Death, your friend the Reaper]

Takes out hourglass with :


Chivalry

on it*

Should I break it to him, or let someone else do it?


((In serious world, I often open doors etc, and try to make sure a friends don't say to many degrading jokes about a few of the girls I know. But really, often girls say they can get the door themselves, or they encourage jokes. Bit weird if you ask me, but we are talking about females after all, and they get all wacky when thinking us males are sexist. Us sexist? Pssht, all in those silly girls heads.:smallwink: ))

[Saithis Bladewing]

Well, I find Chivalry to be flattering myself, if that helps console you at all. And I respond to crude humour with my ability to use one-upsmanship to throw cruder humour back.

[Zephra]

that's one thing that really saddens me about the world. At a school, I think in the late 90s, a group of boys decided to be gentleman (a club sort of a thing) and went out of their way to hold doors open for girls, carry their books, dress and act politely, and what happened? the parents of the girls made a big fuss, saying it was 'demening' for the girls to be treated that way, as if they couldn't do those things themselves. The boys had to stop. I think everyone was just better off in the middle ages, really.

[Swedish chef]

Hear hear. The old proverb: Nice guys finish last seems more true now a days than ever before.



http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb176/chefs_bucket/brokenHeart.gif

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Hear hear. The old proverb: Nice guys finish last seems more true now a days than ever before.
Heh, I prefer the old knight's saying.

'Courteous words or hard knocks is a knight's only language.'

[Swedish chef]

Heh, I like the old knights saying.

'Courteous words or hard knocks is a knight's only language.'

Ooooh never heard that one before. Ok so chivalry may have changed, but still. I have heard words used about girls that sometimes made me furious. Sadly enough I think many girls want to say stop to the raunchy comments but are afraid to be considered cowards or weak. If you back them up by puting your foot down they often agree or atleast they are thankful.

[Quincunx]

Man-specific courtesy, chivalry. . .ok. . .ish, but carries with it the expectation of. . .
Woman-specific courtesy. . .a wet blanket over the creative spark, and often worse.
Better just to have courtesy.

[ZombieRockStar]

Hey...there are still a few of us out there who like to be chivalrous, or at least nice. Chivalry doesn't equate to considering her weaker than you are and therefore to be protected, it involves treating your partner with respect and admiration he/she damn well deserves. A more modern, non-gender-specific chivalry. Putting the women on a pedestal in the name of their "purity" is pretty sexist, but that doesn't mean "chivalry." Or, if it does, I think you're just talking about "respect" for your partner.

And, honestly, that's been a damn rare thing to find for as long as there's been relationships. So I hardly think it's dead at all.

As for whether nice guys finish last...do you really want the kind of person who likes bad boys? There are good people out there who like nice guys/smart girls...they're just a little harder to find.

*leaves out a warm cup of tea for Ego when she gets here*

[The Great Skenardo]

*adjusts Monocle*
Chivalry is not dead! It's simply...reduced. Hiding, if you will. The chivalrous among us tend to be more reserved and taciturn as a rule, so we're much harder to spot.

One major enemy to chivalry, I think, is that an inordinate number of buildings these days require two doors to get in, and both very close to each other. Imagine a well-meaning gentleman who opens the door for a lady, only to see that there's another door not ten feet away that she'll have to open herself, unless he lunges past her, shoving her out of the way. It makes the whole excercise seem...pointless.
"Ah, I feel so Chivalrous; I've managed to make it so that she only has to open one door by herself :-/ "

[Xiander]

The thing about chivalry is, that if you only practice it when girls are near, it is sexcism. That said i won't say that necesarily makes it bad, but think about it, why be chivalrous when you could just be generally nice? I mean why can't a boy hold the door for a boy?

[Death, your friend the Reaper]

*leaves out a warm cup of tea for Ego when she gets here*

Obviously this is a horrendous form of sexism, leaving one out for Ego since she is a girl, and not one out for the Reaper, just because he is a personification.

Back in my days...

[ZombieRockStar]

Why would you want tea? I figured you would more appreciate the 100-proof whiskey I left on the end table over there.

[Jibar]

My friends have often told me off being a gentlemen at times when I'm apparantly meant to be a man.
But everytime they are often excpetionally happy that I do all these things that other guys won't.
I believe that these days women are often surprised by a chivalrous act considering the image that is often linked with the male sex. They'll either think you're doing it for a joke or are trying something on if it's your first time, but give it time, and they'll understand you're doing it for the right reasons.
So don't worry, chivalry isn't dead, there's just less of it.
Like echidnas.

[Death, your friend the Reaper]

Why would you want tea? I figured you would more appreciate the 100-proof whiskey I left on the end table over there.

Ah, theres someone who understands me, *turns over ZRS' hourglass a few times*

:smalltongue:I really should leave these threads to the serious discussion people.

[RAGE KING!]

I agree with xiander.

I think chivalry is pretty much dead, 'cuz people get mad at you for anything...(including be chivalrous to girls) but if you're just generally nice, then taht works out fine. (you can also be exploitative, by being nice and then reaping the benefits). that appeals to a wider range of people.

[FdL]

Well...Zombie made an interesting comment about "updated" modern-day chivalry, which I agree with.

I've been a gentleman with women all my life. So I'm sad to inform from what my life experience has told me without doubt that women don't like guys who treat them like that. They notice, they respect you back but they don't consider you as a candidate if you treat them with too much respect.

I know this sounds awful, but sadly it's true for me, or at least a current hypothesis of mine.

I can somehow understand that they think that nowadays someone who respects a woman too much and treats her nice in a chivalrous way puts some kind of a distance with the opposite gender. I always end up being "the friend" or the "nice guy".


My friends have often told me off being a gentlemen at times when I'm apparantly meant to be a man.


This is what I mean. They're considered mutually exclusive terms. As if being polite makes you less of a man. My reality-damaged brain understands from this kind of comments that women don't like men who are "gentle"... :s


But it's not that women like bad boys, that's an extreme. They like guys who are confident and know what they want and how to get it, which often means stepping over a few rules of courtesy...
This is a guess of mine. If I learn something new about women I'll let you know ASAP :)

I can't understand how someone can consider it demeaning. It's just this world has gone crazy...

But in the end, you know, I can't help it. I can't help to treat women with respect and admiration for their beauty. It's a fault of mine.

[Attilargh]

I find it really hard to act chivalric when every door I encounter seems to open outwards. That, and I'm afraid she'll make the correct assumption regarding my motivations.

[ZombieRockStar]

I hold doors open for everyone and anyone, male and female. That's probably just stereotypical Canadian politeness, though.

[Sucrose]

Given the origin of chivalry, it's not surprising that it's disliked, at least as specific "chivalry." The whole point of the knight's code was to protect the weak. Ergo, if you protect someone in the name of (the original) chivalry, you're claiming that he or she is weaker than you; not exactly a claim that many will stomach. The idea that you have to be chivalrous toward all women would then clearly be seen as sexist.

However, that doesn't mean that you can't be nice. In the example that you gave, you could easily have knocked the cretin on his arse, and just left it at "People don't like to stick up for themselves about comments like that, so I do it for them."

In other words, chivalry is dead, but that doesn't mean that you can't act in a way that you associate with chivalry; just do it for both sexes equally, and, if it comes up, try to establish that you don't consider them weaker than you; either that you were just saving them time, or that your specific talents or perspective happened to be right for that job.

[FdL]

I find it really hard to act chivalric when every door I encounter seems to open outwards. That, and I'm afraid she'll make the correct assumption regarding my motivations.

Which is perfectly fine I guess. A least in my case. I never hide my motivations (maybe that's the problem)

There's a saying in spanish that goes "lo cortés no quita lo valiente" (that is, "being polite doesn't mean you're not brave").

[zombie chick]

well a friend of mine i like must be the last chivilrous guy on the planet.
he always tries to open doors for me or let me go first or take a biscuit first.
its a shame that i dont let him and tell him off for trying that with me.
maybe if i let him i will actually have a chance with him (oops shouldnt have said that out loud)
look behind you a three headed monkey! *legs it*

[The Prince of Cats]

I mean why can't a boy hold the door for a boy?
I do...

Chivalry is not simply about courtly love, it is about fairness in ones dealings with either sex. Chivalry is the reason you don't strike a man with glasses in the face, why you don't hit people when their backs are turned...

In many ways, it is the code of the paladin (or, in my case, more like the code of the bard's 'gallant' kit from 2e). You respect the rights of those around you, you do not use strength to best the weak. There are few times when you have the chance to champion the weak, but there are too many times when it is easier to ignore an injustice and not speak out.

I don't hit women, nor do I hit men really. I am not even allowed to hit spiders... I offer hospitality, I accept it graciously. Life is easy if you listen to your conscience.

[s.donahue]

I think common courtesy isn't dead, meaning things like holding doors open for people, but going out of your way to help someone is rare or unexpected. If I pick a girl up for a date, and open the car door for her or walk her to her door afterwards, it usually throws them off for a second. Half of the time they laugh and think it's funny, and the rest of the time they're surprised and really appreciative. I can't speak for others, but I know I would be more chivalrous if I didn't think I'd get laughed at.

[Saithis Bladewing]

Well, I can't speak for others, but I just say 'thanks' if someone holds a door open for me (which is rare). And I'm probably more chivalrous than most people I've met, not that such things matter given my gender.

[Zeb The Troll]

I, personally, believe that there's still plenty of room for chivalry. The problem is a matter of miscommunication.

Guy holds open door for lady friend, she thinks "uh oh, what does he want from me?" or "he must think me incapable of opening a door by myself" instead of "that's nice, why aren't more people nice?" Often times this is followed by "I can do it myself, y'know". Which is then misinterpreted as "she prefers the bad boys" which is wholly untrue. She wants to be respected and mistook your kindness as something other than the respectful gesture it's intended to be.

I say, keep doing it guys. But not just for her. For everyone. Show folks that it's just you being a decent fellow and not you trying to reap any perceived reward for a show of some sort. Open doors/offer to pay/offer someone else the first pick of muffins/whatever for everyone, not just pretty girls. It's worked well for me.

As for the specific instance of crude humor. Don't speak up in defense of her. Speak up and say, "I don't know what she thinks, but that kind of humor makes me uncomfortable" or something of the sort. That way you're not seen as defending her when she doesn't need any help, but just taking a stand (which she probably appreciates, secretly if not openly).

[SweetLikeLemons]

I think a lot of the feminist backlash over chivalry comes from wanting to be taken seriously and respected as equals. I mean, what is it saying about a woman if you act like she can't even open a door for herself? A lot of it has to do with how you do it, too. Opening a door for me and then running to open the next one will only annoy me. Opening the door for me and then thanking me politely when I hold the next one for you is nice and courteous and will cause me to think better of you.
In the context of a relationship, things are a little different. If I'm with a guy, presumably I am already convinced that he respects me. So then if he wants to do things like rub my feet, or even help me out of a car occasionally, that's fine.
But the stranger who sees me hefting my carry-on into the overhead bin and says, "Let me help you with that, little lady," is demeaning me, even though he's just trying to be chivalrous.

Edit: Zeb The Troll, you are a very wise man

Jibar, "little lady" isn't my only problem with it, it is the assumption that I can't do it myself. Saying "let me help you" makes me think he has already come to the conclusion that I need his help. If he had asked if I needed a hand, and allowed me to tell him no, that would have been fine.

[Jibar]

"Let me help you with that, little lady," is demeaning me, even though he's just trying to be chivalrous.

What if they don't say "little lady"?
Will that have any effect?
Because that line is demeaning to me.

[Zeb The Troll]

But the stranger who sees me hefting my carry-on into the overhead bin and says, "Let me help you with that, little lady," is demeaning me, even though he's just trying to be chivalrous.I can see that. No, the proper way to go address that situation, in my view, would be to simply ask "Do you need/Would you like any help with that?" It's offering assistance instead of assuming it's necessary (and that whole "little lady" thing is right out, period). Likewise, as others have mentioned, don't just offer to help the ladies. If you see a guy with a large bag having trouble and you think you can help, ask him the same question for Pete's sake.


Edit: Zeb The Troll, you are a very wise man:smallredface: Why thank you. I do try.

[Hoggy]

Chivalry died with capitalism. Everyone's too busy earning the wage to be polite.

Clearly, we'd be much better off as communists.

[averagejoe]

Eh, in some ways I think it's okay that chivalry is dead. For example,

"Thou shalt make war against the Infidel without cessation, and without mercy."

is one I could do without. I don't really want to make war on anybody. Except the undead.

The more cynical part of me thinks of chivalry and imagines geeky adolescents who don't know any other way to make a girl know that they like her. However, most of my friends and I open doors for pretty much anyone, including each other. Heck, if there's a series of doors in quick succession then we leapfrog it. As far as I know none of us have ever been chastised for it, so there's that. Heck, I've even been praised before.

It goes both ways, though, I think. I know that, at times, girls could be a bit more courteous to us. (And pay for things once in awhile :smallfrown: It isn't like they need us to anymore because the only work they can find is as secretaries, or whatever. Seriously.)

[Lemur]

that's one thing that really saddens me about the world. At a school, I think in the late 90s, a group of boys decided to be gentleman (a club sort of a thing) and went out of their way to hold doors open for girls, carry their books, dress and act politely, and what happened? the parents of the girls made a big fuss, saying it was 'demening' for the girls to be treated that way, as if they couldn't do those things themselves. The boys had to stop. I think everyone was just better off in the middle ages, really.

Are you serious, Zephra? That's living satire- something should be said for people who are offended by politeness.

[WildArcana]

I don't think she was offended by the club, just it's shutting down. :smallconfused:

[Arang]

Chivalry died with capitalism. Everyone's too busy earning the wage to be polite.

Clearly, we'd be much better off as communists.

In Soviet Russia, woman holds door open for YOU!

[Lemur]

I don't think she was offended by the club, just it's shutting down. :smallconfused:

I was referring to the parents who spoke out against the club. They were getting in a fit over, of all things, people trying to be polite. It practically makes fun of itself.

[Captain van der Decken]

Chivalry, as in holding doors open for women?

Nnnnno. Definitely not. Courtesy, as in holding doors open for everybody, yes.

[David Demola]

Or is it just being kicked while down?

Seriously, in this modern day and age it seems that being a gentleman is not only rare, but often scorned. Even other women seem to scoff at it. Either you have the feminists who seem to think it is degrading to them somehow, or you have those who just like the 'bad boys'.

I have a friend shall we say who is probably the sweetest person I've ever met, and can't stand how guys seem to treat her. Yet she is so used to it that a guys she's just strictly friends with can make all sorts of really raunchy comments about her or others and its 'just a joke'. Really would have liked to knock this guy on his bum but how can you when everyone else thinks it's 'all in good fun'.

Crude humor can be amusing... but some things just aren't funny even when said in a teasing manner. But now it's just the norm.

It really depresses me at times...

Why does it matter if they make crude humor toward her? If she laughs about it, and honestly doesn't mind it, then there's no problem.

Chivalry is seen as degrading to women, because the whole base of chivalraic (not a word, I know) theory is that women are inferior to men, and thus need to be essentially cottled like a small child. Women are a lot more independent now than then, and that can cause a bit of a conflict, because Chivalry tries to, in its basic theory, force women to be dependent on a man. It hides behind the "Gentleman" label, but maybe the definition of being a gentleman has changed (discussed below as "class")? Now, there are such a thing as "manners" and acting "appropriately," but that's not chivalry. That's just part of growing up.

I have a friend who I make very crude humor to, and she comes back at me with it. Is it innapropriate? Yes, because when we spout our humor to each other, it's just playful teasing (even when it gets a bit over-the-line), and we've established that both of us find it amusing (thus making it appropriate when it's between the two of us).

Everyone loves to degrade the modern kid as having no "class." What if the definition of "class" has changed? What if, now, having "class" is just being open to talking about anything, including subjects that would have been very taboo before?

[Sisqui]

I have never thought a man holding a door open for me meant he thought I was physically and/or mentally incapable of opening it myself.......:smallconfused:

I have no problem with a man doing that for me. It just shows that his Momma raised him right. I fully intend to raise my son to do so. But then, I live in the South where that kind of thing is expected.

What bothers me is the reverse, actually. When some metrosexual male orders tofu or a soy latte and wants to tell me he "supports feminism". Men like that should be subject to immediate sterilization.

"Why, I think I would love to stay at home and be a house husband and take care of things while you work, honey." ZAP!! Goodbye sperm. :smallyuk:
Take a testosterone patch or something. (This was sarcasm for those of you who missed it :smallwink: )



I don't really want to make war on anybody. Except the undead.

What is this bias against undead you have?

[Castaras]

I have never thought a man holding a door open for me meant he thought I was physically and/or mentally incapable of opening it myself.......:smallconfused:


Same...It's just means they're nice...:smallconfused:

[Zephra]

(The religion in this post is purely for historical reasons)

so way, way, back, in the middle ages, europe, the centre of learning and civilization (to a point) was christian. Out of respect for the Virgin Mary, Women and girls were treated with great respect. it would be a dishonner forever if a knight had spoken even harshly to a woman. Now we come to modern times, where women want to be treated equally. that's fine, but along with equality, women pick up the mentality that there is absolutly nothing different between women and men, besides a few unimportant phisical differences. and suddenly, it's demening for women to be treated differently from men.

Chivalry, as from the middle ages, is all but dead.

[Trog]

When I think "chivalry" I think "courtesy that a gentleman shows to a woman out of respect." And I do so. I volunteer to carry the heavy objects if there are heavy things to be toted, I hold open doors... this generally for every woman. For Thes I will occasionally (when I am mindful of such things and want her to feel special) open and close the passenger door for her, push in her chair while being seated at dinner, have her take the umbrella for herself, lead her in a crowd but follow her when being escorted by a hostess, etc. It is an expression that, for me, has never carried with it this strange baggage of me considering the other person weaker in any way. It has everything to do with being helpful or showing courtesy. With the most uncommon showings saved for those I love. That said I have never gotten into the habit of rising when a woman entered the room or left the table. But I would like to because I consider it gentlemanly.

Feminists can kiss my ass in this regard. Remember the words of Elenor Roosevelt: "No one can make you feel inferior without your permission."

[Sisqui]

The religion in this post is purely for historical reasons

so way, way, back, in the middle ages, europe, the centre of learning and civilization (to a point) was christian. Out of respect for the Virgin Mary, Women and girls were treated with great respect. it would be a dishonner forever if a knight had spoken even harshly to a woman. Now we come to modern times, where women want to be treated equally. that's fine, but along with equality, women pick up the mentality that there is absolutly nothing different between women and men, besides a few unimportant phisical differences. and suddenly, it's demening for women to be treated differently from men.

Chivalry, as from the middle ages, is all but dead.

That is the biggest reason I think modern day feminism is a crock. Men and women are inherently different. Anyone who thinks they aren't is selling something- and their product smells far worse than anything I would want to buy. :smallannoyed:


Feminists can kiss my ass in this regard. Remember the words of Elenor Roosevelt: "No one can make you feel inferior without your permission."

Or the equally applicable "If you have to tell them you are a lady........you aren't."

[Deepblue706]

I, apparently, am a very chivalrous individual, according to many of my co-workers and some friends. I just try to be polite to others - things are simply more pleasant that way. I open doors for everyone, really, but I don't rush ahead to do so. Well, very rarely I do, but I'll throw some nonsense into the mix, like claiming I'm racing a girl at that point, and thus open the door for them when I arrive there first. It's more about the humor, though.

Of course, I'm also known to be rather UNchivalrous when trying to make a joke of it - it's always very "light" humor, though. I'm big on jokes, it can't be helped.

I don't observe a great deal of what many people call "chivalry" in others, but it never really mattered to me. I have been lucky enough to be able to avoid most of those whom I deem distasteful - so I don't often find myself standing up against "ungentlemanly" individuals. When I do come across someone very unpleasant, I usually pass a subtle "You're an idiot" their way, they usually get the clue, and they usually quit their crap. I never really get into the mood to really "stand up", though.

[averagejoe]

What bothers me is the reverse, actually. When some metrosexual male orders tofu or a soy latte and wants to tell me he "supports feminism". Men like that should be subject to immediate sterilization.

"Why, I think I would love to stay at home and be a house husband and take care of things while you work, honey." ZAP!! Goodbye sperm. :smallyuk:
Take a testosterone patch or something. No pansies!!

...

I don't see the correlation. I mean, I'm not "metrosexual" by any stretch of the imagination, but none of these things make men "pansies." I think it's a bit silly to go seek out being a stay at home husband (or wife), but then I find a lot of things about mating customs to be rather silly. Such a choice certainly doesn't make people unworthy of respect.

I've had just about up to here with testosterone-infested males anyways. They give the rest of us a bad name, and lend credence to extremist feminist baloney.

[Zephra]

Chivalry is seen as degrading to women, because the whole base of chivalraic (not a word, I know) theory is that women are inferior to men, and thus need to be essentially cottled like a small child. Women are a lot more independent now than then, and that can cause a bit of a conflict, because Chivalry tries to, in its basic theory, force women to be dependent on a man.

No! No no no no no no! :smalltongue: (sorry, couldn't help it...)
(red is mine)
:smallsigh:

a gentleman knows that women are not inferior--if he thinks they are, he's not a gentleman. the holding open of doors, carying of books ect. is simply to aknowledge that he respects her. A chivalrus person knows that the woman could open the door, obviously, but holds it open to show respect, not superiority.

[CurlyKitGirl]

Chivalry isn't dead. It isn't limited to just the male half of the population either. Where I am it's second nature for most people to be chivalrous; or at least gentlemanly/ladylike. Much of what was deemed chivalrous is now politeness.
Personally I'd prefer a chivalrous gentleman to any other type because it shws that they're well (ugh, there's no way to say it without sounding snobbish), well brought up. It's never offended me or anyone I now (male or female) to have a person of either gender be chivalrous toward that person.
Therefore, chivalry is not dead! It's just highly endangered and indiginous to certain areas.

[averagejoe]

That is the biggest reason I think modern day feminism is a crock. Men and women are inherently different. Anyone who thinks they aren't is selling something- and their product smells far worse than anything I would want to buy. :smallannoyed:

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I have yet to see or here of one example of difference.

Anyways, like and equal are two different things. I thought that feminism was about equality, not likeness. :smallconfused:

[Jorkens]

a gentleman knows that women are not inferior--if he thinks they are, he's not a gentleman. the holding open of doors, carying of books ect. is simply to aknowledge that he respects her. A chivalrus person knows that the woman could open the door, obviously, but holds it open to show respect, not superiority.
So why is it more important that a gentleman respects women than it is that he respects men? And should (gentle)women be expected to respect people and hold doors open for them?

If by chivalry you just mean 'being polite and helpful to people', yeah, I'll sign up for it. But I don't feel a particular need to treat people differently because they haven't got a Y chromosome.

[Zephra]

As a woman in america, your worth will be judged by your attractiveness, and respect is consitered 'gay'. ( :smallfurious: ) A chivalrus person shows a woman that he respects her, and will not look at her like she is an object. Up with chivalry! what's demening, is to be treated like an object. not to be treated politely.

[ZombieRockStar]

Now we come to modern times, where women want to be treated equally. that's fine, but along with equality, women pick up the mentality that there is absolutly nothing different between women and men, besides a few unimportant phisical differences. and suddenly, it's demening for women to be treated differently from men.


