# Is Chivalry dead? (+ the feminist movement)



## Alxmrphi

Ok, a few points to address so my stance is clear.
 I do not mean to offend anyone here but I have a feeling I might do.

* * I can't stand parts of the feminist movement *

I am not talking about "I want women to be equal to men", I have plenty and plenty of girl friends who agree and also hate the feminist movement, we've had plenty of discussions on it, so don't say my view for this is gender based.

What I am talking about, is the over-arrogant "Let's be so feminist that we will now call men pigs and we say that women run supreme".. the women who PROTEST for name changes.

Some of them say "I am offended when I drive through a toll booth and it says MANNED", ugh... I feel like screaming now, ok, carry on.
 So everything has to be "personed"..

I know, through women I have talked to about this, that they aren't offended, they don't have a burning need to change "Cavemen" to "Cavepeople" like some of women in the feminist movement claim.

The whole idea of being so "Anti-" something, that they just become the antithesis of it, makes my blood boil. Like racism.. "We'll be so ethnically aware that we will make mandatory jobs for people from every ethnic background".. to give someone a job soley by the colour of their skin, it's discusting.

Back on track anyway.... these  feminists, I think they have double standards.. because they will THEN be offended, after so much time of equality to men, they will comment if a man isn't chivalrous.

So they want equality, they do stupid pedantic protests to change words that offend nobody and by no way degrade the status of women in society. Then they will complain because they are women, and guys have to do special things for them.

Personally I think the idea of Chivalry is from a time when women weren't seen as equal to men, and needed help with doing things, and men's general "We big, We strong, We protect female" (said in caveman's voice, sorry, cave person's voice).

 Do you think it's a horrendous double standard? 
And to tie along to that question, has it decayed away? I think chivalry is dying, and some people say it has already died, and this should be *everything that the feminist movement wants*.

To get rid of a rule that basically says, do things for women, act in generous ways.. that would truly show equality between men and women in society.. yet, they will complain, that everyone should be chivalrous.
I see and agree with their cause, they have nearly completed it, it is going a bit too far in the wrong direction, I believe.

 Questions:

* 1*) *Is it dead?*
* 2*)* If not, should it die?*
* 3*) *General comments on the pendantic use, that a small portion of the people in the feminist movement, do and think, basically, is it too over-the-top, is it right? and do you agree?*


----------



## maxiogee

Alex_Murphy said:


> ** I can't stand the feminist movement *(not the whole thing, the actions of some of the people who are in it)


 
*Well then don't say what you don't mean!*
By making blanket assertions you enable people who disagree with even a tiny detail of your real concerns to ignore them and accuse you of gross generalisations.

Don't leave yourself open to sideswipes from irate passers-by.


----------



## Alxmrphi

It was a second glance I added that.
I will change it.


----------



## maxiogee

Alex_Murphy said:


> Some of them say "I am offended when I drive through a toll booth and it says MANNED", ugh... I feel like screaming now, ok, carry on.
> So everything has to be "personed"..


What's wrong with "staffed"?



> I know, through women I have talked to about this, that they aren't offended, they don't have a burning need to change "Cavemen" to "Cavepeople" like some of women in the feminist movement claim.


"Troglodytes" is a perfectly good word.




> Back on track anyway.... these stupid feminists, I think they have double standards.. because they will THEN be offended, after so much time of equality to men, they will comment if a man isn't chivalrous.


Surely you mean if a man doesn't display common courtesy?



> because they will THEN be offended,
> they will comment if a man isn't chivalrous.
> Then they will complain because they are women,
> and guys have to do special things for them.


You will never win people to your point of view with sweeping generalisations!




> Do you think it's a horrendous double standard?
> And to tie along to that question, has it decayed away? I think chivalry is dying, and some people say it has already died, and this should be *everything that the feminist movement wants*.
> 
> To get rid of a rule that basically says, do things for women, act in generous ways.. that would truly show equality between men and women in society.. yet, they will complain, that everyone should be chivalrous.


I like to think that I behave courteously towards everyone around me. I hold a door open for someone on whom it would otherwise close. I do this regardless of their gender, but they don't know that. Nobody has ever called me sexist for doing it. Maybe I don't leer enough to generate that sort of response.



> Questions:
> 1 Is it dead?
> 2 If not, should it die?
> 3 General comments on the pendantic use, that a small portion of the people in the feminist movement, do and think, basically, is it too over-the-top, is it right? and do you agree?


1. It's already dead in your heart.
2. I doubt it ever really lived there.
3. The replacement of misnomers is always to be welcomed, and if it means that I have to fumble mentally when I wish for a word to describe a female policeperson then so be it, I'll get it right eventually. 