That is the biggest reason I think modern day feminism is a crock. Men and women are inherently different. Anyone who thinks they aren't is selling something- and their product smells far worse than anything I would want to buy. :smallannoyed:

Funny...I thought feminism, as a movement, was about stopping workplace harassment and for making sure women get equal pay for the same job men do and ensuring that they have equal rights and that FGM stays illegal and also to complain about Axe/Tag commercials (which are horrible).

Now, there are feminist critics, who go in depth about the theory and a few of them, such as Camille Paglia for instance, have some pretty radical theories. Most of them competing, so I thing I'll wait until we get a definitive psychological-scientific law of gender behavior before I start treating women in a set specific way.

So I'm wondering where you get these ideas about what feminist supposedly believe, because the woman who berates you for holding open a door for her is unlike any feminist I've ever met (but, then, as I said, I have this funny notion that doors should be held open for anybody close behind you). And I've met a lot of them. They're very nice people who thank you politely for holding doors open for them.

Second, I'm curious as to how these behaviour patterns you speak of apply to same-sex couples. Do you now no longer have to hold open the door for your partner because he's male? Do you not pamper him with hot chocolate when it's cold? Or is the male homosexual couple, as Hollywood seems to like telling me, all about sex? :smallwink:

Thirdly, as a very proud pansy boy, stay the hell away from my seed. :smallamused:

[Zephra]

@V ZRS

my bad, nevermind :smallsmile:

[ZombieRockStar]

Sorry. I was trying to ask it in a nice-ironic way. Should've put a :smallwink: next to it. I wasn't intending to be sarcastic or rude.

EDITNESS: No problem. Lousy internet is too conductive for misunderstandings. :smallsmile:

I do have a point, though, that there's a few people out there (not you...I've read nothing from you that indicates this) that have this idea that there somewhere exists all these radical lesbian "feminazis." I've not met a single one and I don't think they actually exist (Valerie Solanas aside but she was obviously mentally unhinged, though the SCUM Manifesto makes for some interesting reading). Somehow, the word "feminist" has gained negative connotations when it's an entirely positive word. Misandry is something entirely different from feminism and shouldn't be equated with it at all.

I'm not sure how much this thread delves into the political, really. It has the potential for flaming, certainly, but what topic doesn't?

[Syka]

I hold the doors for anyone within a reasonable distance. If the person is elderly, generally they have a longer time frame.

I always say thank you when the door is held for me and it irritates me when people don't return the curtousey. Though, one time I did have a guy refuse to go through a door I was holding and insisted upon me going through. That was fairly...disconcerting to me.

But no, chivalry (aka politeness) is not dead.

Cheers,
Syka

[Valdren]

The sort of new-age chivalry of gentleman-like behavior is realy something most of my friends and schoolmates (especially back in high school) see as interesting but they never berate me for doing it. I'd do stuff like hold the door open for a whole class going out for P.E. (I walk fast normally, so I didn't 'race' to get there) and I'd get about six or seven "thank you"s and three or four jokes about me doing it. I'd normally joke with them, says I had nothing better to do and that I wasn't in any rush to go running in circles around the track, but really I feel like not holding the door open is like slamming it in someone's face (the doors swung in kinda fast)

As for dirty jokes and such, I go to a card shop that has plenty of 'interesting' men and women in there, so I get used to it and adapt, but I rarely stop them, since they know when to stop on there own.

All in all, I'd have to say chivalry hasn't died, but has evolved into a new being that is more relaxed and passes its new ways through those that take from the old ways and apply them to today's life-style in the hopes of infecting others with it and spreading across the globe! .....At least I can hope, right?

[Vonriel]

I have to question something. Where did this idea that chivalry referred to the behavior of men toward women come from? If you take the code of King Arthur as an example, it was more a code of refined behavior, and a pledge to help those who couldn't or wouldn't help themselves, rather than specifically a code of how to treat women. So, I am left wondering where this idea came from. :smallconfused:

The feminist movement is just like any other, Zombie, in that it has its normal people who mean well, as well as its radicals. There are some women in the USA who believe that it is demeaning for a woman to allow a man to hold open the door for her, no matter whether or not he held it open for the five men who went in before her.

Humorous sidenote about the conversation: I once was holding a door for an older (somewhere in their late 50s, I'd guess) couple, and the man came up and took the door from me. He refused to let me hold it for him. I thought that was kinda funny :smalltongue:

[Sisqui]

Sorry. I was trying to ask it in a nice-ironic way. Should've put a :smallwink: next to it. I wasn't intending to be sarcastic or rude.

That's the way I took it (the :smallwink: way.)

And actually, I don't think gay men are all pansies. There are plenty who are still real men. I guess what I mean to say is that I like a man who isn't so afraid of the PC police that he won't act like a man because it might offend a woman.

And anyway, I was being bombastic. Anybody who was offended probably hasn't read many of my posts. They all come across that way. Actually, I think people should act the way they want to- even if that includes acting quasi feminine (or masculine, as the case may be). Or all the way feminine/masculine for that matter. Do what feels right to you. But, my being ok with it is not the same as me preferring it, if that makes it clearer. :smallbiggrin:


...
I've had just about up to here with testosterone-infested males anyways. They give the rest of us a bad name, and lend credence to extremist feminist baloney.

Not testosterone-infested. Too much masculinity is as bad as too much femininity. But for the sake of all that's holy, men should at least try to be strong mentally, physically and morally. I was talking about the kind of men who act as if they have to apologize to every woman on earth for even being a man because somewhere, some man might have demeaned/oppressed/annoyed some woman.

And as for the equals thing. I think any rational person would say that the only way to evaluate "equality" among the sexes is in reference to some specific trait/ability/affinity/task etc... Women are not equally as strong as men (as a whole). Men are not as sympathetic or nurturing as women (again, as a whole). Now, that doesn't mean that women and men can't do the same work (sometimes). But, let's face it, as a whole they prefer different types of work and often have to take measures that the other sex doesn't in order to get the same job done. I just don't think men and women have the same psychological or physical make up and a lot of feminists today try to pretend that they do. Remember the big uproar at Harvard when the head of the faculty said there are more men than women in the sciences because men like science more? Oh, the humanity. Someone dared say what most people know intuitively: men and women like different things. He didn't say women are incapable of succeeding in science, just that they are less inclined to study it. You'd have thought he'd said the earth was flat.

[Nomrom]

I hold the door open for anyone coming through, not just women. I'm not going to stop someone from holding the door open just because they're a girl, and I say thank you to anyone doing so for me. If I see someone who might need help carrying stuff, I ask them. I don't do this because I think I'm better than them, but because I just want to be nice. I'm perfectly willing to accept help too. When I was going home from college one weekend, I was carrying a bunch of stuff to my car in the parking garage. Some girl I didn't know happened to be walking to the garage also. She asked me if I needed any help. I could have made it, but I was not adverse to some help, so I said sure and she carried things. When we got to the garage, I asked her where she was parked, found out it was on the other side of the garage, so I told her I could handle it from there, took my stuff back, told her thank you, and that was the end of it. I've done the same thing to other people too. Chivalry is about being nice and polite, not making yourself superior.

[averagejoe]

And actually, I don't think gay men are all pansies. There are plenty who are still real men. I guess what I mean to say is that I like a man who isn't so afraid of the PC police that he won't act like a man because it might offend a woman.

Fair enough, I suppose. I'm still not completely sure what it is to "be a man" but I'm quite certain it has little to do with gender roles, traditional or modern. Were talking in the context of a "chivalry" quite idealized by history, and in reality it can stay dead and buried for all I care. Stuff like opening doors I just see as common courtesy toward anyone, not something to be done because of some idealized code.

[Sisqui]

Fair enough, I suppose. I'm still not completely sure what it is to "be a man" but I'm quite certain it has little to do with gender roles, traditional or modern. Were talking in the context of a "chivalry" quite idealized by history, and in reality it can stay dead and buried for all I care. Stuff like opening doors I just see as common courtesy toward anyone, not something to be done because of some idealized code.

If you are referring to adherence to the actual code of chivalry and the taking of oaths it required, then yes, that is dead. Deader than the undead you so detest. But then, I always thought a fair fight was for suckers, so I'm OK with that :smallwink:

[ZombieRockStar]

And anyway, I was being bombastic. Anybody who was offended probably hasn't read many of my posts. They all come across that way. Actually, I think people should act the way they want to- even if that includes acting quasi feminine (or masculine, as the case may be). Or all the way feminine/masculine for that matter. Do what feels right to you. But, my being ok with it is not the same as me preferring it, if that makes it clearer. :smallbiggrin:

Hey, look! We're making the same point after all!

Damn...there was a Kids in the Hall sketch I wanted to link to, but it isn't on YouTube. Anybody seen the one where there's the guys around the poker table "getting in touch with their feminine side"? It think that's the kind of point we're both trying to make...it's a satire of both radical feminism and the "manly men" image at the same time and a great skit (I love KitH...)

Anyways, it's still fun to play with society's gender boundaries, which fortunately aren't as explicit as they are in the past but are still there in subtle ways.

And my overall point is it's very hard to take a definitive stance of any kind on this topic, because the whole spectrum of sexuality, straight-bi-gay-trans-effemite-tomboy-etc. is hugely complicated.

[Sisqui]

Anyways, it's still fun to play with society's gender boundaries, which fortunately aren't as explicit as they are in the past but are still there in subtle ways.

And my overall point is it's very hard to take a definitive stance of any kind on this topic, because the whole spectrum of sexuality, straight-bi-gay-trans-effemite-tomboy-etc. is hugely complicated.

My only real problem is with people who think that there shouldn't be gender roles to begin with. The human race is not unisex!! Or unigender!! (And, BTW, there is a difference between gender and sex.)

But, back to my original point: not being afraid to be a MAN. Is there anything on earth as sexy (to a woman anyway) as a man who smells like dirt, hard work, and sweat? Trust me, nothing stamped "designer fragrance for men" on the box is going to compete with that!

And before anyone jumps on that too hard, no amount of eye candy can replace two things that every man (or woman) must have: a brain and a spine. Without both any member of either sex is worthless.

[averagejoe]

My only real problem is with people who think that there shouldn't be gender roles to begin with. The human race is not unisex!! Or unigender!! (And, BTW, there is a difference between gender and sex.)

What roles should there be?

[ZombieRockStar]

My only real problem is with people who think that there shouldn't be gender roles to begin with. The human race is not unisex!! Or unigender!! (And, BTW, there is a difference between gender and sex.)

Well, there will always be implicit gender roles in any society with two (or more...there are some certain native Canadian societies that believe this, IIRC) genders, though they're always changing. The point of the type of subversion the The Kids in the Hall (have I mentioned how much I like them? :smallamused:) are known for is not to eliminate but to redefine gender expectations. That's how I've seen it.

I'm not saying that there isn't any difference between genders, or I'd be trapped in my own logic to say that TG is a lie, which I don't believe...but that doesn't mean I have to abide by them.

And of course there isn't anything as sexy as a man like that. Or a woman like that, for that matter. Except maybe a man who's shaved and put on some nice clothes, or a woman in a nice dress...or a man in a nice dress...:smallamused:

[Sisqui]

What roles should there be?

First I have to make sure we agree on the words we are using. I mean by "roles" the inherent tendency of most members of a sex to be something or to act in a particular way. Men tend to be more aggressive. Women can be aggressive. Women are more interested in harmonious group dynamics. Men can be diplomatic. I don't mean that a man should do this particular thing and a woman should do that particular thing, which is what you mean, I think? :smallconfused:



And of course there isn't anything as sexy as a man like that. Or a woman like that, for that matter. Except maybe a man who's shaved and put on some nice clothes, or a woman in a nice dress...or a man in a nice dress...:smallamused:

*Giggle*

[Trog]

*Trog wanders in dressd in a black suit, clutching a piece of parchment*

Trog is sorry to inform you that Chiv Alry has indeed died. According to his last will and testament it seems he has left his entire fortune to a woman. Typical. Some homeless lady in Paris it seems.

*puffs on Coffin Nail*

Furthermore the deceased asks politely that his first name no longer be used in such a vulgar manner.

*rolls up parchment and shoves it under the door to prop it open. Wanders off.*

[averagejoe]

First I have to make sure we agree on the words we are using. I mean by "roles" the inherent tendency of most members of a sex to be something or to act in a particular way. Men tend to be more aggressive. Women can be aggressive. Women are more interested in harmonious group dynamics. Men can be diplomatic. I don't mean that a man should do this particular thing and a woman should do that particular thing, which is what you mean, I think? :smallconfused:

See, I don't see those as roles so much as how people are. I mean, they're not really roles anyways, simply tendancies, since it is perfectly alright for a man to be nonagressive. When I hear "roles" I think stuff like, "All women everywhere should find a husband and cook and clean for him," type of thing.

[Sisqui]

See, I don't see those as roles so much as how people are. I mean, they're not really roles anyways, simply tendancies, since it is perfectly alright for a man to be nonagressive. When I hear "roles" I think stuff like, "All women everywhere should find a husband and cook and clean for him," type of thing.

No, that isn't what I mean. (Well, I do mean by "roles" that that is just "how people are"). I mean that it is more likely that a woman would do those things and that wanting and choosing to do so is perfectly natural. A lot of feminism out there today characterizes a woman as weak or oppressed or just plain brain dead if she chooses a stereotypical gender role. But, I say, there is a reason for the stereotype and it isn't solely "Some man oppressed me and made me do it!" *swoons*
Some women like the traditional part women have played in society. And, women are more likely (by far)to choose that role than men are. (And vice versa for traditionally masculine roles). My point being that these roles or identities are also derived from the innate preference of the person him/herself, not just consciously imposed on him/her by society. Therefore, if a person wants to behave in a typical fashion, it is OK! You don't have to justify acting like a man to a feminist. And you REALLY don't have to apologize for being a traditional type of woman to one. It's your choice, just do it. And don't apologize if it makes her angry.

[Bor the Barbarian Monk]

Chivalry is not dead! Commin Sense, however...



Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend by the name of Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows definitively how old he was, as his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valued lessons as knowing when to come in out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm, and that life isn't always fair.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn) and reliable parenting strategies (adults, not kids, are in charge). His health began to rapidly deteriorate when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate, teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch, and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student only worsened his condition. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer aspirin to a student, but could not inform the parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Finally, Common Sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband, churches became businesses, and criminals received better treatment than their victims. Common Sense finally gave up the ghost after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot, spilled it in her lap, and was awarded a multi-million dollar settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust, his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason. He is survived by two stepbrothers: My Rights and Ima Whiner.

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.

Alas, poor Common Sense. I knew him, Horatio... :smalleek:

Please note: this is cut and pasted from an e-mail I received ages ago from an old friend. I mean that LITERALLY! He was a man I met during my filing for disability; a WW II veteran that turned out to be a most fascinating man. We'd spent hours talking, and it was he who cemented my already existing respect for all who have served. (G-d bless you, Paul. R.I.P.)

[Quincunx]

Anything that makes the shackles hang heavier (and the baby-making equipment is a mind-forged manacle if ever there was one) is something to avoid.

It is sometimes possible to play off one hatred for condescension against another--holding open the door for a person in a wheelchair and claiming chivalry-leading-up-to-noticing-the-difference-in-gender-hey-wanna-date?

[SilverClawShift]

"Nice guys finish last"

"Girls don't like nice guys"

"Girls only go for jerks"

I feel like I need to say something here, because I've heard people say those things, and similar comments, a whole heck of a lot.

Girls DO like nice guys.

Girls don't like DOORMATS.

It's not that girls don't appreciate the fact that you're being a nice guy, but being a pushover is just downright unattractive. Nothing kills a girls interest in you like thinking that you don't have a spine, there's nothing wrong with having a strong personality, and there's nothing stopping you from having a strong personality AND being a nice person.

When a girl winds up picking from 'nice guys' who come across like scared twelve year olds, or guys who are less nice but willing to stand tall...

Ultimately, it reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend of mine, who figured he was out of luck with girls because he "Wouldn't be mean to them, and that seems to be what they go for".
I tried to tell him that it's not that girls are attracted outright to jerks, it's just that girls won't feel much past platonic friendship to guys who don't seem like they have any strength.
His response was "I was raised to treat girls like princesses"
Which is great! What girl doesn't fantasize about being a fairy tale princess when she's little?

Except you have to stop and ask yourself something. If you're bowing down in front of a girl, waiting on her hand and foot, and doing everything she asks you to, what does that make you?
It makes you a servant. At best you're a well liked servant.
Girls don't want a servant as a love interest. Not someone who has the PERSONALITY of a servant anyway, even in fairytales where the princess falls in love with a serf, the serf is brave and noble and true.
Princely.
Princess? Prince. It's right there.
And that's what it all comes down to. Not to be vulgar, but nothing makes a girl 'interested' like a guy who has strength. Not physical strength, just strength.

The other thing that a lot of 'nice guys' forget or don't realize, is that women aren't devices. We're not factory-produced and identical, there's not a universal instruction manual that will show you how to tweak a woman to get better performance or something.
Girls are people too. And we have individual likes and dislikes and personality traits that might conflict with other peoples...
You're not cracking a safe, you're talking to someone. Just remember that...

[Sisqui]

[I]"Nice guys finish last".......


I feel like I need to say something here, because I've heard people say those things, and similar comments, a whole heck of a lot..............

Girls are people too. And we have individual likes and dislikes and personality traits that might conflict with other peoples...
You're not cracking a safe, you're talking to someone. Just remember that...

*Stands up and cheers!!! Hurray for the whole post!!*

[SilverClawShift]

Wall Of Text Alert.

Hit The Deck


*Stands up and cheers!!! Hurray for the whole post!!*

Also.

:smallredface:


*edit*

The "wall of text" alert thing was refering to my post, not anyone elses.

[Catch]

I can talk for long periods on this subject, so I'll try to be succinct.

Chivalry is not falling on your face just because you're near a female.
Chivalry is not tolerating sub-par behavior from women.
Chivalry is not being a needy, attention-seeking pushover.

The problem, as I've found it, is that men who claim to be chivalrous and respecting of women also happen to lack confidence and self-respect. Yes, I know, your mother told you to be nice to girls. She never said you had to be lame while doing it.

You can both tease a girl and open a door for her. You can be be cocky and confident, yet still walk on the curb side of the street. You can give her small gifts without being a total sucker.

The point is, chivalry doesn't stand alone. Be confident, be funny, be charming, and if you're a nice guy too, she's hit the jackpot.

[Sisqui]

Also.

:smallredface:

Your post was essentially what I was saying. And never be embarrassed for having a good argument!




You can both tease a girl and open a door for her. You can be be cocky and confident, yet still walk on the curb side of the street. You can give her small gifts without being a total sucker.

The point is, chivalry doesn't stand alone. Be confident, be funny, be charming, and if you're a nice guy too, she's hit the jackpot.


And don't forget that first and foremost a man should have good judgement and exercise it. Don't waste "chivalry" on women who aren't worth it.

[LCR]

Chivalry died with the last real knights. It was then replaced by politeness, which is fine by me, because it is absolutely not polite to call a girl names or whatever. The girls I've met so far liked it, if someone opened the door for them. But they didn't expect it.

On gender roles: Who cares? I wouldn't want a woman that stays at home, looks after the children (bloody hell, I don't even want children ... well, maybe later) and goes to church (especially not the last part). And I don't want to be reduced to bringing the money home. I want an equal partner, everything else is just boring.

[Sisqui]

Chivalry died with the last real knights. It was then replaced by politeness, which is fine by me, because it is absolutely not polite to call a girl names or whatever. The girls I've met so far liked it, if someone opened the door for them. But they didn't expect it.

On gender roles: Who cares? I wouldn't want a woman that stays at home, looks after the children (bloody hell, I don't even want children ... well, maybe later) and goes to church (especially not the last part). And I don't want to be reduced to bringing the money home. I want an equal partner, everything else is just boring.

LCR, this is going to sound like deja vu all over again, but........

You do it your way and find a woman who wants it to be that way too. Let the men who want a more traditional household find a woman who also wants that. To each their own. :smallbiggrin:

[SilverClawShift]

To each their own.

Yeah, exactly. Girls need to remember that the street goes both ways. Guys are individuals, with their own wants and 'do not wants' and hopes, ect, and expecting them to change what they are for you (which is something a lot of girls seem to do) is totally horrible and unrealistic and ect, ect.

Bad.

Boy = person too.

[Orzel]

Chivalry isn't dead. It's a follower now. It's the second move. Like deathspells, you need to stop the target first.

I'm a chivalrous jerk myself.

Orzel's top 5 ways to open a door for a female:

Open Door. Close door before she gets to it. Repeat 3 more times. Actually open the door for her.

Open Door. Wait for girl to pass. Say "I'm only doing this to look at your butt."

Open Door. Say "Good deed for the week. Say "hello" to Jerk Orzel, (curseword)! Anybad I do this week is on your head,"

Open Door. Let girl pass. Stand by Door. Scream "What no kiss?! Stupid Chivalry!"

Open Door. Run through door. Close door. Laugh out loud. Open door. Say "sorry".

[SilverClawShift]

Open Door. Wait for girl to pass. Say "I'm only doing this to look at your butt."

Said with the right tone and attitude? I'd laugh. And not be offended. And even MAYBE be a little flattered or intrigued.
But my first question about you would be "Does he have a good sense of humor and very little fear? Or just no sense at all?"

[Tarnag40k]

For me all I want is someone who is loyal, a roit to be around, who takes care of herself and is able to atleast understand my fascination/obsetion with cars, and understand that 'm also a gamer.

[Saithis Bladewing]

Just be careful that you don't stereotype men and women too closely into gender roles. I can assure you that personality makes a much bigger difference in preferences than one's body. I've known a number of people who preferred a shier, timid, less secure man to a strong, confident one.

[SilverClawShift]

Yes, that's very true. They say "There's someone out there for everyone".

So let me rephrase. If you act like a pushover, most of the people who are interested in you are also going to be interested in pushing you over. You'll be very lucky if you find someone who is attracted to, and wants to protect, the 'wounded puppy' guy.

But good luck and all, love happens.

[Orzel]

Said with the right tone and attitude? I'd laugh. And not be offended. And even MAYBE be a little flattered or intrigued.
But my first question about you would be "Does he have a good sense of humor and very little fear? Or just no sense at all?"

I'd done it enough to near perfect the tone and attitude.. I even have the "Yes, I am that fearless. Now what's your name so I can catalog that look into my memory." and the counter response which I won't tell.

Chivalry is no. 3 in Orzel's 5 C's. That's the only C you people getting without feeding me a steak.

Excuse me. I have to yell "Stop getting sick. Get well already! Don't make me cook soup." to some girl on the phone.

[Flakey]

Women are more interested in harmonious group dynamics.

The way they go about it can be hell on a man though. :smallwink:

I worked in an office with 33 women, and no other men. When any woman went to the toilet, the photocopier, or where ever, the topic of conversation was guarenteed to be bitching about that person. As there was 33 it meant someone was going pretty regular, and so over 50% of the office conversations was complaining. They may have enjoyed it all, but it wears on you after a few months (atleast to me anyway).

Edit - In my current work I open the doors for anyone behind me. They are big, heavy, swings both way, fire doors. Except for one lady, she complained to me twice that she was fully caplable of opening a door herself. Recently there was a group, and she was last, so as the next to last person walked through I let go the door, and the group laughed because they know why I did it. When she caught up with us she never said a word :smallbiggrin:

[Dr._Weird]

The other thing that a lot of 'nice guys' forget or don't realize, is that women aren't devices. We're not factory-produced and identical, there's not a universal instruction manual that will show you how to tweak a woman to get better performance or something.

Damn! You mean I've been overclocking her for nothing?

______________

I'll just echo what some of the other people have been saying on this subject. Why be so sexist? Hold the door open for anyone.

[SilverClawShift]

Damn! You mean I've been overclocking her for nothing?

Hey hey hey, now, I didn't say that. Overclocking your significant other is a great way to keep things interesting. A steady caffeine supply does wonders.

[Holy_Knight]

Like a lot of others have said, there's more to chivalry than just how men interact with women, and it's kind of a shame that the word is generally seen as connoting just that aspect primarily. Anyway, chivalry may not be dead, but it's wounded. I would consider myself to be a very chivalrous person, both in general and in terms of how I treat women. Here's a small example from a long time ago (about second grade, actually). I was playing tetherball, and under the rules we used, if you touched the rope, you had to stop the ball and your opponent got to hold it and take a free hit at it. I touched the rope at one point, and even though no one else noticed, I admitted it, and gave the ball to the other player. Well, the general consensus among the other kids watching was that I was crazy. "What?" "Why would he say that?" "He called ropes on himself?!" etc. But it was the just thing to do to admit it, and I didn't regret it. That was chivalry in dealing with an opponent. I'd guess that the majority of people would in general take the view of those kids even as adults--favoring perceived advantages for themselves instead of being a person of integrity. That sort of thing is an all too neglected aspect of chivalry.

As for chivalry toward women, a few comments are in order. Far from being demeaning to women, I would say it's just the opposite. In fact, chivalry was essentially the first feminism. In a time when women were considered not only as inferior beings but even as property, the code of chivalry held women up as persons deserving of respect and consideration. It also gave them a measure of power, albeit primarily in an indirect way. As for how it relates to women today, chivalry is still a sign of respect and consideration. A man who is truly chivalrous will "give succor to maidens" not because he thinks they are weak, but because he thinks they deserve to be treated well.

All that being said, SilverClawShift, I'd like to respond to you in particular:


"Nice guys finish last"

"Girls don't like nice guys"

"Girls only go for jerks"

I feel like I need to say something here, because I've heard people say those things, and similar comments, a whole heck of a lot.

Girls DO like nice guys.

Girls don't like DOORMATS.

It's not that girls don't appreciate the fact that you're being a nice guy, but being a pushover is just downright unattractive. Nothing kills a girls interest in you like thinking that you don't have a spine, there's nothing wrong with having a strong personality, and there's nothing stopping you from having a strong personality AND being a nice person.

When a girl winds up picking from 'nice guys' who come across like scared twelve year olds, or guys who are less nice but willing to stand tall...

Ultimately, it reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend of mine, who figured he was out of luck with girls because he "Wouldn't be mean to them, and that seems to be what they go for".
I tried to tell him that it's not that girls are attracted outright to jerks, it's just that girls won't feel much past platonic friendship to guys who don't seem like they have any strength.
His response was "I was raised to treat girls like princesses"
Which is great! What girl doesn't fantasize about being a fairy tale princess when she's little?

Except you have to stop and ask yourself something. If you're bowing down in front of a girl, waiting on her hand and foot, and doing everything she asks you to, what does that make you?
It makes you a servant. At best you're a well liked servant.
Girls don't want a servant as a love interest. Not someone who has the PERSONALITY of a servant anyway, even in fairytales where the princess falls in love with a serf, the serf is brave and noble and true.
Princely.
Princess? Prince. It's right there.
And that's what it all comes down to. Not to be vulgar, but nothing makes a girl 'interested' like a guy who has strength. Not physical strength, just strength.

The other thing that a lot of 'nice guys' forget or don't realize, is that women aren't devices. We're not factory-produced and identical, there's not a universal instruction manual that will show you how to tweak a woman to get better performance or something.
Girls are people too. And we have individual likes and dislikes and personality traits that might conflict with other peoples...
You're not cracking a safe, you're talking to someone. Just remember that...

While I agree with some of your sentiments, I have to call BS on some of it too. The fact is, the reason why so many people say that "women like to be treated badly", or some variation, is because that's what their behavior reflects. Yes, what women really like is confidence, and it just so happens a lot of jerks are confident. Yes, sometimes "nice guys" can be pushovers, which is unattractive. But let's be honest here: many girls consistently date guys who treat them like crap, then wonder both why they're so unhappy about their dating life and why their otherwise "nice" guy friends seem so unsympathetic when they complain about it. Here's another example, this time from college. One of my friends, I'll call her "Jane", was telling me about a tough choice she was facing between two guys that she found attractive. Here's how she described them to me:

"Matt"
--Sometimes acted really into her, but sometimes just blew her off
--Basically ignored her and didn't introduce her to anybody when his friends were around
--Often didn't call when he said he would
--Said he really cared for her, but also really liked Katie, and was having such a hard time working out his feelings. Made out with both of them in the meantime.

"Jim"
--Seemed genuinely interested in spending time with her
--Made a point to introduce her to his friends
--Called when he said he would

And between those two guys, she couldn't figure out which one she wanted to be with. Honestly, my first impulse was to say "Are you an idiot?" Instead, I tried to subtly point out to her that "Matt" was a jackass who didn't care about her and treated her terribly, while "Jim" seemed to actually think of her as a human being. That's just one example, but it's sadly fairly typical of a lot of women, at least the ones that I've known. They would date some guy who was basically an ass**** (often guys who other people could see in advance was an ass****), get hurt, complain loudly about men in general, then move on to someone else who was exactly the same.

So it's not just that it seems like "women don't like nice guys". It's that it seems like they do like guys who are quite mean, insensitive and degrading to them--or, if they don't like them, they nevertheless date them. Like I said, I agree with you that some guys take being nice to an extreme, and seem to lack a spine, personality, or both. But that doesn't at all mean that girls don't go for guys who treat them like dirt.

Well, that response went a little long. Anyway, to go back to the original topic, chivalry in general is a good thing. And while it might be wounded, as I said it before, there are still people who value justice, fair combat and competition, loyalty, fidelity, courage, and yes, even respectful treatment of women. As long as people find the will to be worthy of its high standards, chivalry will never die.

[WhatIsGravity]

Chivalry died out with the culture of the medieval times. Change always happens.

Personally, I try my best to live by the morals of the knights of old. :smalltongue:

[Dea_al_Mon]

As a hopeless romantic and/or nerdy fan of medieval/fantasy style novels, it cuts me to the heart to consider chivalry being dead. As a feminist, I don't see how other women can find a man holding the door, pulling out a chair, or offering to take your coat "offensive". While I must, sadly, admit that it is harder and harder to find people who are willing to go through the pains of being chivalrous, I have met a few true gentlemen who keep me from despairing completely.

No, I don't think chivalry is dead. It may be endangered, however.

[SilverClawShift]

Holy_Knight, I don't buy it. That's not a gender issue, so much as a human issue. Almost everyone has trouble picking out their ideal partner, otherwise, we'd all be happily married and not worried about it at all.

I'd need more than both hands (and feet, for that matter) to count the number of guys I've known who go for girls who are quite blatantly using them in some way, or who clearly don't care about them as anything more than temporary companionship.
The fact is, when we start adding in issues of physical attraction, subtleties of body language, ODOR and everything that includes, apparent problems (emotional, physical, medical, financial, interpersonal, what have you), and every other subtle peice of the massive equation, things start to get cloudy. A jerk may be physically attractive enough to confuse your instinct, or they may carry themselves in a way that other people just find appealing, or any number of other reasons someone might have a hard time dislodging them from their mind. And when I say "A jerk", I'm not refering to males only, (although I guess with girls, the B-Word would be better), but rather anyone who is probably less than an ideal partner, but seems captivating nonetheless.

The list you gave isn't enough. How does Jim walk? How does he talk? What does he say? I'm not really asking, I'm just saying, you can't lump a living sentient creature into a list of bullet points and have it be a fair estimation.
Now admittedly, if the words "Convicted Felon" or "Purple Heart" are on one of those lists, it starts to help the picture, but even THEN there's more to a human being than two words after a dash.

Sometimes, the person who's best for you isn't the person you WANT. It's a sad but true thing, I have a number of friends that I get along great with, but I'm just not attracted to enough to ever make it work. And I'm not only talking about physical attraction, I mean the lump sum of who a person is.
I've been on the opposite side of that same coin, pining for someone who just wasn't interested in me, even though they loved talking to me and being around me.

It's a harsh game.

And we're off topic.

Back to the chivalry!

[Sisqui]

And between those two guys, she couldn't figure out which one she wanted to be with. Honestly, my first impulse was to say "Are you an idiot?" Instead, I tried to subtly point out to her that "Matt" was a jackass who didn't care about her and treated her terribly, while "Jim" seemed to actually think of her as a human being. That's just one example, but it's sadly fairly typical of a lot of women, at least the ones that I've known. They would date some guy who was basically an ass**** (often guys who other people could see in advance was an ass****), get hurt, complain loudly about men in general, then move on to someone else who was exactly the same.

So it's not just that it seems like "women don't like nice guys". It's that it seems like they do like guys who are quite mean, insensitive and degrading to them--or, if they don't like them, they nevertheless date them. Like I said, I agree with you that some guys take being nice to an extreme, and seem to lack a spine, personality, or both. But that doesn't at all mean that girls don't go for guys who treat them like dirt.



I would say the difficulty of her choice lies more in a dirty little secret a lot of women have: they want a man who is powerful enough to be dominant in the relationship. That dominance appeals to her sexual desires and need for an alpha male whose offspring will be more fit, while the more passive male appeals more to her emotional needs- and is more likely to provide the stability and reliability that make child rearing more successful. There have been studies that show that women will actually be more attracted to one type over the other depending on where she is in her cycle.

[Jorkens]

As a hopeless romantic and/or nerdy fan of medieval/fantasy style novels, it cuts me to the heart to consider chivalry being dead. As a feminist, I don't see how other women can find a man holding the door, pulling out a chair, or offering to take your coat "offensive".
I'd happily do those things for anyone, but I still don't see why anyone should consider it more important to do them for a woman than for a man.

[SilverClawShift]

I would say the difficulty of her choice lies more in a dirty little secret a lot of women have: they want a man who is powerful enough to be dominant in the relationship.

Yesss....

That's kind of what I was getting at, without coming out and saying it directly.

It comes back to the strength thing. A guy who is in charge is APPEALING on a very base level, and that's something that's very hard to ignore.
Remember that almost everyone has an active sex drive too, and stuff like that weighs in...

[Orzel]

That's why when you give a girl flowers for no good reason, you beat her with one or two of the roses because you "can do whatever you feel like and you felt like hitting her with a handful of roses."

Chivalry isn't dead, it morphed and fused with browbeating, teasing, and other meaner method of communication. It's okay to be chivalrous but many forget to "bust her balls", demand fair trades, and notice the dirt on her shoes. It's not dead, it's just that you can't treat women like they're perfect beings all the time. The required usage is lower now.

[Trog]

I would say the difficulty of her choice lies more in a dirty little secret a lot of women have: they want a man who is powerful enough to be dominant in the relationship.

Just a note from the guys: This was never as secret as you thought it was. And we men can be just as contradictory and picky as you gals. Fairly warned be ye sez I. :smallamused:

[averagejoe]

Personally, I try my best to live by the morals of the knights of old. :smalltongue:

Pillaging, raping, and killing people with different religious beliefs. :smallconfused:

[Zephra]

:smalleek:

...well,

...

not those knights! :smalltongue:

[Sisqui]

Yesss....

That's kind of what I was getting at, without coming out and saying it directly.

It comes back to the strength thing. A guy who is in charge is APPEALING on a very base level, and that's something that's very hard to ignore.
Remember that almost everyone has an active sex drive too, and stuff like that weighs in...

I am nothing if not direct :smallwink:

[SilverClawShift]

Just a note from the guys: This was never as secret as you thought it was.

A LOT of guys don't 'get' it :smalleek:

[Skippy]

Pillaging, raping, and killing people with different religious beliefs. :smallconfused:

You, sir, have just won a cookie (::)

Let's all become knights in the Playground!!

[Fawsto]

I guess I am not the only one who thinks that was born in the wrong ages... I like all aspects of chilvalry, and I try to follow as many as I can of them, but in our time it is hard... Honor lost his value... Being a gentleman is the same as being weak... If you try to protect someone you may get shot, and you can't even defend yourself cause we can't be trained as real fighters... The one only things that make me don't regret being born in this age is my family and friends, computers and RPG (being the last one my escape route :smallbiggrin: )

[FdL]

Well, well. Of the latest major contributions to the thread, I have to agree more with Holy_Knight, even though there is some truth in what SilverClawShift says.

Women like their men to be "manly". What does it mean? I really don't know. But it has to do with confidence, yes, and strength, which could be part of the same. I do think this is a mix of a result of the gender roles AND something that's maybe biologically determined (?). I think that basically and broadly sums up what women look for in men.

But in any case, whether we like it or not, women often look for men who can "protect" them (sometimes literally, but more often it's that they seem to be able to show they can support them financially), and also support them emotionally.

It's a fact that women tend to get together with jerks or insensitive guys. Why? Because they act closer to what women think a man should be like.

Let's face it guys, if you can't muster the emotional strength to declare your feelings to a girl and ask her out, you're not going to be very attractive to her. Because that's what men do. And that's what women expect them to do. So they like men who know what they want and are not afraid to get it.

Well, in the end it's all about confidence, it's all I know. There's a million ways a woman recognizes confidence in a man, and that attracts them. Being a successful, self-confident person with goals is something that can be attractive for women.

Of course, I have to tell I don't know much crap about women. This is all said from my humble and tentative experiences in life. I don't like the way this is. But it seems to be how it works :(
And no woman is going to tell you this straight, because it's something that they don't rationalize. Hence Holy_Knight's example of the girl with the "jerk" and "nice" suitors.

So applying this to the topic, yeah, women see "gentlemanly" guys as weak. Think of the word itself, the "gentle" part. Though it's a positive trait, I don't think that's the sterotypical image women have of men. Call it "gender role" or whatever. It's that way.


Edit: Well, finally Sisqui said it straight. About time.

[Fawsto]

Unfortunatly... Being a "Paladin" of the Modern ages seems to be crap...

[SilverClawShift]

So applying this to the topic, yeah, women see "gentlemanly" guys as weak.

But that's exactly my point. Or rather, the opposite of my point. You CAN be dominant AND a gentleman. It's a rare combo though, specifically because people over-simplify the situation and look at the basic interactions in the peolpe they're learning from.

"He's mean and dominant and she likes him" does not equal "stop being polite". You're looking at the wrong half of the dominant/jerk combo...

[Hell Puppi]

I enjoy chivalry, but to be honest I have to be a gentleman back. If someone opens a door for me, I open one for them. I think a give and take sort of thing works best.
Chivalry isn't dead...just look up the SCA...though I have to admit it's going on a downhill slide.
I defiantly empathize with men and trying to figure out what women want. We're a confusing lot.

[Holy_Knight]

Holy_Knight, I don't buy it. That's not a gender issue, so much as a human issue. Almost everyone has trouble picking out their ideal partner, otherwise, we'd all be happily married and not worried about it at all.
Oh, I agree, everyone does have problems doing that. My point was that many women's difficulty stems from the same basic pattern, which is what gives rise to the kinds of phrases you brought up. You see them as vastly overstating the case, which is what I was disputing.



I'd need more than both hands (and feet, for that matter) to count the number of guys I've known who go for girls who are quite blatantly using them in some way, or who clearly don't care about them as anything more than temporary companionship.
Yes, guys fall prey to that sort of thing too. I wasn't suggesting that they didn't. (Admittedly, I have observed it more in women, but that could be circumstantial.) That doesn't affect what I was saying about the whole women-jerk thing, though.



The fact is, when we start adding in issues of physical attraction, subtleties of body language, ODOR and everything that includes, apparent problems (emotional, physical, medical, financial, interpersonal, what have you), and every other subtle peice of the massive equation, things start to get cloudy. A jerk may be physically attractive enough to confuse your instinct, or they may carry themselves in a way that other people just find appealing, or any number of other reasons someone might have a hard time dislodging them from their mind. And when I say "A jerk", I'm not refering to males only, (although I guess with girls, the B-Word would be better), but rather anyone who is probably less than an ideal partner, but seems captivating nonetheless.
You know, at first I thought "ODOR" was supposed to be an acronym, and I was trying to figure out what it was, then I realized you just meant the word "odor". :P So, right. Anyway, certainly physical attractiveness plays a role, and can cloud one's judgement (and Lord knows guys have problems on that front.) But that only takes you so far. An isolated case of "let his good looks blind her to his awful character" is one thing, but a consistent pattern of "keeps dating jerks and wondering why she's not happy" is another. And as I said, the latter was typical of girls that I've known.



The list you gave isn't enough. How does Jim walk? How does he talk? What does he say? I'm not really asking, I'm just saying, you can't lump a living sentient creature into a list of bullet points and have it be a fair estimation.
Well, there's a couple things to keep in mind here. First, the descriptions were more involved than that, but in the interest of brevity I just put a few of the most obvious contrasts. (I think she found them equally physically attractive, though.) Second, I have to disagree with you that the list isn't enough, at least in one way. True, she might have decided that, all things considered, neither guy was her ideal boyfriend. But even with just what I put, it should have ruled out Matt. He obviously didn't care about her and was just using her to get some action when he wasn't too busy doing something else. Even if it's hard to find your ideal partner, it's fairly easy to see when someone is horribly off the mark.




Sometimes, the person who's best for you isn't the person you WANT. It's a sad but true thing, I have a number of friends that I get along great with, but I'm just not attracted to enough to ever make it work. And I'm not only talking about physical attraction, I mean the lump sum of who a person is.
I've been on the opposite side of that same coin, pining for someone who just wasn't interested in me, even though they loved talking to me and being around me.

It's a harsh game.
True--but I don't think that that situation has to be a given. Part of wisdom and maturity is to learn to recognize and want what is best, because it is best. I don't mean trying to force oneself to be attracted to someone when you aren't--there are legitimate reasons for not thinking of someone in "that way" even if you think they're a good or even attractive person in general. What I mean is to recognize which of our desires are irrational as opposed to rational, and trying to address their root causes. And yes, I guess we are a bit off topic, but that's okay. :)


I would say the difficulty of her choice lies more in a dirty little secret a lot of women have: they want a man who is powerful enough to be dominant in the relationship. That dominance appeals to her sexual desires and need for an alpha male whose offspring will be more fit, while the more passive male appeals more to her emotional needs- and is more likely to provide the stability and reliability that make child rearing more successful. There have been studies that show that women will actually be more attracted to one type over the other depending on where she is in her cycle.
Actually, I think you're right (and like Trog said, it's not as much of a secret as you think). Still, there's a difference between "powerful/strong" and "jerk/player", and what's frustrating is that in their quest for the former, so many women continuously seek out the latter. Then we good guys are left to help pick up the pieces... again... and what's more, we hardly ever get to punch the jerks in the face, like they deserve. It's a hard to be a decent guy... :smallfrown: :smalltongue:

[WhatIsGravity]

Pillaging, raping, and killing people with different religious beliefs. :smallconfused:
...

Just... go. :annoyed:

[SDF]

Yes, that's very true. They say "There's someone out there for everyone".

Man, I hate sayings like that. Same with, "It will all be alright." "It will work out." ect. Not true, in a perfect world maybe, but in this one no. There are people, who through no fault of their own, will never find true love, or even fake love. Some people that act like "pushovers" are just that way, it's hard to change who you are or act like someone you are not. If you do that and then find someone you are not being honest with them are you?

I can't claim to be a chivalrous person. I'll hold the door open for someone sure, but pulling out and pushing chairs in just isn't me. I like to sit in a booth anyhow :smalltongue: I'm a laid back person who doesn't waste time on a lot of formalities.

[Hell Puppi]

Hmmm I though about it a sec, and I do enjoy my knight-boys (most of the men I know I pretty chivalrous), but I'd much rather be on a horse riding off to battle with them than waiting at home in the castle.
Does that make any sense?

[Dr._Weird]

...

Just... go. :annoyed:

...

Why? It's quite true.

[Yiel]

Chivalry is not dead, it has merely been replaced by a more modern code of behavior.

Unless of course several of your friends are part of a reenactment group whose unofficial motto has become "Yes my lady! Ow. Ow. Ow." Then it is perfectly normal to see a group of girls stare pointedly at their male friend until he clues in and opens the door for them. :smallbiggrin:

I consider myself a feminist, but I love being treated like a lady. To me, chivalry is a form of respect. I try to give people respect, and hope to receive a modicum of respect in return. I am not a feminist to mistreat the male gender. I am one because I believe I deserve to be treated as I treat others, and not demeaned or denied things purely because of my gender.

(Also, Mr.Yiel is most certainly a nice guy and he's first in my heart. :smalltongue:)

[averagejoe]

I like all aspects of chilvalry, and I try to follow as many as I can of them, but in our time it is hard...

Well, yes, people do get upset when you try to kill people for not being Christian. I'm as openminded as any, but seriously, did you ever just try talking to them?


Some people that act like "pushovers" are just that way, it's hard to change who you are or act like someone you are not. If you do that and then find someone you are not being honest with them are you?

Untrue; it's just an excuse. If you don't like that you're a pushover, than change it. To change oneself isn't being untrue to oneself. Yes it it is hard to change who you are, but not impossible. I used to get angry much easier than I do, but one day I resolved to get less angry in general. The change was slow, true, and difficult, but it was done. And I don't feel like I'm lying to people when I don't yell at them for insulting me. :smalltongue:

[FdL]

But that's exactly my point. Or rather, the opposite of my point. You CAN be dominant AND a gentleman. It's a rare combo though, specifically because people over-simplify the situation and look at the basic interactions in the peolpe they're learning from.

"He's mean and dominant and she likes him" does not equal "stop being polite". You're looking at the wrong half of the dominant/jerk combo...

Yeah, I understand what you say. We're both saying the same thing then. :)

It's funny though how it all comes down to primitive physical roles in inter-gender attraction. Whether literal or metaphorical, because today's "strong" is not the same strong as with cavemen...

Though I still think that being overly polite makes the woman misunderstand it for weakness.

But well, the sexually dominant angle just nailed it (no pun intended).



I defiantly empathize with men and trying to figure out what women want. We're a confusing lot.

I hear you...You don't know the half of it, but it's really touching that a woman can recognize how women truly behave :s

It's frustrating, I tell you. One thing I've learned the hard way with women is that you should almost never go with what women literally say. Again, it sounds awful, I know, but that's a working hypothesis I'm betting on.
We guys just have to come up with some strategies to survive, after all!

Deeply confused, females can be...Maybe it's men's fault, from a historical perspective, maybe it's because today's girls are subject to so many different sociocultural influences that they don't know what to do. Or maybe they have always been that way. "La donna e mobile qual piuma al vento".

[SDF]

Untrue; it's just an excuse. If you don't like that you're a pushover, than change it. To change oneself isn't being untrue to oneself. Yes it it is hard to change who you are, but not impossible. I used to get angry much easier than I do, but one day I resolved to get less angry in general. The change was slow, true, and difficult, but it was done. And I don't feel like I'm lying to people when I don't yell at them for insulting me. :smalltongue:

But it is, for certain people. If they have something like SAD they are going to maybe seem like a doormat to some people, and it is possible that it is something they just CAN'T overcome. Just because YOU can change doesn't mean everyone can.

[averagejoe]

It's funny though how it all comes down to primitive physical roles in inter-gender attraction. Whether literal or metaphorical, because today's "strong" is not the same strong as with cavemen...