What's your problem with adapting to change?


----------



## Alxmrphi

Who likes change? lol
I don't mean common courtesy.. I meant chivalry.
It's that mentality I don't like, not just about this issue, the one I described in my post.. as ... being so "anti" something, you just become the opposite, and worse.


----------



## ireney

Personally I have voiced my opinion about the "let's hunt around for any word that might be considered sexist and change it to something 'neutral" logic, but I'll state it once again.

a) Perhaps because of the different linguistic background, I don't see the use of masculine all that important.
 I refer to the language because, well, you see, from ages past and till todays, it is quite often the case that both the male and the female have the same ending. "Ακριβής" (akrivis) has always meant "punctual" for both women or men. Therefore I find this whole PC talk over the top to say the least.
Anyway, let's focus on solving any real un-equality first and then let's talk about the language.
I have heard it said that changing the way you call something or someone changes your attitude towards it or them (there!). I call that rubbish. I have known people who speak about sales persons who pay women less and people who still use salesman and treat all the same.

b)I don't see the movement being against *all* words that have a gender. If they were pro-equality and not "the power of women" they should aim to remove all he/she references to anything or anyone up to and including the sea, the sun etc and insist that this happens in all languages.

As for chivarly, well, it depends on what you call such.
Is chivarly holding a door open? If so get me my spurs. If it means calling me "my fair lady whose beauty outshines the moon and the stars and the sun itself" get me my earplugs.


----------



## maxiogee

Alex_Murphy said:


> I don't mean common courtesy.. I meant chivalry.



In that case, define chivalry and what makes it distinct from common courtesy?


----------



## Alxmrphi

I was surprised at how long it took me to think of how to answer your question, I suppose it's the action of it being for women.
I am talking here about the idea of chivalry..

If I held open a door to a women, and in her head, or anyone who is watching, thought "chivalry", it is that, which I am talking about.
Not about the actions of it, but the opinion and mentality of people who would call it chivalry.

The fact that a woman might think "he should" do that, because it's chivalrous.. that's what I am talking about in this thread.

If when I hold open a door or give up my seat for a woman on the bus, they see it as common courtesy, and don't expect it, I am fine, no problems at all with that.

Does that make sense to you? It's about the mentality of women who think about it, not the actual actions of it.

Edit: Totally agree with you Irene.


----------



## cuchuflete

Try a bumper sticker and a lapel pin that proclaim that you
will be chivalrous to all humanity, feminists included.  This will help you identify those towards whom you only wish to be courteous.



			
				 ireney the Wise  said:
			
		

> I have heard it said that changing the way you call something or someone changes your attitude towards it or them (there!). I call that rubbish.


  And rubbish, as we all know, has no gender.  Brava Ireney!


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> In that case, define chivalry and what makes it distinct from common courtesy?


A woman with her hands full who is heading for a door can reasonably expect it to be opened by someone with free hands.
My wife opens twist top bottles for me as I have a wrist damaged to the point that I can not.
I help my friend who is less computer literate than am I (it is possible because I know about as much as my daughter did about five years ago) but my friend knows nothing.
I do not have ability in all areas and I hope that by offering assistance I may be afforded assistance.
Chivalry is not dead it just lost the sexist attitude and the horse.

I constantly hear references to this whole word changing tosh to remove the sexual reference but I know noone who holds this view.
Alex,
Do you actually know people who seriously baulk at such words or is this question from your experience of watching television or reading newspapers?


.,,


----------



## Stiannu

I had once a quite absurd discussion with a feminist woman about the use of some words in Italian, I'm not sure it will be clear for non Italian-speakers, but let's try. 
I used the word *dottore* (doctor) for a woman, which is quite common, and the lady complained about this. So I corrected my sentence with the word *dottoressa*, which is the feminine (and somehow old-fashioned) form, but the lady complained again, because the *-essa* form (similar to the English *-ess*) is perceived as discriminatory (she told that, I had no idea...). She explained that the correct form should be (but in fact isn't!) *dottora*; and the same for other words, such as *attora*, *presidenta*, etc. Whoever speaks a little Italian can understand how weird this sounds. Later I got stuck again while speaking about an association and its *members*; in Italian the word *membro* is also a metaphor for the masculine sexual parts. The lady was horrified... 

OK, I admit this can be fun if we look at it this way. But I'm sure you all know that feminism is a movement which has given a lot to art and literature, philosophy, social sciences... so we can't really reduce it to these anecdotes. Oh, by the way, of course changing the way you call something or someone changes one's attitude towards it or them! Only, this is true at a more general level and in the long term. Someone can certainly call black people "African americans" (instead of "niggers") and still be racist as a Ku-Klux-Klan member (oops!), but the shift in language witnesses the slow change of mentalities, although not in one simple direction.