Are you sure? because I had my eye on this girl, and I was going to kill a mastadon for her with my bare hands. Is this a mistake? Will she not find this uber sexy?

[Jaguira]

*Important-sounding throat clearage*

Chivalry is, in its most basic sense, a personal code of honor that directs an individual (usually a knight) to:
Honor God
Be generous
Honor their Liege/King/Leader/Country
Help the Oppressed
Protect the Weak
Honor their fellows
Be honest

The whole "courtly love" bit of chivalry wasn't added until much later, though it's obviously the part that's most romatacised and well known.

Anyways. Personal choice should always be above tradition, or at least when it doesn't put anyone in harm's way. Some women don't like being put on a pedestal by just any random guy; I know I'd hate it! Some even don't want their boyfriends to act that way, because they love their independance, or just don't like being catered to or whatnot. Now I'm not saying that it's wrong for men to be polite and, if they really want to, put every woman on a pedestal... Just don't be surprised when it backfires some or most of the time.

That said, women should not be treated as sex objects, either. It doesn't help that society encourages us to dress in nearly nothing, and that many men seem to have an impossible time of showing any bit of self restraint around women dressed in the afformentioned way, which IS part of chivalry. (Showing sexual restraint)

But I disgress. (Did I use that word properly? xD) Chivalry is not dead. The "courtly love" aspect is just out-dated and liked by fewer and fewer women, especially when they don't know who the guy is/don't know them very well.
I think the best way to practice the "courtly love" aspect of chivalry in this day and age is to treat women as equals in all things, treat them as human beings and not solely as objects of sexual desire but at the same time reconise that they have sexual desires as well, and to be polite (Being polite =/= doing things just for them, just because they're a woman.) Granted, the first two bits tie in very closely together, and the second one seems rather contradictory, but that's just something that men need to figure out how to deal with if they want to have healthy relationships with women.

Anyways, my two bits. Mostly about being friends with a woman, but applies to being their lover, too, I suppose. Just in different ammounts :smallconfused:

[SilverClawShift]

Yeah, I understand what you say. We're both saying the same thing then. :)

Though I still think that being overly polite makes the woman misunderstand it for weakness.

Yeah, I find it a little odd that me and Sisqui agree on all of this, but everyone thinks she's right and I'm wrong :smalltongue:

As far as the overly-polite angle is concerned, you're right, but again, I don't think that's actually a gender issue either. Being overly polite in ANY situation is usually viewed as a sign of weakness, by anyone who happens to be near. From what I've seen, guys take "He's polite" to mean "Open Target".

[FdL]

Hmmm I though about it a sec, and I do enjoy my knight-boys (most of the men I know I pretty chivalrous), but I'd much rather be on a horse riding off to battle with them than waiting at home in the castle.
Does that make any sense?

No, of course. But as you're a woman it's perfectly natural and I won't hold it against you.

:p


Are you sure? because I had my eye on this girl, and I was going to kill a mastadon for her with my bare hands. Is this a mistake? Will she not find this uber sexy?

Nahhh, man :) The thing is that's rare today to be able to kill a prehistoric animal with you bare hands, but if you manage it, you'll get loads of chicks ^^ So go ahead, trust me. Watch out for the tusks though, those can be a real nuisance.



As far as the overly-polite angle is concerned, you're right, but again, I don't think that's actually a gender issue either. Being overly polite in ANY situation is usually viewed as a sign of weakness, by anyone who happens to be near. From what I've seen, guys take "He's polite" to mean "Open Target".

Yep, that's also true. In the world we live in today, any weakness will be used against you. That's why someone who SEEMS weak even if he's not will be constantly attacked and at best people will try to use him.
Does it suck? Yes, let's call it "real life".


Some women don't like being put on a pedestal by just any random guy; I know I'd hate it! Some even don't want their boyfriends to act that way, because they love their independance, or just don't like being catered to or whatnot.


All male playgrounders who care to read me:
Listen to this because it's a vital point. As such some of you will already know this:

NEVER put a woman in a pedestal. NEVER. It's the worst mistake you can do. Never let a woman take your love for granted, because if they do they will lose all interest in you.



That said, women should not be treated as sex objects, either. It doesn't help that society encourages us to dress in nearly nothing, and that many men seem to have an impossible time of showing any bit of self restraint around women dressed in the afformentioned way, which IS part of chivalry. (Showing sexual restraint)


Again, I agree in theory and I have my life experience to prove it, but it's bound to be perceived as a sign of weakness. Like it or not, there's a reason why women dress that way, and they are expecting a response from "men". And I'm not saying this in a sexist way. It's just that the whole matter is a lot simpler than we're making it be.

[averagejoe]

But it is, for certain people. If they have something like SAD they are going to maybe seem like a doormat to some people, and it is possible that it is something they just CAN'T overcome. Just because YOU can change doesn't mean everyone can.

Fair enough. However, in the vast majority of cases I find that people give their ability to impliment change too little credit.

[Hell Puppi]

Yayyy I have an excuse for my randomness!

....I mean...boo...no one understands me...O_o


And killing a mastodon would be quite sexy. Then again this is advice from someone named The Hell Puppi.

[Krimm_Blackleaf]

I try my best to act chivalrous. Perhaps conforming to styles more suited to modern days but I would most deffinetly call it chivalry nonetheless. I prefere treating with with respect, kindness and with a sense of fun so they enjoy themselves. Only in rare cases do I end up not liking her and taking a very nuetral standpoint, then they make things worse and I have to take a negative standpoint...

[Dr._Weird]

*Important-sounding throat clearage*

Chivalry is, in its most basic sense, a personal code of honor that directs an individual (usually a knight) to:
Honor God
Be generous
Honor their Liege/King/Leader/Country
Help the Oppressed
Protect the Weak
Honor their fellows
Be honest

But hey! You forget this part! (Taken directly from the chivalric code)

Thou shalt make war against the Infidel without cessation, and without mercy.

Yes, yay chivalry.

[Jaguira]

But hey! You forget this part! (Taken directly from the chivalric code)

Thou shalt make war against the Infidel without cessation, and without mercy.

Yes, yay chivalry.

Well... That part sucks :smallwink: So I left it out on purpose.





As a hopeless romantic and/or nerdy fan of medieval/fantasy style novels, it cuts me to the heart to consider chivalry being dead. As a feminist, I don't see how other women can find a man holding the door, pulling out a chair, or offering to take your coat "offensive". I'd happily do those things for anyone, but I still don't see why anyone should consider it more important to do them for a woman than for a man.
EXACTLY. This is what I was trying to say in my incredibly long-winded and possibly very dull post >_<;

[FdL]

Yayyy I have an excuse for my randomness!

....I mean...boo...no one understands me...O_o


Weren't you reading me? I said that I know you'd act like a woman, what better understanding do you look for? ;)



And killing a mastodon would be quite sexy. Then again this is advice from someone named The Hell Puppi.

Hell yeah. How would you like your mastodon, roasted or fried? 'Cause I'm out hunting ;)

[Rachel Lorelei]

As a hopeless romantic and/or nerdy fan of medieval/fantasy style novels, it cuts me to the heart to consider chivalry being dead. As a feminist, I don't see how other women can find a man holding the door, pulling out a chair, or offering to take your coat "offensive".

Let me try to explain.

Personally, I don't really find it offensive--but it IS sexist. Those things are just nice acts in and of themselves, but they're part of a culture and a tradition, and this tradition dates back to when women were supposed to be dainty, useless things on pedestals. It also helps promote the image of women as the weaker, fairer sex. I spar fairly intensively and have for years, and could take most guys who *don't* do so apart in twenty seconds flat... but if a guy hits them on the shoulder, they'd hit him back; if I do it, they wouldn't (and a number of them make a lot of how they'd "never hit a woman"). I get treated as weak and fragile even though I'm not.
Just because it involves positive actions as well doesn't mean it's not sexist.

And sexism is offensive. It's also pervasive: things like "the guy should pay!" and "you should do X, Y, and Z for women specifically" tie into things like, say, woman being valued only (or primarily, or first and foremost) as ornaments or sex kittens, so while some artifacts of sexist traditions are relatively harmless in and of themselves, they shouldn't necessarily go unscrutinized or uncriticized.

Pull out chairs and open doors all you like. Just do it for all sexes.


So, yeah, chivalry is dying--and good riddance. If you want to be nice to people, go right ahead; you don't need an outdated, sexist code for that.

[SDF]

Fair enough. However, in the vast majority of cases I find that people give their ability to impliment change too little credit.

Oh, no doubt. Some people refuse change as a general attitude point of view. I just think some people are being overly critical of people that act certain ways. I think in HS I had a bit of a self-esteem problem, that I've completely reversed... I think I have a pretty healthy attitude towards equality, and treating people well. Just a lazy one.

[averagejoe]

And killing a mastodon would be quite sexy. Then again this is advice from someone named The Hell Puppi.

Eh, I wouldn't go out with a girl who doesn't think killing a mastadon is sexy. I do have standards. :smallwink:

[Raistlin1040]

Chivalry isn't dead. It's just sleeping.

[Rachel Lorelei]

Chivalry isn't dead. It's just sleeping.

On the couch. After coming home late smelling of beer.

[Yiel]

Yayyy I have an excuse for my randomness!

....I mean...boo...no one understands me...O_o


And killing a mastodon would be quite sexy. Then again this is advice from someone named The Hell Puppi.

Quote from the little slip of paper that was inside my Baci chocolate last night:

Woman: "You never understand me."
Man: "What do you mean?"

[WhatIsGravity]

Quote from the little slip of paper that was inside my Baci chocolate last night:

Woman: "You never understand me."
Man: "What do you mean?"

Priceless. :smallbiggrin:

[Vonriel]

But, see, here's the thing. I view a good percentage of men as being swine. As a result, I tend to rule out "gentlemanly" conduct toward my fellow male until he proves that he deserves it. If I can sit an entire meal with the guy, and never once think "What a prick" then he deserves courtesies. However, I find the same percentage of women are the exact opposite. Not necessarily a shiny thing on a pedestal, but rather something to be respected. So, I extend the "gentlemanly" conduct toward women on principle, until she proves that she no longer deserves it. If I can sit an entire meal with the girl, and at the end come away thinking "What a b-", then she doesn't deserve the courtesies I've given her.

It's an odd thing to put into words, but I think that explains the way I behave nicely.

A little turnaround, by the way. You (the ladies of this thread) have spoken of the "nice guy" who you don't want, but I have a hangup. What is it that causes you to assume he must be coddled? What is it about the "nice guy" that causes you to have to avoid hurting his feelings? Perhaps his lack of backbone is because everyone has coddled him so much, he no longer has the ability to stick up for himself. No one has given him the chance.

Now, I wonder if this will even be seen/commented on, given that my last point had to wait a page and someone else saying it to get noticed. :smallsigh:

[FdL]

A little turnaround, by the way. You (the ladies of this thread) have spoken of the "nice guy" who you don't want, but I have a hangup. What is it that causes you to assume he must be coddled? What is it about the "nice guy" that causes you to have to avoid hurting his feelings? Perhaps his lack of backbone is because everyone has coddled him so much, he no longer has the ability to stick up for himself. No one has given him the chance.

Now, I wonder if this will even be seen/commented on, given that my last point had to wait a page and someone else saying it to get noticed. :smallsigh:

Heh, that last comment instantly gives you attention, it works.

You have a good point up there about how women perceive a men to be weak and act accordingly. Going against what you perceive would be the right thing to do, but also something not many people would dare acting on. Because you know, they're more often than not totally right.

[Ego Slayer]

So applying this to the topic, yeah, women see "gentlemanly" guys as weak. Think of the word itself, the "gentle" part. Though it's a positive trait, I don't think that's the sterotypical image women have of men. Call it "gender role" or whatever. It's that way.
Or, to completely disagree with you, the "gentle" part of the word is what makes it attractive. No, it's not the stereotypical image because there aren't enough "gentlemen" out there. You can still be polite without going overboard about it. I dunno... I just think that's a ridiculous statement. And, not just a gentleman towards women. I sure as hell don't want to be all pretty on a pedestal.

Also, Jaguira, good post. Have a cookie.

[Rachel Lorelei]

But, see, here's the thing. I view a good percentage of men as being swine. As a result, I tend to rule out "gentlemanly" conduct toward my fellow male until he proves that he deserves it. If I can sit an entire meal with the guy, and never once think "What a prick" then he deserves courtesies. However, I find the same percentage of women are the exact opposite. Not necessarily a shiny thing on a pedestal, but rather something to be respected. So, I extend the "gentlemanly" conduct toward women on principle, until she proves that she no longer deserves it. If I can sit an entire meal with the girl, and at the end come away thinking "What a b-", then she doesn't deserve the courtesies I've given her.
That's a very skewed view. Women are no more or less likely to be unpleasant than men, and automatically treating the sexes the way you do buys into the exact sexist traditions and stereotypes I was talking about. It also buys into a number of other stereotypes, not all of them sexist, but none of them particularily valid.


It's an odd thing to put into words, but I think that explains the way I behave nicely.
You're free to do as you like, of course.
But, still--don't. People are people. Treat them like people.


A little turnaround, by the way. You (the ladies of this thread) have spoken of the "nice guy" who you don't want, but I have a hangup. What is it that causes you to assume he must be coddled? What is it about the "nice guy" that causes you to have to avoid hurting his feelings? Perhaps his lack of backbone is because everyone has coddled him so much, he no longer has the ability to stick up for himself. No one has given him the chance.
Do not even get me started on the "Nice Guy" thing.

"Nice Guy" has become a euphemism for the kind of guy who makes friends with you because he wants you, but never works up the nerve to ask you out. A "Nice Guy", as opposed to a geniunely nice guy, isn't really nice--he's basically trying to lie his way into your favor.

[Jaguira]

Also, Jaguira, good post. Have a cookie.
Thank you :smallredface: !

Rachel Lorelei, you are officially my hero in the Playground :smallbiggrin:

[FdL]

Or, to completely disagree with you, the "gentle" part of the word is what makes it attractive. No, it's not the stereotypical image because there aren't enough "gentlemen" out there. You can still be polite without going overboard about it. I dunno... I just think that's a ridiculous statement. And, not just a gentleman towards women. I sure as hell don't want to be all pretty on a pedestal.


I understand you, but all I say I do from my many years of personal experience with women. I'm the first one to recognize that it isn't the way it should be, etc. But as the saying goes "I call 'em as I see 'em".

I used to be a gentleman, you know. From my earliest age. And every girl I've fell in love with always considered me to be a "nice guy", a "friend type" and so on. I even lost the love I once found because I treated her "too nicely" (ie, put in a pedestal and so on).
So it's not like I think it's wrong to be a gentleman. But I'm changing for better, and obviously I'm not going to stop respecting women. It's a matter of self esteem I think, and it's a difficult game to play.

[Rachel Lorelei]

Did you, you know, actually ask these women out once you became attracted to them? Or did you just hang around and pine?

Confidence is--for most people--sexy. Lack of confidence isn't. That has nothing to do with "nice"; you can be nice and confident.


Edit: aww, thanks.

[SilverClawShift]

Do not even get me started on the "Nice Guy" thing.

"Nice Guy" has become a euphemism for the kind of guy who makes friends with you because he wants you, but never works up the nerve to ask you out. A "Nice Guy", as opposed to a geniunely nice guy, isn't really nice--he's basically trying to lie his way into your favor.

Hear hear. Hear freaking hear.

[Holy_Knight]

Let me try to explain.

Personally, I don't really find it offensive--but it IS sexist. Those things are just nice acts in and of themselves, but they're part of a culture and a tradition, and this tradition dates back to when women were supposed to be dainty, useless things on pedestals. It also helps promote the image of women as the weaker, fairer sex. I spar fairly intensively and have for years, and could take most guys who *don't* do so apart in twenty seconds flat... but if a guy hits them on the shoulder, they'd hit him back; if I do it, they wouldn't (and a number of them make a lot of how they'd "never hit a woman"). I get treated as weak and fragile even though I'm not.
Just because it involves positive actions as well doesn't mean it's not sexist.

*sigh*... So many things to say here. First of all, I think it's great that you spar extensively. In all seriousness, my dream woman would (among other things) be a martial artist that I could spar with for fun. That being said, there's a difference between sparring with someone and the kind of thing men mean when they say they would "never hit a woman". This ties into the origins of chivalry toward women (which, again, is not the whole of chivalry). It doesn't come from women being seen as dainty, useless things on a pedestal, it comes from women being seen as less human, ownable possessions that could be struck and otherwise punished for displeasing the men who controlled them. Specifically, it was a reaction against that, a first step toward empowering women in a time when they had no power. For a man to refuse to hit a woman isn't a way of making or portraying her as weak, it's a reaffirmation of the choice to reject the kind of primitive tendencies which views women as objects to be controlled and dominated.




And sexism is offensive. It's also pervasive: things like "the guy should pay!" and "you should do X, Y, and Z for women specifically"
Actually, I'm going to change the subject slightly here since we're on the topic of dating: I think the "the guy should pay" rule is good, or, at least, that whoever asks the other person out should pay (which usually will be the guy since it's more typical for the guy to ask the girl out than vice versa). Mostly because, in my view, if one person pays as opposed to splitting the bill, that qualifies it as an actual date, and not just friends getting together. So, that's kind of a side note, I guess.




So, yeah, chivalry is dying--and good riddance. If you want to be nice to people, go right ahead; you don't need an outdated, sexist code for that.

Aside from the fact that chivalry is about justice, courage, loyalty, and so on (which are never outdated), and not just treating women in a certain way, it's not a bad thing to treat women with respect. It need not be viewed as sexist, either, if you realize that men who follow such a code are doing so out of genuinely positive intentions.

EDIT:



"Nice Guy" has become a euphemism for the kind of guy who makes friends with you because he wants you, but never works up the nerve to ask you out. A "Nice Guy", as opposed to a geniunely nice guy, isn't really nice--he's basically trying to lie his way into your favor.

Now wait a minute--this seems patently unfair. Suppose that a guy does like a girl--exactly how would you have him act? I'm not talking about faking being nice, obviously that's bad. But if he wants to get to know you better, or actually have some kind of relationship, shouldn't being nice be a part of that? Suppose again that he's nice to his male friends. Shouldn't he be nice to girls he wants to date as well? Aren't we all supposed to treat each other equally, here? :smallwink:

[FdL]

Did you, you know, actually ask these women out once you became attracted to them?


No, that's precisely my point.

Edit: No, sorry, I'm wrong. I did tell most of them but it didn't change the situation at all. It has to do as i say, with a projection of being weak. The "nice guy" character is weak, either as a genuine personality or as a strategy to win a girl (in this last case it's downright pathetic).

[Vonriel]

And yet, Rachel, you have a preconceived notion that the only reason I'm doing this is inherently sexist. You made it sound as if the absolute only reason for a guy to be courteous to a girl is because he thinks she is automatically inferior to begin with. Or deserving of some special pedestal status. Why I do it is neither. I used the phrase "an entire meal," and yet I can tell within moments whether or not the person I'm talking to is worth courtesy. Because past experience has taught me that girls generally come out worthy of it and guys come out not worthy of it, I act the way I do to save myself some time. I see now that it looks sexist without the explanation of why I see women as being generally more worthy of courtesy than men are. It's anything but.

As for the "nice guy" comments, you're avoiding the question. I asked specifically why you feel the need to coddle him, and you told me it's because he was trying to buy his way in by being friends first. You never said whether or not you actually told him that this was unattractive, just that you found it so. If he goes through life never being told his way is wrong, he won't change it.

Personally, since I was asked, yes, I have. I have come forward and been told "you're a nice guy, and will be a wonderful boyfriend for someone, just not me" which is a baldfaced lie. It's a lie of omission. It feels like the person telling me won't go into why because they think I'm too fragile to handle it. How is that in any way different from the man who thinks he has to hold open the door for the woman because she's too fragile to do it herself?

[Ego Slayer]

And sexism is offensive. It's also pervasive: things like "the guy should pay!" and "you should do X, Y, and Z for women specifically" tie into things like, say, woman being valued only (or primarily, or first and foremost) as ornaments or sex kittens, so while some artifacts of sexist traditions are relatively harmless in and of themselves, they shouldn't necessarily go unscrutinized or uncriticized.
I think "the guy should pay" is the stupidest thing.:smallannoyed: It's okay, really, but... you're only allowed to pay for me sometimes, as long as I get to pay for you sometime. I simply do not see a reason why the guy should. I wouldn't say it's sexist, but it certainly is silly.

[FdL]

Personally, since I was asked, yes, I have. I have come forward and been told "you're a nice guy, and will be a wonderful boyfriend for someone, just not me" which is a baldfaced lie.

Oh, nice. See, if you analyze these kinds of things that women say, you can get to the core of meaning and cut all the polite BS.
What the girl is saying there is actually: "No, I don't want to be your girlfriend because I can't see anything that anyone would find attractive". Or the shorter, more sincere "No way".

:S

[DarthBarbieDoll]

It is refreshing to hear that some men still enjoy being chivalrous and treating a lady like a lady in this day and age. It must be like a mine field out in the dating realm though when you try and do something thoughtful like hold a door open... it’s either going to be well received, or it's going to blow up in your face.

Please hang in there though. As an older and perhaps "outdated" female myself, I am confident that there are women out there like myself who still enjoy being treated with thoughtfulness and respect by a true gentleman. The challenge remains yours to find and date a woman who would appreciate such a thing. :smallsmile:

[Rachel Lorelei]

*sigh*... So many things to say here. First of all, I think it's great that you spar extensively. In all seriousness, my dream woman would (among other things) be a martial artist that I could spar with for fun. That being said, there's a difference between sparring with someone and the kind of thing men mean when they say they would "never hit a woman".
Not really. Those men would be reluctant to spar with a woman, too.


This ties into the origins of chivalry toward women (which, again, is not the whole of chivalry). It doesn't come from women being seen as dainty, useless things on a pedestal, it comes from women being seen as less human, ownable possessions that could be struck and otherwise punished for displeasing the men who controlled them. Specifically, it was a reaction against that, a first step toward empowering women in a time when they had no power. For a man to refuse to hit a woman isn't a way of making or portraying her as weak, it's a reaffirmation of the choice to reject the kind of primitive tendencies which views women as objects to be controlled and dominated.
Ahem. To be blunt: bull.
Women were still objects to be controlled and dominated--just in different ways. Now they were pretty objects, on a pedestal. It's still objectification. It's still rigid social control of women.
It is not empowering in the slightest.

Women with power, for the record, weren't unheard of. Eleanor of Aquitaine, anyone?


Actually, I'm going to change the subject slightly here since we're on the topic of dating: I think the "the guy should pay" rule is good, or, at least, that whoever asks the other person out should pay (which usually will be the guy since it's more typical for the guy to ask the girl out than vice versa). Mostly because, in my view, if one person pays as opposed to splitting the bill, that qualifies it as an actual date, and not just friends getting together. So, that's kind of a side note, I guess.
You can split the bill and have it be a Real Date. "Whoever does the asking out" is a fine way of handling it, as is "whoever's got more money availible at the time", which is usually but not always the person who's economically better off.
"The guy should pay" is very different from "whoever asks the other person out should pay", though. Girls can and do ask people out.
(And whether I ask a girl out or a girl asks me out, a girl is doing the asking out either way--and, somehow, we manage to live through it. Most guys would, too. Be bold, ladies. Live a little.)



Aside from the fact that chivalry is about justice, courage, loyalty, and so on (which are never outdated), and not just treating women in a certain way, it's not a bad thing to treat women with respect. It need not be viewed as sexist, either, if you realize that men who follow such a code are doing so out of genuinely positive intentions.
Justice is very much overrated. It's mostly codified revenge that does nobody any good.
Positive intentions don't make something not sexist! It's not bad to treat women with respect--it's bad to treat women with exceptional respect, i.e. more than you'd give to men (or hermaphrodites, for that matter).


Now wait a minute--this seems patently unfair. Suppose that a guy does like a girl--exactly how would you have him act? I'm not talking about faking being nice, obviously that's bad. But if he wants to get to know you better, or actually have some kind of relationship, shouldn't being nice be a part of that? Suppose again that he's nice to his male friends. Shouldn't he be nice to girls he wants to date as well? Aren't we all supposed to treat each other equally, here? :smallwink:
I would have him, oh, ask her out.
Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with being nice. But the Nice Guys who whine about how "girls never like Nice Guys" are generally the weasely act-like-her-friend-because-she's-hot types.

[Rachel Lorelei]

And yet, Rachel, you have a preconceived notion that the only reason I'm doing this is inherently sexist. You made it sound as if the absolute only reason for a guy to be courteous to a girl is because he thinks she is automatically inferior to begin with. Or deserving of some special pedestal status.
You're a product of your culture--our culture--which is rather pemeated with sexism, so frankly the reasons you're doing it are likely sexist


Why I do it is neither. I used the phrase "an entire meal," and yet I can tell within moments whether or not the person I'm talking to is worth courtesy. Because past experience has taught me that girls generally come out worthy of it and guys come out not worthy of it, I act the way I do to save myself some time. I see now that it looks sexist without the explanation of why I see women as being generally more worthy of courtesy than men are. It's anything but.
If you can tell within a few moments, you're obviously not saving yourself much time. This seems more like you trying to justify a reaction drilled into you by the traditions of a sexist culture.
Those traditions might have a lot to do with how you judge men and women, too, and what you require of them for "respect".


As for the "nice guy" comments, you're avoiding the question. I asked specifically why you feel the need to coddle him, and you told me it's because he was trying to buy his way in by being friends first. You never said whether or not you actually told him that this was unattractive, just that you found it so. If he goes through life never being told his way is wrong, he won't change it.
Personally, I wouldn't feel the need to coddle him. I think straightforward and honest communication is important. My friends know this.

I'd imagine most people "coddle" because if you like someone, you want to let them down gently. Hurting someone's feelings is unpleasant.

(Oh, and it's perfectly possible for someone to think you'll make "a good partner, but not for them". There's more to attraction than personality or appearance. I know a woman who's thoroughly my type in most ways, and I've fallen madly in bed with similar lasses... but there's just no spark there, for some reason. These things happen.)


Personally, since I was asked, yes, I have. I have come forward and been told "you're a nice guy, and will be a wonderful boyfriend for someone, just not me" which is a baldfaced lie. It's a lie of omission. It feels like the person telling me won't go into why because they think I'm too fragile to handle it. How is that in any way different from the man who thinks he has to hold open the door for the woman because she's too fragile to do it herself?
How is it different? Let's see.

Well, mostly, it's because it about you, not about your gender.
And then there's the little matter of centuries of culutral weight being behind one thing but not the other.

[SweetLikeLemons]

Actually, I'm going to change the subject slightly here since we're on the topic of dating: I think the "the guy should pay" rule is good, or, at least, that whoever asks the other person out should pay (which usually will be the guy since it's more typical for the guy to ask the girl out than vice versa). Mostly because, in my view, if one person pays as opposed to splitting the bill, that qualifies it as an actual date, and not just friends getting together. So, that's kind of a side note, I guess.

I have no problem with the guy wanting to pay for dinner as long as he has no problem with me paying for dessert or the movie or something equivalent. In a more established relationship, I am ok with alternating dates. I don't insist on adding up the bill and making sure it is split evenly down to the penny, but I do want to pay my own way. I suppose part of this might come from those "If you let him pay, he might think he's entitled to something" type warnings, but most of it comes from things I have heard guys saying. I have heard many complaints about feminism that go something like: Girls want guys to treat them as equals etc, but they still want to guy to pay when they go out to dinner. And they have a point. I want to be treated as an equal. So I'll get dinner.

[Jack Squat]

I can chime in on the dinner thing. I sometimes pay for all, but more often than not, me and my girlfriend go dutch. This is mostly because most of the time we see eachother is with a larger group of friends, but it does carry over into our dates some.

And I never expect her to pay for all, nor would I let her. Not because of some outdated concept, but because I have a job and she doesn't. When that changes, I'll be perfectly happy to let her pick up the bill every now and then.

[Holy_Knight]

Not really. Those men would be reluctant to spar with a woman, too.
To be blunt: bull. As I said in my previous post, I would (and have) gladly spar with a woman. I wouldn't hit one, though, using the other meaning I mentioned before.



Ahem. To be blunt: bull.
Women were still objects to be controlled and dominated--just in different ways. Now they were pretty objects, on a pedestal. It's still objectification. It's still rigid social control of women.
It is not empowering in the slightest.

You're confusing a lack of perfection with a lack of progress. Yes, women were still under the control of men for the most part, and lacked equal rights. This does not mean that instituting a code that not only prohibited violence against them, and also charged men to assist them whenever asked, did not elevate their status and power. A first step, as I said.


Be bold, ladies. Live a little.)
For God's sake, yes.




Justice is very much overrated. It's mostly codified revenge that does nobody any good.
Is it? Or is that a misguided counterfeit that doesn't reflect what true justice really is? (Okay, I admit, that was a rhetorical question).



Positive intentions don't make something not sexist! Not in general, no. But it does make it not an attempt to place women into a helpless role of weakness, which is the premise upon which much of the ciriticism levelled against it is founded.



Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with being nice. But the Nice Guys who whine about how "girls never like Nice Guys" are generally the weasely act-like-her-friend-because-she's-hot types.
I would consider myself the "doesn't like seeing his friends get hurt, so complains about the fact that they keep dating jerks" type. But aside from that, if you assume that most guys who seem nice are just faking it to get in a girl's pants, then of course no nice guys will have a shot--which makes their complaint that girls don't like them look pretty legitimate.

[Rachel Lorelei]

To be blunt: bull. As I said in my previous post, I would (and have) gladly spar with a woman. I wouldn't hit one, though, using the other meaning I mentioned before.
That's very nice for you.
I'm not sure how it applies to anyone other than you.


You're confusing a lack of perfection with a lack of progress. Yes, women were still under the control of men for the most part, and lacked equal rights. This does not mean that instituting a code that not only prohibited violence against them, and also charged men to assist them whenever asked, did not elevate their status and power. A first step, as I said.
Let's assume you're correct.
If so, chivalry was progress way back then. That does not mean it's anything other than an archaic and sexist tradition now.


Not in general, no. But it does make it not an attempt to place women into a helpless role of weakness, which is the premise upon which much of the ciriticism levelled against it is founded.
I never said it was an attempt. I said it's the tradition of a sexist culture, deeply rooted in sexist thought--and as such, has strong sexist overtones. Good intentions don't sweep those away. We all know where the road paved with good intentions leads, so to speak.


I would consider myself the "doesn't like seeing his friends get hurt, so complains about the fact that they keep dating jerks" type. But aside from that, if you assume that most guys who seem nice are just faking it to get in a girl's pants, then of course no nice guys will have a shot--which makes their complaint that girls don't like them look pretty legitimate.
Except that I don't assume that, and never said I did--I just pointed out that a lot of the people who whine about Girls Don't Like Me Because I'm A Nice Guy do that.

Girls date jerks. Guys date various sorts of women who are not very good for them. People in general exercise poor judgement all the time. It's not a gender thing.

[SDF]

Not really. Those men would be reluctant to spar with a woman, too.

Justice is very much overrated. It's mostly codified revenge that does nobody any good.
Positive intentions don't make something not sexist! It's not bad to treat women with respect--it's bad to treat women with exceptional respect, i.e. more than you'd give to men (or hermaphrodites, for that matter).

I would have him, oh, ask her out.
Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with being nice. But the Nice Guys who whine about how "girls never like Nice Guys" are generally the weasely act-like-her-friend-because-she's-hot types.

You can't just make blanket statements like that. Someone who complains from certain anecdotal experiences is not automatically a, "weasely act-like-her-friend-because-she's-hot type" That is just stereotyping. And like it or not everyone treats men and women differently even if it is just on a subconscious level. Genetically we have different brain processes that exhibit a different behavior than someone of the opposite sex would. These average patters, over time, shape how we view members of each sex. So there might be motivation to treat women with more, "respect" than men. It is all about motivation, there is good and bad motivation and you have to take it person by person. You can't just lump people together.

[Vonriel]

You know, this is what's bothering me mainly about your reply. Why did you feel the need to cut up a complete thought for the expressed purpose of making me look bad? Your first comment to my last post was there only to demean me in the eyes of the readers, and you felt the need to put it in between two halves of a whole statement.

See, here's the problem. You're saying I'm guilty of sexism and I have to defend myself from it, rather than simply asking if I have different standards for men and women, which I don't. Someone is worth my respect if they do something to show that. I'll use an example of a meal: Say there's someone sitting and not talking much, showing a little discomfort about the whole thing. If a person who I had just met spoke to the meek person, got them involved in some fashion, that would be a respectful action. If the person noticed another diner had a nearly-empty plate, or had a nearly-empty glass, and called attention to it with something as simple as "hey, you want any of the food by me" or "you want me to refill your glass while I'm up" then that would also be a respectful action. If someone made a lewd comment or steered the conversation toward a topic that someone else is obviously uncomfortable hearing, and the person spoke up and assumed the mantle of the uncomfortable - without calling attention to the person who seemed uncomfortable, that would be respectful. These same things apply to men or women equally. Note, however, that this was an example of things that I would find worthy of my respect, not necessarily a whole list. Note also that I use the dinner metaphor to make it easier to describe, because it's a more or less abstract list of things that cause me to respect someone. Mannerisms, habits, and the like, a lot of which are noticeable in the first ten minutes of conversation.

Moments are an abstract concept. I didn't mean meet the guy, and ten seconds later know whether or not he deserves my respect. I meant that it doesn't take a whole meal or an entire conversation for me to know whether or not I should respect someone.

Hmm, thanks for the opinion on the matter, but I'm more looking for a statement from someone who has actually been in the position, rather than conjecture. I'm quite capable of conjecture myself should I desire, but assumptions are definitely not the way to go here.

And as for the last bit. It's not about me, it's about what type of person I am. The person who told me this thought that I couldn't handle being told because I'm the nice guy, rather than because of what they knew of me. So all nice guys will get told the same thing by this person, rather than being told what they think he can handle. It feels like a perceived assumption that the nice guy is inherently more emotionally fragile than the jackass.




One last thing, I prefer a discussion. What I do not prefer is someone predetermining my guilt over an issue, then telling me to defend myself from it. :smallannoyed:
<hr>
Now, let me branch into your conversation with Holy_Knight for a moment.

He is correct. And you seem to misunderstand what it means to not hit a woman. If the woman and I are in a fist fight, you can be damn sure I'll have no compunctions against hitting her back if she hits me. However, I will not haul off and hit her just because I don't like the stance she has taken, or because she offended me in some manner. The latter is what it was intended to prevent, not the former. It's a "hitting to cow her" thing, that is also there for the women who are physically stronger than the men. And believe me, it happens; there is abuse being done by both sexes. Then there's the view you have, the one that society has put upon you. That view being the stereotypical jackass who finds himself face to face with a woman in a fight and says "No, sorry I'm not allowed to hit a lady" in a manner that suggests he finds the notion contemptuous. I have yet to meet any guy in real life who acts in the way the idiot in my last example did.

Also, as has been mentioned, chivalry is not a sexist code of behavior. It is a code of behavior that states that you should go out of your way to help those who can't help themselves. It seems as if you see the courtesy of holding the door open for someone is the same as the belief that they couldn't do it for themself. Which, I might add, is a societal influence. He never said he was doing it because he thought you couldn't, you assumed he did, because society has said that that's a chivalric action, rather than a courteous action, and you made the link.

[/wall of text]

[Holy_Knight]

That's very nice for you.
I'm not sure how it applies to anyone other than you.

You're right--I should have mentioned that other guys I've known who spar are of the same mindset. I don't recall meeting one who felt uneasy sparring with a woman.



Let's assume you're correct.
If so, chivalry was progress way back then. That does not mean it's anything other than an archaic and sexist tradition now.
No, but neither does the environment in which it arose then necessarily mean anything about those who practice it now. More on this below.



I never said it was an attempt. I said it's the tradition of a sexist culture, deeply rooted in sexist thought--and as such, has strong sexist overtones. Good intentions don't sweep those away.
What I was responding to was the idea that chivalry towards women is necessarily bound up with the picture of women as "dainty", "helpless", "on a pedestal", etc., which you did seem to be arguing. I disagree--most of the men who act in such ways do so as a way of demonstrating respect and consideration, and that they don't see women as inferior or as objects. Part of this goes along with another thing we've been discussing--how, precisely, a man should act in order to show his committment to treating women well. If that is the intention behind chivalrous behavior, then it is important to how that behavior sohuld be interpreted.




We all know where the road paved with good intentions leads, so to speak.

Actually, that's a rather foolish cliche. Yes, sometimes good intentions don't turn out well. But the occasional failure to accomplish a good goal does not diminish the value of the intention to achieve it. If you really want to find hell, bad intentions are a much surer path.



Except that I don't assume that, and never said I did--I just pointed out that a lot of the people who whine about Girls Don't Like Me Because I'm A Nice Guy do that.
Do they, though? That's what I was calling an assumption--that a large number of of the guys making that complaint aren't genuinely nice guys. In my experience, the guys who make that complaint really are nice.



Girls date jerks. Guys date various sorts of women who are not very good for them. People in general exercise poor judgement all the time. It's not a gender thing.
I agree, and I never said it was limited to one gender. I was saying that that particular version of poor judgement seems very common among females.

[Alleine]

Chivalry dead? Not completely, and perhaps it will return at some later date at full strength. I will hold a door open for guys and girls, mostly girls because I think its just a nice thing to do and have absolutely no motivation for holding it open for a guy. However, as I said, I hold doors open for people in general, although I sometimes get thwarted in this due to a double door and the people I try to open it for go through the other side like I'm not there.

Really, it all depends on my mood. I'm pretty heavily prone to mood swings, so one moment I'll be happy to kill or die for someone, and the next I couldn't (almost) care less. With most of the girls I hang out with, they'll laugh at some jokes that aren't considered in good taste, but none of us do anything disgusting. Especially since one girl is a wrestler.

Someone mentioned sparring with girls, which I would totally do if it were fair(by which I mean, we're roughly of the same skill level), but for the most part I wouldn't do because the girls would most likely kick my pasty white butt, especially the wrestler. My respect stems from the fact that 1) I wa raised that way, 2) They can beat me with little difficulty in an arm wrestle, and 3) They're girls for goodness sake, I want them to like me in some way.

One thing that kinda confused me when I was being chivalrous was that if I, say, open a door, They'll say thanks and "You're so silly/funny" Not quite what I expected. I wish more girls would appreciate it instead of mistaking it for something else, though the "you're silly/funny" is a lot better than girls who think its demeaning.

On the issue of hitting girls, depends. Under normal circumstances, no, I wouldn't. If its playful hitting, then yes, and besides, they hit harder than I do. If they're attacking me, I will if there is no easier alternative, like grabbing their arms so they can't hit me. If the girl is going to shoot someone, hell yes I'd deck her, unless of course she provided a good reason for the shooting.

Perhaps the old chivalry is dead, but I think not, I think it no longer exists because it changed to fit a changing society. I would say that it is, sadly, diminished.

[Xuincherguixe]

Yeah, gotta say that I'm kind of glad chivalry is dead.

That respect is dead too I'm not so enthusiastic about.


Good news is that it seems that it seems like no one has yelled at me about holding doors open or the like. Bad news is if they are offended I have no way of telling if they are offended and just aren't saying anything, hoping I'll just somehow know.

But that's a whole other thing.


Still, I think I'd rather people think I was weak and wishy washy and hate me, then love me while I was being a total jerk.

[Warshrike]

Sadly, the few girls I know well enough to count as my friends think of any chivalry as cracking on to them, and the rest I'd rather not get to know any better. I love Chivalry, and the idea of it. But then again, I also love the IDEA of communism. Chivalry will be dead for as long as people let it be dead, but I'm yet to meet a girl willing to take Chivalry for what it is- Complete honesty and kindness.

Then again, most of the girls around here are... Well, Let's not go into this.

[Triggerhappy938]

I suppose my approach would neither fit "chivalry" or "totally not chivalry". I just treat others based on their actions, regardless of gender. I try to be at least decent to strangers, until given a reason to do so otherwise.

And yes, I would hit, and fight, a girl on the same terms I would a guy. If a girl who I felt would be quite capable of dealing me harm attempted to, I'd fight her like any other. Much the same, if a guy who was to small and frail to pose any threat of personal injury was trying to goad me, I'd leave him be. My willingness to fight someone has nothing to do with their chromosomes or genitalia.

Being courteous does not require a gender bias.

[WhatIsGravity]

Chivalry will be dead for as long as people let it be dead, but I'm yet to meet a girl willing to take Chivalry for what it is- Complete honesty and kindness.


And yes, I would hit, and fight, a girl on the same terms I would a guy. If a girl who I felt would be quite capable of dealing me harm attempted to, I'd fight her like any other. Much the same, if a guy who was to small and frail to pose any threat of personal injury was trying to goad me, I'd leave him be. My willingness to fight someone has nothing to do with their chromosomes or genitalia.

QFT, I agree, my sentiments exactly, etc.

[Trog]

GENERIC RANT:

I'd just like to chime in an encourage all males who, when they do something out of sheer courtesy for a woman (because they have been told growing up that that it is nice to be polite) get instead of a simple "thanks" some undeserved judgement about their actions being sexist they should, from that moment on, just proceed to be just as much of a pre-judging and defensive ass to that girl as that girl was to you. THERE'S equal treatment for you. :smallamused:

Seriously. Get a grip. Not every nice or polite guy is 1) A Chauvaunist 2) A push-over. SOME are just polite. You should try that some time.

[averagejoe]

GENERIC RANT:

I'd just like to chime in an encourage all males who, when they do something out of sheer courtesy for a woman (because they have been told growing up that that it is nice to be polite) get instead of a simple "thanks" some undeserved judgement about their actions being sexist they should, from that moment on, just proceed to be just as much of a pre-judging and defensive ass to that girl as that girl was to you. THERE'S equal treatment for you. :smallamused:

Seriously. Get a grip. Not every nice or polite guy is 1) A Chauvaunist 2) A push-over. SOME are just polite. You should try that some time.

Hear hear!

[David Demola]

Same...It's just means they're nice...:smallconfused:

I've actually heard the argument from a few feminists before. The example wasn't really meant to be a focal point; just an example.

[Vuzzmop]

Chivalry never existed to start with. But I do like the idea of being "chivalrous" to a woman/girl, it just seems right. I know that feminists think that it's degrading, but it only makes sense to be kind to someone of the opposite sex, and not make crude jokes about them. I'm all for gender equality, but I'd like to be thought of as a gentleman, and make someone feel special.

[Jibar]

Hear hear!

Trog once again saves the day with his questionable social habits!
Hooray!

[Dispozition]

Might as well chuck in my 2 cents here...

I'm not the most polite person ever. I swear a decent amount, I'll hit my friends fairly often (no, I have no idea why) and I'm fairly crude at times. However, I will always say thank you to someone who held the door open for me, and I will always try and hold the door open for someone.

I treat my female friends the same as my male friends except for one thing...I will not hit them with a closed fist, ever. I may slap them, lightly however, and I will push them around a bit, not too hard mind you...

That may be sexist, I dunno, but it seems like the right thing for me...Just about all my male friends are stronger than me, so I have no reserves in hitting them. Hell, even most of my female friends are stronger but I just don't think it's right to hit them...

That's probably just me, but you know...whatever...

And it looks like my 2 cents is up...

[Narmoth]

*adjusts Monocle*
Chivalry is not dead! It's simply...reduced. Hiding, if you will. The chivalrous among us tend to be more reserved and taciturn as a rule, so we're much harder to spot.

One major enemy to chivalry, I think, is that an inordinate number of buildings these days require two doors to get in, and both very close to each other. Imagine a well-meaning gentleman who opens the door for a lady, only to see that there's another door not ten feet away that she'll have to open herself, unless he lunges past her, shoving her out of the way. It makes the whole excercise seem...pointless.
"Ah, I feel so Chivalrous; I've managed to make it so that she only has to open one door by herself :-/ "

You walk first through the first door, holding it for the lady to enter after you, then open the next door and let her pass first, dumbass.
That way, you hold both doors, and let the lady enter the building first, or exit first.

[Rachel Lorelei]

GENERIC RANT:

I'd just like to chime in an encourage all males who, when they do something out of sheer courtesy for a woman (because they have been told growing up that that it is nice to be polite) get instead of a simple "thanks" some undeserved judgement about their actions being sexist they should, from that moment on, just proceed to be just as much of a pre-judging and defensive ass to that girl as that girl was to you. THERE'S equal treatment for you. :smallamused:

Seriously. Get a grip. Not every nice or polite guy is 1) A Chauvaunist 2) A push-over. SOME are just polite. You should try that some time.
Nobody said every polite guy is a chauvinist or a pushover. It's perfectly OK to be polite. I'm not sure why people are assuming that opening a door for me means I will kick them in the throat.
But it's sexist to go out of your way to be extra polite to women as a group. Do it because they're PEOPLE, not because they've got freakin' ovaries.


I suppose my approach would neither fit "chivalry" or "totally not chivalry". I just treat others based on their actions, regardless of gender. I try to be at least decent to strangers, until given a reason to do so otherwise.
That is Right Thought and Right Action.
It's as easy as not bringing gender in when it's not relevant.


And yes, I would hit, and fight, a girl on the same terms I would a guy. If a girl who I felt would be quite capable of dealing me harm attempted to, I'd fight her like any other. Much the same, if a guy who was to small and frail to pose any threat of personal injury was trying to goad me, I'd leave him be. My willingness to fight someone has nothing to do with their chromosomes or genitalia.

Being courteous does not require a gender bias.
THANK you. That has been my point all along.


Chivalry will be dead for as long as people let it be dead, but I'm yet to meet a girl willing to take Chivalry for what it is- Complete honesty and kindness.
Ah, so Chivalry Is Dead And It's All Women's Fault.
Chivalry isn't complete honesty and kindness. It's an attitude and a set of behaviors... both of which are gender-biased.



You're right--I should have mentioned that other guys I've known who spar are of the same mindset. I don't recall meeting one who felt uneasy sparring with a woman.
That's funny--I've known plenty who didn't want to step into a ring with me. There are some of both, and the mindset exists.


No, but neither does the environment in which it arose then necessarily mean anything about those who practice it now. More on this below.
...mm-hmm. And blackface is just another kind of make-up, right?
Let's not pretend that things are separate from their history and roots.


What I was responding to was the idea that chivalry towards women is necessarily bound up with the picture of women as "dainty", "helpless", "on a pedestal", etc., which you did seem to be arguing. I disagree--most of the men who act in such ways do so as a way of demonstrating respect and consideration, and that they don't see women as inferior or as objects. Part of this goes along with another thing we've been discussing--how, precisely, a man should act in order to show his committment to treating women well. If that is the intention behind chivalrous behavior, then it is important to how that behavior sohuld be interpreted.
And I don't lash out at people for doing it with good intentions.
I can and do, however, point out that it is sexist if such "respect and consideration" is gender-biased... because it is.