----------



## ireney

cuchuflete said:


> Try a bumper sticker and a lapel pin that proclaim that you
> will be chivalrous to all humanity, feminists included.  This will help you identify those towards whom you only wish to be courteous.
> 
> And rubbish, as we all know, has no gender.  Brava Ireney!



Would you care to explain things a bit? I think I explained why I call it so. You may object to my strong feelings towards the changing of terminology but I would still like some explanation.

Irene the Wise


----------



## la reine victoria

maxiogee said:


> In that case, define chivalry and what makes it distinct from common courtesy?


 


When a man throws his overcoat into a muddy puddle to prevent a female from soiling her shoes.

Happens all the time over here, where time stands still.  






LRV


----------



## Alxmrphi

Hiya reine!

"Soiling her shoes" just made me spit hot chocolate all over my desk, I couldn't stop laughing, and then wondering why a coat in a puddle would help.
May I ask what made you write that? lol


----------



## la reine victoria

Alex_Murphy said:


> Hiya reine!
> 
> "Soiling her shoes" just made me spit hot chocolate all over my desk, I couldn't stop laughing, and then wondering why a coat in a puddle would help.
> May I ask what made you write that? lol


 



The spectre of Sir Walter Raleigh spoke to me. Remember his act of chivalry to Good Queen Bess?  



> According to a famous legend he once laid his cloak over a mud puddle so that the Queen's feet would not be dirtied; the legend has long been disputed, but it may be true.


 



LRV


----------



## danielfranco

> Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches, and shalt observe all its directions.
> Thou shalt defend the Church.
> _*Thou shalt respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.*_
> Thou shalt love the country in the which thou wast born.
> Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy.
> Thou shalt make war against the Infidel without cessation, and without mercy.
> Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they be not contrary to the laws of God.
> Thou shalt never lie, and shall remain faithful to thy pledged word.
> Thou shalt be generous, and give largess to everyone.
> Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.


 
I found this partial list of the code of chivalry. Do you think the one I highlighted is the one that bunches up the proverbial feminist undergarment?


----------



## Alxmrphi

Before I posted this thread I looked it up, and found those rules.
I agree with the one you posted up, became the sole meaning of chivalry in modern terms, and one of my points was:

How can chivalry exist (the bold line) while there is a movement of feminism.
They contradict one another.


----------



## Brioche

maxiogee said:


> What's wrong with "staffed"?


 
Oh, no! Staff has both phalocentric and heterosexualist connotations!


----------



## Fernando

I think you are talking about different things.

Obviously, chivalry contains inside the principle that:

- weaks deserve an additional protection. 
- women deserve an additional protection. This protection is not simply courtesy: Men are supposed to hold doors or to stand up or to carry things more oftenly with women than with men.

It was not very clear why women deserve an additional protection (because they were mothers, or "purer", or "better"...) but feminism decided that the additional protection was due to their assumed weakness and so, it should be rejected.

They have a point. Why should I give an additional steem or protection or care for women than for everyboy else?

To me the discussion is just a theory question. My mother would murder me if I decided not to hold the right doors, so my decision (in everyday behaviour) is clear.



Brioche said:


> Oh, no! Staff has both phalocentric and heterosexualist connotations!



You are right. You should notice that "phalocentric" is "falocéntrico" in Spanish. The couple of "f"s and the "t" are clear references to male sexual organs.


----------



## maxiogee

danielfranco said:


> I found this partial list of the code of chivalry.
> Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches, and shalt observe all its directions.
> Thou shalt defend the Church.
> Thou shalt respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.
> Thou shalt love the country in the which thou wast born.
> Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy.
> Thou shalt make war against the Infidel without cessation, and without mercy.
> Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they be not contrary to the laws of God.
> Thou shalt never lie, and shall remain faithful to thy pledged word.
> Thou shalt be generous, and give largess to everyone.
> Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.





Alex_Murphy said:


> Before I posted this thread I looked it up, and found those rules.



You looked up those rules, read them and still feel the need to ask if chivalry is dead? What do you not understand? Which, if any, of them are being observed by anyone who lives within an ass's roar of you?


----------



## Alxmrphi

They made no sense, those are knight's rules from a long time ago, I saw it as irrelevant to my question except for the one danielfranco has highlighted. Which is still pretty old and not the actual definition, or, the same thing, as what we know today.


----------



## maxiogee

Alex_Murphy said:


> They made no sense, those are knight's rules from a long time ago, I saw it as irrelevant to my question except for the one danielfranco has highlighted. Which is still pretty old and not the actual definition, or, the same thing, as what we know today.