Actually, that's a rather foolish cliche. Yes, sometimes good intentions don't turn out well. But the occasional failure to accomplish a good goal does not diminish the value of the intention to achieve it. If you really want to find hell, bad intentions are a much surer path.
The point is, "good intentions" don't stop something from being sexist. An example of being sexist with good intentions: not allowing women into the front lines of the army.


Do they, though? That's what I was calling an assumption--that a large number of of the guys making that complaint aren't genuinely nice guys. In my experience, the guys who make that complaint really are nice.


I agree, and I never said it was limited to one gender. I was saying that that particular version of poor judgement seems very common among females.
Really? And your sample size is... what?
Certainly, very, very few of the females I interact with on a regular basis have that problem. I expect that if one were to study the matter, it would be associated with regional social programming and the like rather than with gender.
Then there's the fact that "that particular form of poor judgement" isn't really seen as a problem for men, a lot of the time. If a man sleeps with a woman who isn't very good for him, there's backslapping and jokes about how he's gettin' some of that action, breaking off a piece of that tail, tappin' that ass, et cetera. It's seen as a plenty good enough reason to date someone who's not very good to/for you.
If a straight girl does it, holy crap, it's "chicks hate nice guys!" city.
(Among gay men and lesbians it doesn't seem to be any more of a problem than for straight guys.)



You know, this is what's bothering me mainly about your reply. Why did you feel the need to cut up a complete thought for the expressed purpose of making me look bad? Your first comment to my last post was there only to demean me in the eyes of the readers, and you felt the need to put it in between two halves of a whole statement.
I didn't cut up your reply to make you look bad, I did it to reply to you piece by piece. My comment wasn't there to demean you, it was to make the point that while some behaviors are cultural norms, our culture was and still is sexist, so while it may seem like there's nothing wrong with what you're doing and that you're being fair, that's not necessarily true.


See, here's the problem. You're saying I'm guilty of sexism and I have to defend myself from it, rather than simply asking if I have different standards for men and women, which I don't. Someone is worth my respect if they do something to show that. I'll use an example of a meal: Say there's someone sitting and not talking much, showing a little discomfort about the whole thing. If a person who I had just met spoke to the meek person, got them involved in some fashion, that would be a respectful action. If the person noticed another diner had a nearly-empty plate, or had a nearly-empty glass, and called attention to it with something as simple as "hey, you want any of the food by me" or "you want me to refill your glass while I'm up" then that would also be a respectful action. If someone made a lewd comment or steered the conversation toward a topic that someone else is obviously uncomfortable hearing, and the person spoke up and assumed the mantle of the uncomfortable - without calling attention to the person who seemed uncomfortable, that would be respectful. These same things apply to men or women equally. Note, however, that this was an example of things that I would find worthy of my respect, not necessarily a whole list. Note also that I use the dinner metaphor to make it easier to describe, because it's a more or less abstract list of things that cause me to respect someone. Mannerisms, habits, and the like, a lot of which are noticeable in the first ten minutes of conversation.
But women are absolutely not more likely to be worthy of one's respect than men. It's fairly ridiculous to say that one gender is somehow more respectable.
If you're finding women to be respectable significantly more often than men, what can I say except that your standards have got to be biased--since if they weren't, you'd find them respectable in equal numbers?
Here's the thing: I know you're not a misogynist. I'm not accusing you of wanting to deny women the right to vote, or work, or anything else.
But you do have male privilege, and a male experience.
Having privilege doesn't make you a bad person. You have straight privilege, too; you and I have white privilege. There's nothing wrong with having it; you can't help it--but it's important to be aware of it, and how it colors your viewpoint and your actions.


Moments are an abstract concept. I didn't mean meet the guy, and ten seconds later know whether or not he deserves my respect. I meant that it doesn't take a whole meal or an entire conversation for me to know whether or not I should respect someone.
And yet, I somehow can't imagine it saving you *enough* time to make automatically respecting women and not respecting men (do you really not see anything wrong with having that as a default?) okay.


And as for the last bit. It's not about me, it's about what type of person I am. The person who told me this thought that I couldn't handle being told because I'm the nice guy, rather than because of what they knew of me. So all nice guys will get told the same thing by this person, rather than being told what they think he can handle. It feels like a perceived assumption that the nice guy is inherently more emotionally fragile than the jackass.
It's an assumption that... emotionally sensitive people are... emotionally sensitive? Yeah, nice people are easier to hurt than jackasses who don't care about people (or their opinions).


One last thing, I prefer a discussion. What I do not prefer is someone predetermining my guilt over an issue, then telling me to defend myself from it. :smallannoyed:
<hr>
Now, let me branch into your conversation with Holy_Knight for a moment.
I didn't predetermine any kind of *guilt* for you. I pointed out that you were doing things with a gender bias--which, from your description, you were.


He is correct. And you seem to misunderstand what it means to not hit a woman. If the woman and I are in a fist fight, you can be damn sure I'll have no compunctions against hitting her back if she hits me. However, I will not haul off and hit her just because I don't like the stance she has taken, or because she offended me in some manner. The latter is what it was intended to prevent, not the former. It's a "hitting to cow her" thing, that is also there for the women who are physically stronger than the men. And believe me, it happens; there is abuse being done by both sexes. Then there's the view you have, the one that society has put upon you. That view being the stereotypical jackass who finds himself face to face with a woman in a fight and says "No, sorry I'm not allowed to hit a lady" in a manner that suggests he finds the notion contemptuous. I have yet to meet any guy in real life who acts in the way the idiot in my last example did.
Okay, great. I wouldn't hit someone just because they offended me, regardless of their gender. I'm not sure why "I wouldn't hit someone except to defend myself" translates into "I would never hit a girl/woman/lady", and I think it's kind of funny that people try to claim "I would never hit a girl" isn't a sexist statement by saying that it *really* means that they wouldn't hit *anyone* weaker than them/undeserving of it/etc, without stopping to think about why they phrase it the way they do.


Also, as has been mentioned, chivalry is not a sexist code of behavior. It is a code of behavior that states that you should go out of your way to help those who can't help themselves. It seems as if you see the courtesy of holding the door open for someone is the same as the belief that they couldn't do it for themself. Which, I might add, is a societal influence. He never said he was doing it because he thought you couldn't, you assumed he did, because society has said that that's a chivalric action, rather than a courteous action, and you made the link.
As I've said repeatedly, I don't see holding the door open for someone as bad, offensive, or condescing, or otherwise bad.
However, doing so only for womena nd not for men is sexist. And "chivalry" teaches people to do that sort of thing for women, specifically.


You can't just make blanket statements like that. Someone who complains from certain anecdotal experiences is not automatically a, "weasely act-like-her-friend-because-she's-hot type" That is just stereotyping. And like it or not everyone treats men and women differently even if it is just on a subconscious level. Genetically we have different brain processes that exhibit a different behavior than someone of the opposite sex would. These average patters, over time, shape how we view members of each sex. So there might be motivation to treat women with more, "respect" than men. It is all about motivation, there is good and bad motivation and you have to take it person by person. You can't just lump people together.
I didn't say they're automatically a weaselly act-like-her-friend-because-she's-hot type (see Mike from Something Positive). In my experience--and in the experience of girls experiencing it from *their* side, not from the mouths of the guys engaging in the behavior set.

I don't treat men and women differently except when their gender is somehow relevant. Gender is absolutely NOT relevant to whether or not you should respect someone, open doors for them, et cetera. Neither should other people. Good motivation for doing so doesn't mean it's a good thing.



Might as well chuck in my 2 cents here...

I'm not the most polite person ever. I swear a decent amount, I'll hit my friends fairly often (no, I have no idea why) and I'm fairly crude at times. However, I will always say thank you to someone who held the door open for me, and I will always try and hold the door open for someone.
Sure, and that's good.


I treat my female friends the same as my male friends except for one thing...I will not hit them with a closed fist, ever. I may slap them, lightly however, and I will push them around a bit, not too hard mind you...
Why not? Probably because you were raised (and otherwise taught culturally) not to.
Which doesn't mean it's a good way to think.


That may be sexist, I dunno, but it seems like the right thing for me...Just about all my male friends are stronger than me, so I have no reserves in hitting them. Hell, even most of my female friends are stronger but I just don't think it's right to hit them...
Don't stop thinking it through there.
"I just don't think it's right" is not a justification for sexist behavior--which yours is. Oh, it's not particularily harmful sexist behavior, but that's what it is, and that makes it a poor attitude to hold. We have to work on the little things if we're ever going to overcome the big ones.

[Quincunx]

Responses:

SECONDED! to Rachel Lorelei. I am holding back the option to disagree on a point or two, but haven't needed it yet.

Sisqui had a child and retained her human mind and the willingness to use it. I respect that to beyond and back. I disagree with everything she wrote. I doubly disagree with the people who agreed with what she wrote and stopped listening to anything I had to say because of finding a female sympathizer.

N-thED! (seventh-ed, I _think_) to SilverClawShift, who didn't need to take a debating position--and instead put forth a position from which we live!

EDIT: Brackets foregone because I can't figure out where they are. Curse a keyboard printed in one configuration but using another. . .

averagejoe, if you can kill a mastodon, you can travel through time, and that has massive amounts of pull.

[SDF]

As I've said repeatedly, I don't see holding the door open for someone as bad, offensive, or condescing, or otherwise bad.
However, doing so only for womena nd not for men is sexist. And "chivalry" teaches people to do that sort of thing for women, specifically.


Okay, great. I wouldn't hit someone just because they offended me, regardless of their gender. I'm not sure why "I wouldn't hit someone except to defend myself" translates into "I would never hit a girl/woman/lady", and I think it's kind of funny that people try to claim "I would never hit a girl" isn't a sexist statement by saying that it *really* means that they wouldn't hit *anyone* weaker than them/undeserving of it/etc, without stopping to think about why they phrase it the way they do.

The point is, "good intentions" don't stop something from being sexist. An example of being sexist with good intentions: not allowing women into the front lines of the army.

Nobody said every polite guy is a chauvinist or a pushover. It's perfectly OK to be polite. I'm not sure why people are assuming that opening a door for me means I will kick them in the throat.
But it's sexist to go out of your way to be extra polite to women as a group. Do it because they're PEOPLE, not because they've got freakin' ovaries.


And I don't lash out at people for doing it with good intentions.
I can and do, however, point out that it is sexist if such "respect and consideration" is gender-biased... because it is.
BOLD mine

I think we should define sexism because you seem to throw that out a lot. It involves misogyny/misandry and is discriminatory. Discrimination always carries a negative connotation, as such the people here talking about how they view the subject and are trying to do what they think is right and fair in their own rational is NOT discrimination, rather it is bias. Bias is nothing more than a preference, and doesn't need to have any negative connotation at all. In a discussion such as this you need to be careful what words you use, because labeling half the board wrongly as sexist is demeaning.

[Akaziel]

Well, for me, chivalry was never dead. People just don't observe it, but someone needs to, you know? I always hold the door open for people, and I keep the toilet seat down.

Chivalry isn't something you're born with, it's something you attain, something everyone needs to learn at some point in their lives.

[AslanCross]

It isn't dead for me, just rather comatose. Good thing most of the ladies I hang out with appreciate it.

[Jorkens]

Discrimination always carries a negative connotation
Actually, it doesn't - a discriminating wine drinker, for instance, is someone who is aware of the differences between different sorts of wine and will choose specific ones because they're better quality or more suited to the circumstances. I'd personally define sexism as something like treating women differently from men outside of fundamental biological matters (I wouldn't call you a sexist for only chatting up people of one gender in bars, for instance).

But I think the point isn't that holding doors open = sexism is the main issue. The big issue is that society as a whole treats women differently from men based on recieved prejudices and gender ideas and that this manifests itself in many worse ways than people holding open doors. But it's important to recognize that "how you should treat a lady" is a part of a bigger matrix of prejudices and biases and can feed the stereotypes that lead to more harmful discrimination.

[SDF]

Actually, it doesn't - a discriminating wine drinker, for instance, is someone who is aware of the differences between different sorts of wine and will choose specific ones because they're better quality or more suited to the circumstances. I'd personally define sexism as something like treating women differently from men outside of fundamental biological matters (I wouldn't call you a sexist for only chatting up people of one gender in bars, for instance).

Discrimination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination) in the social science context we are using it in, in this discussion, is the judgment of something based on a classification other than merit. This is different from the definition of discrimination in regards to distinction you were using.

That aside does not change that sexism, in the same vein as racism and bigotry, is an extremely negative concept and is insulting to be labeled as such.

[Capt'n Ironbrow]

I hold open doors for people close behind me so that door does not hit them in the face when it swings back in position. And it looks kind-a silly, no, rude, when you close the door right in front of a person who wanted to enter right after you did. :smallamused:

Chivalry is not quite dead and I know some of it's manners are still appreciated. Okay, I haven't seen people cover puddles with their coats so a lady can cross without getting her shoes dirty/wet lately, but holding doors, taking coats, going downstairs first and upstairs last are things I experienced to be apreciated.

heh, some girls I know even got upset when I did not do these things... :smallwink:

[Trog]

Nobody said every polite guy is a chauvinist or a pushover. It's perfectly OK to be polite. I'm not sure why people are assuming that opening a door for me means I will kick them in the throat.
But it's sexist to go out of your way to be extra polite to women as a group. Do it because they're PEOPLE, not because they've got freakin' ovaries.
Several posters seemed to imply that in their posts. I felt the need to respond to that. Saying that it is "sexist" to me is just plain silly. Not paying women the same as men is sexist. Treating women like helpless little girls is sexist. Being polite to them is not. It is merely politeness that all gentleman were taught by their moms most likely.

Besides, no one said I was holding the door for you. *lets door slam shut* :smalltongue:

EDIT: :smallsmile: Props to SDF. I've been noticing that label for pages now. :smallannoyed:

@V Sure. I suppose. Since you're back now and all. :smalltongue:

[Saithis Bladewing]

Several posters seemed to imply that in their posts. I felt the need to respond to that. Saying that it is "sexist" to me is just plain silly. Not paying women the same as men is sexist. Treating women like helpless little girls is sexist. Being polite to them is not. It is merely politeness that all gentleman were taught by their moms most likely.

Besides, no one said I was holding the door for you. *lets door slam shut* :smalltongue:

EDIT: :smallsmile: Props to SDF. I've been noticing that label for pages now. :smallannoyed:

Psst, would you hold the door open for me? *Flutters eyebrows.*

In all seriousness, yeah, I agree. Being chivalrous is not sexist, it's just common politeness. Chivalry traditionally didn't just apply to women anyway, there were just specific rules that differed between men and women due to differing gender roles in old society. Though, most people ignored Chivalry when it came to dealing with commoners. :smallwink:

[Capt'n Ironbrow]

Several posters seemed to imply that in their posts. I felt the need to respond to that. Saying that it is "sexist" to me is just plain silly. Not paying women the same as men is sexist. Treating women like helpless little girls is sexist. Being polite to them is not. It is merely politeness that all gentleman were taught by their moms most likely.

Besides, no one said I was holding the door for you. *lets door slam shut* :smalltongue:

EDIT: :smallsmile: Props to SDF. I've been noticing that label for pages now. :smallannoyed:

@V Sure. I suppose. Since you're back now and all. :smalltongue:

:smallamused: That "taught by their moms" is probably VERY true... I know my mom taught me this politeness and she's a genuine feminist!
So in my book feminism and Chivalry can easily co-exist.

[Captain van der Decken]

Though, most people ignored Chivalry when it came to dealing with commoners. :smallwink:

What? They didn't ignore it. It just didn't apply. :smalltongue:

[13_CBS]

I wish I read this thread earlier. NOW I understand why she...

well...

I just wish I read this earlier.

[Saithis Bladewing]

What? They didn't ignore it. It just didn't apply. :smalltongue:

Well, yeah, but I'm sure there had to be at least a FEW kind-hearted knights who went out of their way to be courteous to the peasantry anyway. The population of the nobility couldn't have been made up ENTIRELY of asses, could it?

[Argent]

Several posters seemed to imply that in their posts. I felt the need to respond to that. Saying that it is "sexist" to me is just plain silly. Not paying women the same as men is sexist. Treating women like helpless little girls is sexist. Being polite to them is not. It is merely politeness that all gentleman were taught by their moms most likely.

Well spoken, sir. My thoughts exactly.

[Artemician]

Several posters seemed to imply that in their posts. I felt the need to respond to that. Saying that it is "sexist" to me is just plain silly. Not paying women the same as men is sexist. Treating women like helpless little girls is sexist. Being polite to them is not. It is merely politeness that all gentleman were taught by their moms most likely.


It is a very rare occasion that I disagree with what our most esteemed Troglodyte has to say, and unfortunately, this is one of them.

I think what Rachel_Lorelei is trying to say is not that treating women politely is sexist. Rather, treating women politely but not treating men with the same degree of politeness is sexist. It's exactly the same as paying women less than men, you're not giving people their fair share.

For example, if you would hold the door for a lady, but wouldn't hold it for a man, I would view that as sexist. Treating men like helpless little boys is sexist as well.

[averagejoe]

averagejoe, if you can kill a mastodon, you can travel through time, and that has massive amounts of pull.

Hmmm... I never thought of it like that. Good point.



You know, I don't think chivalry is dead, but merely that it wants us to think that it's dead. Until it can quell the beast inside.

DUN DUN DUUUN!

http://www.geocities.com/pdsux/pict0.jpg

[Rachel Lorelei]

Several posters seemed to imply that in their posts. I felt the need to respond to that. Saying that it is "sexist" to me is just plain silly. Not paying women the same as men is sexist. Treating women like helpless little girls is sexist. Being polite to them is not. It is merely politeness that all gentleman were taught by their moms most likely.


Treating one group specially based solely on gender is gender-based discrimination. You can cut it as discrimination against men or as discrimination against women, but it's gender-based discrimination...
...AKA sexism.

"Taught by their moms" has nothing to do with it. It's not like women can't and don't perpetuate the culture they're a part of!

[Tom_Violence]

When I think "chivalry" I think "courtesy that a gentleman shows to a woman out of respect." And I do so. I volunteer to carry the heavy objects if there are heavy things to be toted, I hold open doors... this generally for every woman. For Thes I will occasionally (when I am mindful of such things and want her to feel special) open and close the passenger door for her, push in her chair while being seated at dinner, have her take the umbrella for herself, lead her in a crowd but follow her when being escorted by a hostess, etc. It is an expression that, for me, has never carried with it this strange baggage of me considering the other person weaker in any way. It has everything to do with being helpful or showing courtesy. With the most uncommon showings saved for those I love. That said I have never gotten into the habit of rising when a woman entered the room or left the table. But I would like to because I consider it gentlemanly.

Feminists can kiss my ass in this regard. Remember the words of Elenor Roosevelt: "No one can make you feel inferior without your permission."

Interesting. I do similar things for my significant other, but not because I think its helpful or even polite (that is, it doesn't really make things easier for her if I close the passenger door, nor would she consider it rude if I didn't push her chair in). Rather, I do these things because I know that sometimes she likes to have them done as it makes her feel special and loved. Moreover, I'm sure that if I did it all the time it would probably become tedious and silly.

I volunteer to carry heavy things for anyone that looks like they could use a hand with it, even if they have a penis (provided they're not too intent on proving the fact). For me, as I'm sure it is for many others here, see chivalry as another way of saying 'being decent and virtuous to people'. And that's 'people', not 'women'.

As for Feminism, I don't think it exists really as a single 'thing'. Its more of an approach to numerous other things. This can lead to a lot of largely unrelated things being all (correctly) labeled as 'feminist', but sadly that also leads a lot of people to thinking that they're all the same. And I unfortunately have met a few of the 'bad feminists', who really don't even deserve the title. But for some people it seems that feminism is just a nice way to have a go at people who are male.

[Flakey]

That said, women should not be treated as sex objects, either. It doesn't help that society encourages us to dress in nearly nothing, and that many men seem to have an impossible time of showing any bit of self restraint around women dressed in the afformentioned way, which IS part of chivalry. (Showing sexual restraint)

A piece of background first, before I respond. I toured the country with a group both men and women, that thought nothing of stripping down to under clothes to get changed, in the same room. You quickly got the habit of a quick glance and then ignoring the situation. Sexists did not last long, being usually delt with by thier targets.

This kind of atitude has remained throughout my life now. Good you think? No it is bad. Why?

In two places of work I have been labeled gay by the women. The reason for it, because I did not act in a sexist manner to them. My behaviour was no different to any one in work, male or female. I did not leer down thier dresses when we went out. I only mildly flirted with them when out socially (mostly because I was not really interested in any of them as a potential mate ).

So you have 3 groups of women. 2 of which wanted/expected to be treated as sex objects, and did not wanted to be treated as equals to men in a social context. That is was required for men to drool over them then, and they had to be gay if they did not get that response.

I think that is most of the underlying point of this thread. That we have a miss mash of attitudes, in today's society. No one really knows, when they first meet, where another person really stands in thier, often subconcious, standards on desirable, or expected, behaviour.

[Dragonmuncher]

I've replaced chivalry with "being nice to people."

If that definition somehow fails me, I switch to my backup plan of "helping those who are weaker than me."

Thus, doors are held open and politeness continues, without all that silliness of standing up when someone leaves a table (I mean, really? What does that even do? It makes no sense.)

[elliott20]

meh, I personally find sayings like "nice guys finish last" to be rather annoying. I mean, yeah, I guess you can say it's true if you think nice guys = push-over wimps with no backbone of their own. most of the time, the people who talk about being self-professed "nice guys" and then turn around complaining about how they always end up being the "friend" are just using the whole "nice guy" thing to pick up girls.

Seriously, if you're genuinely a nice guy, than you would be nice to people regardless of their romantic potentially.

I even know people who get all passive aggressive about this sort of thing and then just ends up getting pissed off that the girls they meet are no longer the helpless little damsels in distress for them to rescue. (Yeah, apparently their ego is so fragile the only way they can pump that pathetic wreck up is by finding someone who is in even more need of help than they are)

All of this just smacks of a thinly veiled misogyny that quite frankly seems more like a guy just has really poor game over anything else.

If you want to be nice to people, do it because you genuinely just want to be nice to people. Don't do it because you expect something from them. If people give you crap for being nice to them, screw them and don't do them any favors again.

re:feminism

I don't know why people now a days equate the word feminism to "man-hating PC nazi lesbians". I seriously don't. For one thing, most feminist literature I've come across talks about feminism more as egalitarianism than anything else. For another thing, there are probably as many kinds of interpretation of feminism as there are feminists out there. Trying to bin all feminists into one bin is like trying to bin all men into the same type.

For another, other than the author of SCUM manifesto, I have yet to meet a feminist who is also a feminazi.

[Trog]

It is a very rare occasion that I disagree with what our most esteemed Troglodyte has to say, and unfortunately, this is one of them.

I think what Rachel_Lorelei is trying to say is not that treating women politely is sexist. Rather, treating women politely but not treating men with the same degree of politeness is sexist. It's exactly the same as paying women less than men, you're not giving people their fair share.