Do you not defend the weak?
Note that I do not - here - define what "the weak" consists of - we all do that in our own way.


----------



## Alxmrphi

When I'm not trapsing around Camelot and keeping the Lady of the lake happy, I tend not to

I agree we do it in our own way (define what the weak is), as well, it depends, some people feel sympathy to others wheras others don't.


----------



## mjscott

OK. Opening a door for someone (regardless of gender) who is wielding both arms full of packages is a chivalrous thing to do. I think what Alex Murphy is saying (and please correct me, if I am wrong) is that there are some out there who will look at you cockeyed, pout, and then say, "*NO, I CAN HANDLE IT MYSELF!!*" The person opening the door is aghast at the response--he was just displaying chivalry in the moment. If it had been a 300-pound refrigerator repairman or a slight young woman with packages--he would have done the act. The trouble is, is the 300-pound refrigerator repairman takes the gesture as something humanitarian--whereas the slight young woman takes it on as an offense that your gesture is an affront to her independence.

Did I read that correctly, Murphy?


----------



## .   1

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *danielfranco* [URL]http://forum.wordreference.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif[/URL]
> I found this partial list of the code of chivalry.
> Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches, and shalt observe all its directions.
> Thou shalt defend the Church.
> Thou shalt respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.
> Thou shalt love the country in the which thou wast born.
> Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy.
> Thou shalt make war against the Infidel without cessation, and without mercy.
> Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they be not contrary to the laws of God.
> Thou shalt never lie, and shall remain faithful to thy pledged word.
> Thou shalt be generous, and give largess to everyone.
> Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alex_Murphy* [URL]http://forum.wordreference.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif[/URL]
> Before I posted this thread I looked it up, and found those rules.
> 
> 
> You looked up those rules, read them and still feel the need to ask if chivalry is dead? What do you not understand? Which, if any, of them are being observed by anyone who lives within an ass's roar of you?


After a quick perusal of the rules I am left wondering when these rules were ever given more than a passing nod as the boys headed off to hack and slash their way to eternal glory.

There are no rules for good manners.
I will guess that for every reactionary person who grumbles at doors being held and weights being lifted you will find fifty people who are extremely grateful for the assistance.

maxiogee
Is an ass's roar something like a bull's roar but covering less ground?

.,,


----------



## Alxmrphi

mjscott..

It is more to do with, the women WANT men to be chivalrous to them, they think men should do all this extra stuff for them..
Then go out and march for equality between men and women, which I argued, is the right for nobody to be doing WHAT WOMEN SEE as chivalrous. If a women sees it as common courtesy and would do it to a man, fine! I like that. It's a nice way to live.

It's the people who expect men to be chivalrous, but still adamantly march and protest for womens rights and the right to be PERFECTLY equal.


----------



## maxiogee

. said:


> There are no rules for good manners.


I would dispute that. 
Good manners consists of not making anyone feel uncomfortable.




> maxiogee
> Is an ass's roar something like a bull's roar but covering less ground?




I am struggling manfully to restrain myself from letting you know how you can find out


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> I would dispute that.
> Good manners consists of not making anyone feel uncomfortable.


Good manners and chivalry only work when everybody stays within the bounds of civilisation.

Sorry mate but I consider it to be the height of good manners to make wreckers and breakers feel as uncomfortable as I possibly can.

You appear to have a particular flair in this area that I find quite entertaining.

.,,
I would rather be roared at by a bull than kicked by an ass.


----------



## ireney

I think what Alex is trying to say is that he can't get the following:

"I want a man who is sensitive yet manly; who can get sentimental wathcing "Titanic" yet never cries; who will not get into a fight -verbal or physical- for me when I can hadle things myself but will be ready to jumb at my defence when I can't; who will know that I am capable of doing everything myself but will always be ready to fix the plumbing; who will treat me as an equal but bring me flowers and be romantic" etc etc etc without giving any real definition about "sentimental", "manly", or any clue about when being romantic is treating the woman in a sexist way (is "you are looking fine today miss" a sexist remark or not for instance?) or where's the line between "handling it myself" and "can't handle it myself" (waiting for a hint at the appropriate moment is  out of the question)


----------



## maxiogee

ireney said:


> I think what Alex is trying to say is that he can't get the following:
> 
> "I want a man who is sensitive yet manly; who can get sentimental wathcing "Titanic" yet never cries; who will not get into a fight -verbal or physical- for me when I can hadle things myself but will be ready to jumb at my defence when I can't; who will know that I am capable of doing everything myself but will always be ready to fix the plumbing; who will treat me as an equal but bring me flowers and be romantic" etc etc etc without giving