For example, if you would hold the door for a lady, but wouldn't hold it for a man, I would view that as sexist. Treating men like helpless little boys is sexist as well.
Perhaps. And if that was indeed her point had been said as succinctly as that there might not have been need to respond as I did. But no changing the past (except for that edit button. Huzzah! I have discovered time travel! *kills mastodon* :smalltongue: ). Now... if you are talking about women doing the same things for men I am certainly fine with that. :smallsmile: Truth be told I would be very flattered as that, in my experience, rarely happens.

If you are instead talking about how I should hold open doors for men... I do... IF the guy is right behind me. Sometimes. But frankly, most of the time, no. "Sexist?" Hardly. Usually this is because most guys do not care for this treatment -from other guys- as holding the door open can, at times, send flirting signals to the other person. Most guys like to avoid this. :smallamused:


Treating one group specially based solely on gender is gender-based discrimination. You can cut it as discrimination against men or as discrimination against women, but it's gender-based discrimination...
...AKA sexism.

"Taught by their moms" has nothing to do with it. It's not like women can't and don't perpetuate the culture they're a part of!
Fine. From now on I'll just make sure to -insult- you instead of being nice. Perhaps that would make you feel better? Thought not.

:smallsigh: Being nice is not "discrimination." It is manners. Guys are nice to women all the time. And vice versa. Difference is most guys don't holler at women in forums such as these that you are oppressing us with your displays of manners and affection. A little reciprocation on this matter is always looked upon favorably.

No doubt there will be something "sexist" found in this response. No doubt I will not care in the least.

[Charity]

Is chivalry dead?

... Well he hasn't returned my calls for a few weeks, I just thought it he was sore about the whole Eggnogg fiasco...

[Telonius]

The problem that chivalry runs into is a disconnect between what your message is intended to be, and how the message is received. If you're holding the door for somebody, and you want that to say to them, "Hey, I respect you," that's fine as long as "holding the door" already means "I respect you" to the woman in question. The problem is that it's now an ambiguous communication. It could mean, "Hey, I respect you," or "I'll hold this because I'm a man and I'm supposed to," or , "I really don't care about this whole feminism thing and I'll hold it because that's the way it ought to be," or a whole bunch of other things besides. The problem is, you can't know how it's going to be received unless you already know the person, or ask them. This sort of thing crops up in inter-cultural communication all the time. People's actions are as symbolic as their language. And if you don't know what language your audience is speaking, you can get in a whole bunch of miscommunications.

As for chivalry being dead? Nah. The essence of chivalry is the respect you have for the other person. That still hasn't gone away, it's just not being expressed in the way it used to. And the most chivalrous way to deal with that fact? Figure out how to express the respect in a new way, that the other person can understand clearly, and be prepared to compromise a little.

[Jorkens]

:smallsigh: Being nice is not "discrimination." It is manners.
But why is it more important to show manners to women than to men?

[13_CBS]

But why is it more important to show manners to women than to men?

Culture, perhaps? Culture is often the spawn of such things.

[FdL]

Hmmm...

Then treating women better than men is being "sexist"?
And that's bad?

[Indon]

I'mma just... completely ignore the huge debate on gender roles and junk that arose from this and address the very original point:

I don't think Chivalry is dead. On the other hand, I think it's alive and well, just updated to today's times.

I hold doors open for both men and women, and either have held doors open for me. When someone does so, I thank them.

I address individuals with "Sir" or "Ma'am".

I nod and say 'good morning' (or afternoon, whatever) to someone I walk past on the sidewalk.

I don't fidget when I listen to someone speak, and I don't fidget when I speak to others.

I only make raunchy jokes around friends.

I correctly follow escalation of use of force procedures in a hostile environment (what? Chivalry is a warrior's code).

I avoid making comments or taking actions derogatory towards race, religion, gender, etc. (This includes doing things for women just because they're "the weaker sex", as they were thought of when men opened doors and performed other physical tasks for women because being self-sufficient was not "ladylike")

I think all of these things can be described as "Chivalry" in today's culture, and I think they're all surprisingly common.

[FdL]

Ok, the whole thing of discriminating between genders is starting to get weird for me. Because as someone posted, discriminating is not necessariliy bad: discriminating means differentiating something from something else.

Now, I think it's normal for (heterosexual) men to treat women differently. They feel sexually attracted to them, they "court" them (which may include being especially polite to them), etc...To sum up, they (we) try to make clear the fact that we discriminate between men and women, and among women the one that interests us and the rest.

This deviates from the topic of chivalry, because shows a situation where you're being a gentleman with just one woman, and for the strict definitions we've been presented in the topic that doesn't qualify as chivalry :p



most of the time, the people who talk about being self-professed "nice guys" and then turn around complaining about how they always end up being the "friend" are just using the whole "nice guy" thing to pick up girls.


Well, I exposed my personal case in similar terms than you bring up here, and so I'm entitled to a clarification.
I mean, you're making it sound like having a romantic interest in a girl is something vile or low. And that treating someone nice to make her notice you or show her your feelings is worse than being that winning jerk that women seem to prefer.

This is a case of miscommunication, in which the guy does what he thinks the woman will interpret as a expression of attraction, but the woman actually understands it as a negative trait.



Seriously, if you're genuinely a nice guy, than you would be nice to people regardless of their romantic potentially.


Who said otherwise? I see both as compatible, only that when with a romantic interest it can work against you.

Also, see the first part of my post before my quoting.

[zombie chick]

It is a very rare occasion that I disagree with what our most esteemed Troglodyte has to say, and unfortunately, this is one of them.

I think what Rachel_Lorelei is trying to say is not that treating women politely is sexist. Rather, treating women politely but not treating men with the same degree of politeness is sexist. It's exactly the same as paying women less than men, you're not giving people their fair share.

For example, if you would hold the door for a lady, but wouldn't hold it for a man, I would view that as sexist. Treating men like helpless little boys is sexist as well.

i would have to agree with this. this puts the finger on exactly why i feel uncomfortable with guys trying to be chivalrous to me

[Trog]

But why is it more important to show manners to women than to men?
It's not. I never said that it was. I am merely defending those niceties that are generally accepted by the populace at large as gentlemany behaviour against those labelling those behaviors or even the concept of those behaviors as demeaning somehow to women. I completely disagree with a stance like that. As it seems to throw the baby out with the bathwater as the saying goes. Not to mention unfairly judges those just trying to be nice.

[elliott20]

well, FdL, I'm not saying you per se. From the looks of your post, it doesn't seem like you feel some kind of romantic entitlement for being nice to a woman. there in lies the difference between you and a lot of the "nice guys" out there who complain about their romantic lot.

A lot of nice guys I know would go through heaven and hell for the girl he likes, and that's admirable. but then when the girl still just doesn't feel that way for him, he gets pissy and upset because he felt like he deserves her for his effrot, not realizing that it's not how attraction works.

[bosssmiley]

I correctly follow escalation of use of force procedures in a hostile environment (what? Chivalry is a warrior's code).

Awww hell! Indon won this thread already. Anything I could add would be anti-climactic. :smallcool:

[Argent]

The problem that chivalry runs into is a disconnect between what your message is intended to be, and how the message is received. If you're holding the door for somebody, and you want that to say to them, "Hey, I respect you," that's fine as long as "holding the door" already means "I respect you" to the woman in question. The problem is that it's now an ambiguous communication. It could mean, "Hey, I respect you," or "I'll hold this because I'm a man and I'm supposed to," or , "I really don't care about this whole feminism thing and I'll hold it because that's the way it ought to be," or a whole bunch of other things besides. The problem is, you can't know how it's going to be received unless you already know the person, or ask them. This sort of thing crops up in inter-cultural communication all the time. People's actions are as symbolic as their language. And if you don't know what language your audience is speaking, you can get in a whole bunch of miscommunications.

As for chivalry being dead? Nah. The essence of chivalry is the respect you have for the other person. That still hasn't gone away, it's just not being expressed in the way it used to. And the most chivalrous way to deal with that fact? Figure out how to express the respect in a new way, that the other person can understand clearly, and be prepared to compromise a little.

I see what you're saying here, but every single person out there interprets signals of chivalry/politeness/respect differently -- so are we supposed to anticipate everyone's potential interpretation of our actions before we take them? I don't see that as possible. Frankly, I believe that if an action is taken with the best of intentions, if the target takes that action badly, then that's their problem, not mine. If I hold a door open for a woman because I respect her (not because I see her as weak or incapable of opening a door for herself) and that woman becomes offended, that's not my problem; that's hers. I can't anticipate every possible reaction; all I can do is act in accordance with my view of acceptable social behavior, and let other people react as they will.

[averagejoe]

I see what you're saying here, but every single person out there interprets signals of chivalry/politeness/respect differently -- so are we supposed to anticipate everyone's potential interpretation of our actions before we take them? I don't see that as possible. Frankly, I believe that if an action is taken with the best of intentions, if the target takes that action badly, then that's their problem, not mine. If I hold a door open for a woman because I respect her (not because I see her as weak or incapable of opening a door for herself) and that woman becomes offended, that's not my problem; that's hers. I can't anticipate every possible reaction; all I can do is act in accordance with my view of acceptable social behavior, and let other people react as they will.

Indeed. The only people who I expect to know what bugs me, and therefore the ones I have a right to be upset at, are the people who know me. While whether or not it actually demeans women is a moot point, women shouldn't get upset about it; at the most they should politely say why they don't like it being done, not get confrontational about it.

[Saithis Bladewing]

Indeed. The only people who I expect to know what bugs me, and therefore the ones I have a right to be upset at, are the people who know me. While whether or not it actually demeans women is a moot point, women shouldn't get upset about it; at the most they should politely say why they don't like it being done, not get confrontational about it.

Amen to that.

[Rachel Lorelei]

Perhaps. And if that was indeed her point had been said as succinctly as that there might not have been need to respond as I did. But no changing the past (except for that edit button. Huzzah! I have discovered time travel! *kills mastodon* :smalltongue: ). Now... if you are talking about women doing the same things for men I am certainly fine with that. :smallsmile: Truth be told I would be very flattered as that, in my experience, rarely happens.
I said that, repeatedly. I also elaborated on it, because just saying it doesn't seem to be enough.


If you are instead talking about how I should hold open doors for men... I do... IF the guy is right behind me. Sometimes. But frankly, most of the time, no. "Sexist?" Hardly. Usually this is because most guys do not care for this treatment -from other guys- as holding the door open can, at times, send flirting signals to the other person. Most guys like to avoid this. :smallamused:
That's a very weak justification. (But even if it were true, let's not support society's homophobic attitude towards appropriate male contact, mmkay?)
If I hold the door open for someone behind me, they're not going to think I'm flirting with them. Holding the door for the person behind you is simple courtesy. Yes, going out of your way to do it for women (or is it only the ones you want to flirt with? That's yet another story) but not for men is sexist. Do you really not see that? You're using a person's sex to decide what you do when it's not relevant to the action. That's sexism.



Fine. From now on I'll just make sure to -insult- you instead of being nice. Perhaps that would make you feel better? Thought not.
That's an inane statement that contributes nothing, and I think you know it. I will say, yet AGAIN, that no, it's not about not wanting people to be nice to me, it's about being extraordinarily nice to women as a group = sexist. Part of the very concept of using someone's gender to decide how nice you'll be is that you're discriminating based on gender. Do you really not see why that's bad?


:smallsigh: Being nice is not "discrimination." It is manners. Guys are nice to women all the time. And vice versa. Difference is most guys don't holler at women in forums such as these that you are oppressing us with your displays of manners and affection. A little reciprocation on this matter is always looked upon favorably.
Let's say I go out and am exceptionally nice to all the white people I meet.
But only the white people.
Not discrimination, you say? And yet, it sure smacks of racism, doesn't it.
Is it any wonder that when you switch race to gender, some people still have problems?


No doubt there will be something "sexist" found in this response. No doubt I will not care in the least.
You realize sexism is bad, right? If so, why don't you want to avoid it?

Look, I know it's hard to accept that something you think nothing of isn't entirely a good thing, but it happens. There's a reason a lot of women (not all, of course, since women aren't a monolithic entity) are saying the same thing I am saying. Don't you think that women, being the subjects of sexism and having to deal with it on, for many of'em, a daily basis, are better likely to recognize it than you?

[Indon]

Part of the very concept of using someone's gender to decide how nice you'll be is that you're discriminating based on gender. Do you really not see why that's bad?


But discrimination isn't neccessarily bad.

Example: In the USAF, women's physical tests have lower standards. Why? Because previous research indicates that women aren't, on average, as good at bursts of physical strength (such as measuring how many push-ups one can do in a minute), or running (or at least, running a mile and a half for time). Since the objective of the USAF fitness test is largely to measure health, rather than raw physical strength, not discriminating would exclude individuals (females, specifically) who would be, in fact, quite fit for duty, but who would simply not make the standard.

That said, our current gender roles are based, at their core, off of the absurd and very antiquated concept that women are incompetent and need things done for them. While I'm all for gender roles, I'm a fan of basing those gender roles off of real differences in the genders (such as breasts. Breasts are great) rather than imaginary ones.

[Trog]

I said that, repeatedly. I also elaborated on it, because just saying it doesn't seem to be enough.


That's a very weak justification. (But even if it were true, let's not support society's homophobic attitude towards appropriate male contact, mmkay?)
If I hold the door open for someone behind me, they're not going to think I'm flirting with them. Holding the door for the person behind you is simple courtesy. Yes, going out of your way to do it for women (or is it only the ones you want to flirt with? That's yet another story) but not for men is sexist. Do you really not see that? You're using a person's sex to decide what you do when it's not relevant to the action. That's sexism.



That's an inane statement that contributes nothing, and I think you know it. I will say, yet AGAIN, that no, it's not about not wanting people to be nice to me, it's about being extraordinarily nice to women as a group = sexist. Part of the very concept of using someone's gender to decide how nice you'll be is that you're discriminating based on gender. Do you really not see why that's bad?


Let's say I go out and am exceptionally nice to all the white people I meet.
But only the white people.
Not discrimination, you say? And yet, it sure smacks of racism, doesn't it.
Is it any wonder that when you switch race to gender, some people still have problems?


You realize sexism is bad, right? If so, why don't you want to avoid it?

Look, I know it's hard to accept that something you think nothing of isn't entirely a good thing, but it happens. There's a reason a lot of women (not all, of course, since women aren't a monolithic entity) are saying the same thing I am saying. Don't you think that women, being the subjects of sexism and having to deal with it on, for many of'em, a daily basis, are better likely to recognize it than you?
Oh man where to start. :smallsigh: First of all I don't appreciate you wanting toss in things such me supposedly contributing to homophobia or comparing me to a racist. I do not and am not. Period. And I resent you making such ridiculous comparisons. Do so again I shall report the post as flaming. :smallannoyed:

Nor do I appreciate you making the comments about me doing a woman a courtesy as merely a "flirting guesture." You seem to be "VERY good" at discerning "intents". And that is your problem to deal with, not mine. I do not take responsibility for what you infer upon my actions.

How you are choosing to define sexism is what I completely disagree with. Therefore many of your arguments hold no water for me. Oh and since we're getting into "I'm a woman so I know better" land you might consider, since we ARE talking about -male- behavior afterall, that I am man and by your own logic know better about how -men- should act in polite society.

[Saithis Bladewing]

Oh and since we're getting into "I'm a woman so I know better" land you might consider, since we ARE talking about -male- behavior afterall, that I am man and by your own logic know better about how -men- should act in polite society.

Also, I'm on Trog's side with this one, which dissipates some of the usefulness of that territory. And let's be careful that we don't let this slip into a flamewar ladies and gents; we should stick to a nice, calm conversation about chivalry and not attack each other. I don't want to be involved if a modstick starts getting thrown around.

[Telonius]

I see what you're saying here, but every single person out there interprets signals of chivalry/politeness/respect differently -- so are we supposed to anticipate everyone's potential interpretation of our actions before we take them? I don't see that as possible. Frankly, I believe that if an action is taken with the best of intentions, if the target takes that action badly, then that's their problem, not mine. If I hold a door open for a woman because I respect her (not because I see her as weak or incapable of opening a door for herself) and that woman becomes offended, that's not my problem; that's hers. I can't anticipate every possible reaction; all I can do is act in accordance with my view of acceptable social behavior, and let other people react as they will.

I agree - and I also find fault with people getting all huffy about it on either side. Flying off the handle at somebody for holding open a door isn't respectful; neither is silently getting mad. That's where the woman's responsibility to speak up, comes in. If they get offended, they should let you know that it bothers them calmly and politely, and then you can adjust accordingly. You can't anticipate everybody's reactions, and nobody should expect you to.

But, at the same time, if you know that an action is likely, and will be increasingly likely, to cause offense in people, and you still keep doing it, you bear a certain amount of responsibility for it.

[Spartan_Samuel]

I think chivalry doesn't apply now, nor did it ever apply before. It's just totally out of place, you know? Why should I place a standard on everyone, when instead I can actually get to know them myself and be a good person? I'm a cashier at the local grocery store, and I do it all of the time. Sort of a pseudo-therapist thing goes on at Winn-Dixie, man.

[averagejoe]

Oh man where to start. :smallsigh: First of all I don't appreciate you wanting toss in things such me supposedly contributing to homophobia or comparing me to a racist. I do not and am not. Period. And I resent you making such ridiculous comparisons. Do so again I shall report the post as flaming. :smallannoyed:

Nor do I appreciate you making the comments about me doing a woman a courtesy as merely a "flirting guesture." You seem to be "VERY good" at discerning "intents". And that is your problem to deal with, not mine. I do not take responsibility for what you infer upon my actions.

How you are choosing to define sexism is what I completely disagree with. Therefore many of your arguments hold no water for me. Oh and since we're getting into "I'm a woman so I know better" land you might consider, since we ARE talking about -male- behavior afterall, that I am man and by your own logic know better about how -men- should act in polite society.

*goggles* *helmet* *gloves* *bunker*

Well, to be fair, I think you're casting what she said in an overly-simple and overly-harsh light as well.

Let's back up and look at what's basically being said; only that it is sexist to treat women differently than men. This is what you both should be focusing on.

[Hades' Watchdog]

Let's say I go out and am exceptionally nice to all the white people I meet.
But only the white people.
Not discrimination, you say? And yet, it sure smacks of racism, doesn't it.
Is it any wonder that when you switch race to gender, some people still have problems?But then let's say that you're only nice to non-white people. You throw money and scholarships at them. That's not racism; it's affirmative action. You're regarded as a nice, politically correct person and you get re-elected.

Using your race-gender equivalence, if you're against being exceptionally nice to women, you're against affirmative action. And yet, it's generally viewed as more acceptable to be against niceness to women than against affirmative action; the first is feminism, and the second is racism.



No doubt there will be something "sexist" found in this response. No doubt I will not care in the least.You realize sexism is bad, right? If so, why don't you want to avoid it?I think he's trying to say he doesn't care about your opinion, Rachel. You should take him down.


... women aren't a monolithic entity)Absolutely right.
Don't you think that women, being the subjects of sexism and having to deal with it...When did women start being a monolithic entity?


Don't you think that women, being the subjects of sexism and having to deal with it on, for many of'em, a daily basis, are better likely to recognize it than you?No, I actually don't. That's like saying that someone who gets hit by a car is, without question, more of an expert on cars than anyone else. Never mind if the first is a literature major and the latter is an auto mechanic.

In fact, women that endure sexism might be less suited to telling whether an action is maliciously sexist. They will have less tolerance for it, and may actively search for it, reacting when there is in fact nothing there.

[Trog]

*goggles* *helmet* *gloves* *bunker*

Well, to be fair, I think you're casting what she said in an overly-simple and overly-harsh light as well.
Perhaps. I think we both do a certain amount of exaggeration to get our point across. Perhaps more so as more things are said back and forth. Debates do get heated that way. *shrugs* I fully acknowledge that I did goad. But on the other hand I will not stand for certain things. Debate or no. :smallannoyed:

I think he's trying to say he doesn't care about your opinion, Rachel. You should take him down.
Speaking of goading. :smalltongue:

[SDF]

Rachel what I see you not getting is that men and women are different. Physically AND mentally. Men are overall stronger than women, most people should realize that. Equality is the same chance to run a mile in five minutes, not for one person to run it in five and another in six and a half because of innate differences. If you put a man and woman in a room with a bunch of junk then take them aside and ask what they saw the women will generally be able to tell you the majority of the items, placement, and color. The men will generally say they, "think they saw some junk over here and a bit of stuff over there." If you blindfold a man and woman and take them through a maze then take the blindfold off the men are going to be able to give much better directions back, while the women are going to generally be a lost. Women are better at verbally communicating and have much more communication and brain matter connecting the two hemispheres of the brain. Men are better at internal 3D mapping and are generally better at math and architecture, it even carries over to video games. These are not just "on average" they are more than 80-90% true. Men and women are DIFFERENT, and these differences carry over into every aspect of their respective lives. Therefore you are going to see different patterns that stay true to the respective genders and sexes. Males are going to have certain behaviors that will reoccur in the gender, and so will females. To disregard these differences and say that they are the same doesn't make any sense. It is like trying the same thing over and over expecting different results. It isn't discriminatory to treat males and females different, it is logical. There are no known psychological differences in different races of people, which is why making comparisons like the treating whites and blacks a different way, and treating men and women differently are both not the same, but one is obviously offensive.

[Sisqui]

GENERIC RANT:

I'd just like to chime in an encourage all males who, when they do something out of sheer courtesy for a woman (because they have been told growing up that that it is nice to be polite) get instead of a simple "thanks" some undeserved judgement about their actions being sexist they should, from that moment on, just proceed to be just as much of a pre-judging and defensive ass to that girl as that girl was to you. THERE'S equal treatment for you. :smallamused:

Seriously. Get a grip. Not every nice or polite guy is 1) A Chauvaunist 2) A push-over. SOME are just polite. You should try that some time.

I was just reading through the 6 pages of posts since I logged off yesterday :smalleek: and I just had to respond to this one. All I can say is that I totally agree with you. I wonder how many feminists realize that THEY are the sexist ones? If a man holds a door for a woman, they say "He's just doing that to butter her up and get in her pants." Now, I ask you, can a man not have multiple (and sometimes even conflicting) reasons for his actions? Are only women allowed to have multiple factors considered in their decision making? To say that a man cannot simultaneously want to be polite, want to be helpful, and want to increase his chances with a particular woman is thouroughly demeaning to the mental faculties of MEN! And as for treating a woman like a sex object.........that's what women are!! What should men be sexually interested in?? Toaster ovens?? Are women afraid to admit that men are objects of sexual interest to them? That purely physical, mostly visual aspect of one person's interest in another is exactly that- only one! And, because humans receive most of their sensory input visually, it is usually the initial one. The others come in later, and, quite frankly, have greater weight with both sexes.

[Rachel Lorelei]

I'm in London for a few days, so I'm going out to take a walk by the Thames
--sweet Thames, run softly 'til I end my song;
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long--
and therefore I'll get to most of the points later, but wow, SDF, is that ever irrelevant.

Sorry, that was rude. To elaborate:
Sure, men ARE generally stronger. Generally. Most men, than most women. That doesn't mean some women aren't stronger than most men. It does NOT mean that if you want someone to lift a heavy thing, you should never get a woman to do it.
Note that I have said "where gender is irrelevant". Gender is irrelevant there--strength is relevant. If you were to say that women can't get jobs liftin' heavy stuff, that would be wrong, because even though *most* men are stronger than *most* women, there are plenty of strong women who can lift heavy stuff.

You can't apply generalizations to people, because they are quite likely to just plain not be true of any given individual. What's more, most of the patterns you see in the genders are cultural, not biological, and not universal.


I also don't see what the physical differences on average between men and women have to do with courtesy.


As for you, Trog--chill out. I'm not calling you a homophobe. I'm not calling you a racist. Please try to get at my actual point rather than immediately leaping to the most inflammatory interpretation of what I have said.


Edit: sisqui, NO ONE HERE HAS SAID THAT. And there is a HUGE difference between wanting someone, and treating them as a sex object. You can lust after, look at, and court someone without objectifying them.

[Trog]

I just got back from beating a dead horse and this came out of it's mouth. He was a gift horse or I would have looked there earlier. :smalltongue:

sex·ism**
Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.

dis·crim·i·na·tion
unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice

Therefore sexism = unfair treatment of the other sex on the basis of prejudice

prej·u·dice
any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable

un·fair
disproportionate; undue; beyond what is proper or fitting: an unfair share.

prop·er
conforming to established standards of behavior or manners; correct or decorous: a very proper young man.

So to further break this down...
Sexist behavior = Indecorous treatment of the other sex based on any preconceived opinion or feeling.

in·dec·o·rous
not decorous; violating generally accepted standards of good taste or propriety; unseemly

pre·con·ceive
To form (an opinion, for example) before possessing full or adequate knowledge or experience.

Opening doors and rising when a lady enters the room is NOT violating gereally accepted standards of good taste. Nor are these behaviors based upon inadequate knowledge of what is considered indecorous.

Therefore they are NOT sexist. :smallsmile:


As for you, Trog--chill out. I'm not calling you a homophobe. I'm not calling you a racist. Please try to get at my actual point rather than immediately leaping to the most inflammatory interpretation of what I have said.
Damn straight you're not. And perhaps if you'd like people to see your point you will make it without such over the top and unfair comparisons.

@V Heh. I copy-pasted them from a dictionary site. :smalltongue:

[Amotis]

I get defining the terms Trog...but telling us how to pronouce them? That's just condescending. :smallamused:

[Saithis Bladewing]

Absolutely right.When did women start being a monolithic entity?

No clue, but I think I missed the memo. :smalleek:

Also, *laughs at @^^.*

[LCR]

I was just reading through the 6 pages of posts since I logged off yesterday :smalleek: and I just had to respond to this one. All I can say is that I totally agree with you. I wonder how many feminists realize that THEY are the sexist ones? If a man holds a door for a woman, they say "He's just doing that to butter her up and get in her pants." Now, I ask you, can a man not have multiple (and sometimes even conflicting) reasons for his actions? Are only women allowed to have multiple factors considered in their decision making? To say that a man cannot simultaneously want to be polite, want to be helpful, and want to increase his chances with a particular woman is thouroughly demeaning to the mental faculties of MEN! And as for treating a woman like a sex object.........that's what women are!! What should men be sexually interested in?? Toaster ovens?? Are women afraid to admit that men are objects of sexual interest to them? That purely physical, mostly visual aspect of one person's interest in another is exactly that- only one! And, because humans receive most of their sensory input visually, it is usually the initial one. The others come in later, and, quite frankly, have greater weight with both sexes.

Yeah, I guess you can overdo feminism. I just like to be polite, to both men and women. I don't think about getting a girl laid everytime I hold the door for them, at least not consciously.
And sure, there are differences between the sexes, but I think they are outweighed by the individuum. Sure, I can run faster than the average girl, but I know some that are faster than me, endure longer and so on. On the other hand, I'm more creative than a lot of girls (at least I like to think so). What I really want to say: Knowing that on average, you might be stronger than that particular girl, doesn't really tell you anything about her.
And I soooo can't stand phrases like "Typically male! or Typically woman!". That's just dumb.

[SDF]

Rachel, with respect, completely missing the point. First of all, I am talking about the rule, not the exception. Secondly it is COMPLETELY relevant to what we have been talking about, because your stance as you have explained it so far is that men should not be treated differently from women, I'm saying that is impossible because they are not the SAME. You treat them with equal amounts of respect, but you respect them differently BECAUSE they are not the same. Yes, there are stereotypes that are cultural and social, but all the differences I listed are UNIVERSAL AND BIOLOGICAL differences because the hormones that men and women receive are different thus our brains form differently. You can argue the semantics, but you can not argue the science.

@V: Sorry, edited for clarity. :P

[Sisqui]

Completely missing the point. First of all, I am talking about the rule, not the exception. Secondly it is COMPLETELY relevant to what we have been talking about, because your stance as you have explained it so far is that men should not be treated differently from women, I'm saying that is impossible because they are not the SAME. You treat them with equal amounts of respect, but you respect them differently BECAUSE they are not the same. Yes, there are stereotypes that are cultural and social, but all the differences I listed are UNIVERSAL AND BIOLOGICAL differences because the hormones that men and women receive are different thus our brains form differently. You can argue the semantics, but you can not argue the science.

I agree with you, but could you please quote part of the posts you refer to. Sometimes I can't tell to whom you are responding. Thanks :smallsmile:

[Rachel Lorelei]

Completely missing the point. First of all, I am talking about the rule, not the exception. Secondly it is COMPLETELY relevant to what we have been talking about, because your stance as you have explained it so far is that men should not be treated differently from women, I'm saying that is impossible because they are not the SAME. You treat them with equal amounts of respect, but you respect them differently BECAUSE they are not the same. Yes, there are stereotypes that are cultural and social, but all the differences I listed are UNIVERSAL AND BIOLOGICAL differences because the hormones that men and women receive are different thus our brains form differently. You can argue the semantics, but you can not argue the science.
...
The general truths you describe may or may not apply to any given man and woman.
The general truths you describe are irrelevant compared to the facts of the *individual*.
Men are stronger than women on average, but some women are stronger than some men. If strength is needed, it doesn't *matter* that women are on average weaker if a *particular* woman is strong enough. Do not judge the individual based on generalizations.
Where sex is not directly relevant (don't offer a man a tampon, say), don't treat it like it IS.

Saying that you "respect women DIFFERENTLY" is just an excuse, because there is nothing about the physical differences between men and women that is remotely relevant to RESPECT. Nor is it relevant to the holding of doors.

[Hefty Lefty]

This is by now way off topic (irronically, it's about the origional topic), but when has anyone been accused of sexism when they hold doors open? :smallconfused: That's never happened to me!

Responding to Rachel...
Maybe you should rephrase what you said earlier. You bashed SDF for his "sexist tirade" (I know that's not actually what you said so don't say I "misquoted" you, I'm simply paraphrasing.) but you never mentioned on thing he did. For every ability he said men are better in, he countered it with one women are better in. He was in no way sexist. I completly agree with him: men and women are completely different. While no one can say "A women can't lift that heavy rock", they can say, "statistically, a man has a better dead lift strength than a women," which is what SDF was saying.

Lastly, I find it funny that in AD&D, the only difference between men and women is that, no matter the race, women had a -2 STR.

[Rachel Lorelei]

Responding to Rachel...
Maybe you should rephrase your last post. You bashed SDF for his "sexist tirade" (I know that's not actually what you said so don't say I "misquoted" you, I'm simply paraphrasing.) but you never mentioned on thing he did. For every ability he said men are better in, he countered it with one women are better in. He was in no way sexist. I completly agree with him: men and women are completely different. While no one can say "A women can't lift that heavy rock", they can say, "statistically, a man has a better dead lift strength than a women," which is what SDF was saying.

I think you missed the point. You're not paraphrasing me, I never said anything LIKE that--I pointed out that those general truths are totally irrelevant when it comes to treating individual people.

[Steward]

Chivalry isn't dead. It's just taking a well-deserved break. Don't worry; it has a girlfriend that takes good care of it!


Where sex is not directly relevant (don't offer a man a tampon, say), don't treat it like it IS.

Good point.

[The Great Skenardo]

I think you missed the point. You're not paraphrasing me, I never said anything LIKE that--I pointed out that those general truths are totally irrelevant when it comes to treating individual people.

Then...what is relevant for an individual person, when you're determining whether you ought to open the door for that person, or offer to pay, walk him/her home, etc.?

[Sisqui]

Er....to mediate the dispute between SDF and Rachel, might we take two things as a given?

1)SDF is correct, women and men are scientifically and verifiably different
2)Rachel is correct, a difference-of purely physical nature or of mental processing- is not, in and of itself, worthy of respect.

On a side rant:
Too many people these days do not understand the meaning of respect. Respect is not courtesy. Courtesy is owed to all human beings until they have proven they are unworthy of it. Respect is owed to NO ONE until they have proven that they are worthy of it. And respect is always in the eyes of the beholder. No one can demand respect from another human being. Respect is given by each individual according to their own lights, by the measure of their own standards.

[Lolzords]

I'd say it is dead, completely.

This guy was walking behind me and I, being polite (:D), held open the door infront of us for him, looked at him and smiled.

"You're a ****" came the reply.

So, of course, I got my own back by letting go of the door, letting it slam in his face.

The gentlemen prevails. Ho hum.

[SDF]

At this point I'm not going to get anywhere without quoting or repeating myself. My points are laid out in my posts, and I really don't have time to give them cliff notes if you don't get my rational. I'm sorry if you don't get what I was trying to say.

[Hades' Watchdog]

Upon re-reading my post, I realize that it could be interpreted as hostile. If I came across that way, I apologize. I often look over my messages before I post them, find nothing in them that could make people feel bad, come back later, and cringe when I re-read the post. This is one of those times.

So, if I offended anyone (Rachel, most likely), apologies. I still completely stand by what I said, but my wording could have been a bit softer.

[Hefty Lefty]

I'm in London for a few days, so I'm going out to take a walk by the Thames
--sweet Thames, run softly 'til I end my song;
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long--
and therefore I'll get to most of the points later, but wow, SDF, is that ever irrelevant.

Was that a joke?

Anyway, I'm saying you should have mentioned that women are also not better in some things than men. Both have their ups and downs is what I'm saying.

Also, you do have to make generalizations when dealing with groups of people. You can't go out to a single's bar assuming every woman you meet is the exception to the general conclusion.


Upon re-reading my post, I realize that it could be interpreted as hostile. If I came across that way, I apologize. I often look over my messages before I post them, find nothing in them that could make people feel bad, come back later, and cringe when I re-read the post. This is one of those times.

So, if I offended anyone (Rachel, most likely), apologies. I still completely stand by what I said, but my wording could have been a bit softer.

I, word-for-word, agree with Hades. I just get a little upset when I see this topic because we have this arguement litterally everyday (for two weeks in a row, at least) in school. There's no real answer, because both sides are right. Sorry, Rachel.:smallfrown:
- - - - - -


I'd say it is dead, completely.

This guy was walking behind me and I, being polite (:D), held open the door infront of us for him, looked at him and smiled.

"You're a ****" came the reply.

So, of course, I got my own back by letting go of the door, letting it slam in his face.

The gentlemen prevails. Ho hum.

How does this happen to you people!? I have never, ever seen this in real-life, heard it happen to one of my friends, or even seen it on television. Really, the only response I ever see is the woman thinking the man is weird. (Again, I'm not questioning the validity of Zen's anecdote, I'm just shocked is all.)

[ChronicLunacy]

Now, I like to think of myself as chivalrous or just generally polite unless someone (male or female) proves unworthy of my respect. I am unapologetic about who or what I want and go after her or it to the best of my ability, making damn sure that they know my intentions. I like to get sweaty, dirty, and bloody, eat a lot of red meat and drink a lot of beer. I like it when a girl laughs at my jokes, cooks for me, tells me how sexy I am, sits in my lap, and especially when she blushes. I like to take women out and pay for everything, because simply because I want to show them a good time. If that is sexist, then so be it. It annoys the hell out of me when men neuter themselves trying to gain a woman's attention being their "friend" instead of just letting her know you think she's attractive and asking her out for a cup of coffee on Saturday. It's so much simpler.

[zeratul]

I kinda think it's degradding to women. Everyone is equal, so treat everyone the same. That's just my opinion.

[Sisqui]

Now, I like to think of myself as chivalrous or just generally polite unless someone (male or female) proves unworthy of my respect. I am unapologetic about who or what I want and go after her or it to the best of my ability, making damn sure that they know my intentions. I like to get sweaty, dirty, and bloody, eat a lot of red meat and drink a lot of beer. I like it when a girl laughs at my jokes, cooks for me, tells me how sexy I am, sits in my lap, and especially when she blushes. I like to take women out and pay for everything, because simply because I want to show them a good time. If that is sexist, then so be it. It annoys the hell out of me when men neuter themselves trying to gain a woman's attention being their "friend" instead of just letting her know you think she's attractive and asking her out for a cup of coffee on Saturday. It's so much simpler.

Funny, that is my definition of a real man too :smallbiggrin:

[The Great Skenardo]

Funny, that is my definition of a real man too :smallbiggrin:
That, and punchin' stuff! (http://www.qwantz.com/archive/000432.html)

[Sisqui]

That, and punchin' stuff! (http://www.qwantz.com/archive/000432.html)

That's hilarious :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:

[Alarra]

Everything appears to be fine now, but since the debate got heated and close to insulting earlier, I thought it prudent to just throw out a reminder to play nice.

(Sorry, this may be long, as I'm weighing in 8 pages in)

That being said....I suppose I'll weigh in on my own views.

I find that holding the door for someone is perfectly nice and polite. I hold doors for everyone, and thank people when they do so for me. However....I agree with Syka...


I always say thank you when the door is held for me and it irritates me when people don't return the curtousey. Though, one time I did have a guy refuse to go through a door I was holding and insisted upon me going through. That was fairly...disconcerting to me.
that bugs me. If I'm already holding open the door for you, just walk in, thank me, and continue on. It makes me feel rather awkward to have a guy not let me open a door for them. It also makes me feel awkward when they go out of their way to say, walk around the car and open my door first. And I've always thought the 'guys should walk next to the curb' idea was just silly. I tend to feel awkward if someone pays for me as well, especially consistently. Although, being completely broke has stopped me fighting it, and offering, and now I tend to be of the mind set...'if someone wants to pay for me, great!'....but if I had money, that would be completely different. And I will give guys heavy stuff to carry, but that's cause I'm a weakling, not cause I'm a girl. And hmm...I'm noticing as I post about this, that a lot of things make me feel awkward. *resolves (again) to work on that*

I think I'm being skewed by the people I hang out with though too. And I do have to say that it really makes me mad when girls try to exploit chivalric behaviors. For example, a lot of the girls I currently go out with go out of their way to try to trick and manipulate guys into buying them drinks, or doing things for them. They'll go into a bar without enough cash to even come close to paying for what they intend to get, knowing that they'll be able to find some sop that will buy it for them, and that's just not cool in my book. And I'm not saying that all women do this, so don't someone go there....but some do, and it sucks. (and actually, now that I reread this, not that buying a girl a drink is chivalric at all....rather, it's more coming onto her.....but that doesn't change the fact that I despise said behavior)

I'm not going to weigh in on whether or not it's sexist, because I don't like debate, and frankly, if it doesn't offend me, it's kinda off my radar.

And also...there are plenty of women that like nice guys. Confidence is good though. And taking charge is too...(but that's a personal preference, not necessarily shared by the rest of my gender)

And for an example of how chivalry isn't dead, and can sometimes work really well...I give you: Alison and Jeremy. Jeremy is the most chivalric person I've ever met. He opens the car door for not only his girlfriend, but any other girl riding in the car as well, no matter how weird it may seem for him to open four doors. He waits on her hand and foot, literally. But he is NOT a doormat. They banter and joke and have a great time, and he completely dotes on her, and she loves it, and it works really well...for them. I'm fairly certain this wouldn't for a lot of people though.

[averagejoe]

Now, I like to think of myself as chivalrous or just generally polite unless someone (male or female) proves unworthy of my respect. I am unapologetic about who or what I want and go after her or it to the best of my ability, making damn sure that they know my intentions. I like to get sweaty, dirty, and bloody, eat a lot of red meat and drink a lot of beer. I like it when a girl laughs at my jokes, cooks for me, tells me how sexy I am, sits in my lap, and especially when she blushes. I like to take women out and pay for everything, because simply because I want to show them a good time. If that is sexist, then so be it. It annoys the hell out of me when men neuter themselves trying to gain a woman's attention being their "friend" instead of just letting her know you think she's attractive and asking her out for a cup of coffee on Saturday. It's so much simpler.

It annoys the hell out of me when other men laud their so-called masculinity and then try to immasculate others.

If manhood is in what you eat, what sort of girls you like, and having fluids all over you, then count me out of it. I do like a bloody steak as much as the next person, but manhood is a paltry thing defined in such a way.

[zeratul]

It annoys the hell out of me when other men laud their so-called masculinity and then try to immasculate others.

If manhood is in what you eat, what sort of girls you like, and having fluids all over you, then count me out of it. I do like a bloody steak as much as the next person, but manhood is a paltry thing defined in such a way.

I completely agree. Whenever people try to immasculate me at school it usually ends up with me cursing them out. I don't care any about how cool or manly I seem.

[Yiel]

It annoys the hell out of me when other men laud their so-called masculinity and then try to immasculate others.

If manhood is in what you eat, what sort of girls you like, and having fluids all over you, then count me out of it. I do like a bloody steak as much as the next person, but manhood is a paltry thing defined in such a way.

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww bloody steak >_< Count me as Emasculated then. (alternative meaning of emasculate? To remove the antlers from a flower :smallredface: poor flower)

I know how you feel though AverageJoe. :smallfrown: I went to an all-girl's school and was openly mocked for not being feminine enough for their standards.

[The Great Skenardo]

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww bloody steak >_< Count me as Emasculated then. (alternative meaning of emasculate? To remove the antlers from a flower :smallredface: poor flower)

I know how you feel though AverageJoe. :smallfrown: I went to an all-girl's school and was openly mocked for not being feminine enough for their standards.

Did you beat them up for it? :smallbiggrin:

Also: Rare steak = delicious (up to a point)

[Death, your friend the Reaper]

Also: Rare steak = delicious (up to a point)

If you can still hear it mooing 2 mins before the meal, it may be a tad to rare.

[The Great Skenardo]

If you can still hear it mooing 2 mins before the meal, it may be a tad to rare.

Sigh. All too rare, these days.

[Vuzzmop]

Okay, okay. I think we've gotten stuck in this cycle of "It's nice, but it's sexist, but the steak is so juicy", so here is a conclusion for you. Being polite is good, but don't base it on a person's gender, then again, why claim that it is sexist to be nice to one gender, would you like to be treated worse? Hitting a woman because she is a woman is sexist. Treating her like she is helpless is sexist. Being nice to her isn't. To those who only treat women with respect, shame. To those who don't treat women with respect, shame. To those who are whinging about how their gender is treated nicely just because of their gender, get over it[/B. I know that it is sexually biased, but it is in females favour, so why complain? It's dying anyway. See me in twenty years time and tell me, just [B]tell me that it wasn't nicer when a man gave up his seat on a crowded bus for you. Get over it.

[Hell Puppi]

Nothing wrong with a rare steak, or a rare mastodon steak for that matter.

Hmmm kind of a pun.....

Men and women are different....it's life guys. I sympathize with the men on most points because it whole-heartedly confusing as the what most women want. Being a raised a polite person, you may just get called a sexist for opening to door for a woman? What about the next woman who EXPECTS you to open the door/ pay for a meal?

'Nice' guys are another thing. There are some truly nice, caring understanding men who are simply very afraid of women and afraid of doing something wrong. Then there are some men who claim to be the 'nice' guys who really just think a women don't like them because they're pushovers, when maybe the women they're pursuing just doesn't find them attractive.

Is confidence sexy? Hell yes. Have I dated *******s because they were confident? Hell yes. I learned my lessons the hard way (my avvies's scars aren't just for show) and learned what I truly liked in a man. I want a man who can look after me. I get myself into trouble. That and I'm usually the one looking out for everyone else, so it's nice to have a shoulder I can lean on and a partner I can trust to back me up.

But I don't want a slave ( a pushover guy) and I don't want an jerk. I want a partner, and I want to be relied on just as much as I rely on him.

So guys, be who you are. Someone'll appreciate it:smalltongue:

[Trog]

But I don't want a slave ( a pushover guy) and I don't want an jerk. I want a partner, and I want to be relied on just as much as I rely on him.

So guys, be who you are. Someone'll appreciate it:smalltongue:
True dat. It's REALLY nice when you find someone who is your equal. *leans on Thes* :smallsmile:

I'm a medium rare guy myself. How did we get on steak again? :smallconfused: Oh well. Yeah. Thes too. Possibly even more rare than I like it. Quite frankly she is very much the masculine one upsmanship thing when it comes to, say, spicy foods and such. Which I absolutely love about her.

And yes she holds the door open for me and all that too. It's damn cute. I'm a sucker for small things like that. They can speak volumes sometimes. :smallsmile: <3

[Krade]

I can't believe I read the whole thing...

I am deeply saddened by the decline of "chivalry." And saddened more so that anyone seems to think that the greatly modified version of it that exists today is, in any way, meant as a form of oppression. Sure, a part or two of the chivalry that existed several centuries ago was bad. Boo hoo. It has nothing to do with the "chivalry" of today. At all. It is, in pretty much every way, a bad idea to try to follow the archaic form of chivalry, even if you leave out the "Kill people who believe in a different imaginary man (that is really the same imaginary man but we ignore that part) than you" part.

Why does everything have to be so bad? So malicious? Why is it so popular to believe that the only possible reason for a kind action is, in some way, NOT just to perform a kind action. If you keep this reasoning up for too long, you are just asking to be unhappy for your entire life.

Personally, I am kind and courteous to everyone granted I'm paying enough attention (though I'm more likely to be paying attention for a female, oops, I guess that makes me sexist:smalltongue:), and I don't necesarily expect (or even care for) thanks. I don't do it for the people who don't appreciate it, I do it because it feels good to be helpful, and I'll never find someone who does appreciate it unless I do it for everybody. Same things with one of my most predominant physical features. My long, curly, and (by many accounts) beautiful hair, for which I caught much grief over in high school. Here's an actually exchange between me and a classmate:
Classmate: Why don't you cut your hair?
Me: Because I like it.
Classmate: Well I don't.
I walked away at that point because there were a number of things I would've said that probably were best left unsaid. But through all the grief, occassionally someone I didn't even know threw me a compliment. That is why I do it. Not the people who don't like/appreciate/want it, but for the occassional person who does, and, perhaps most importantly, for me.

[Death, your friend the Reaper]

They can speak volumes sometimes.

When my doors start quoting "Cubic metres, Gallons, Pints, Fluid ozs and cubic centimetres" I find it is best to oil them.

[averagejoe]

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww bloody steak >_< Count me as Emasculated then. (alternative meaning of emasculate? To remove the antlers from a flower :smallredface: poor flower)

I know how you feel though AverageJoe. :smallfrown: I went to an all-girl's school and was openly mocked for not being feminine enough for their standards.

I've actually never been considered very "feminine" (whatever that means). I've always been a fair hand at sports, into the rough-and-tumble, and all that jazz; sure, I've had my share of social awkwardness, but it rarely (though sometimes, I'll admit) stemmed from a percieved lack of masculinity.

Most of my problems with this sort of thing come from looking at it from the other end; as someone who has had some measure of strength and societal acceptance, but has never sought to abuse these things. Bullying is what it comes down to in the end; the strong abusing the weak. Such men aren't men at all; they are, at best, cowards, at worst, complete scum. I dislike speaking badly about people but I have little tolerance for such behavior.

[Pyrian]

So guys, be who you are. Someone'll appreciate it:smalltongue:...Maaaybe. :smalleek: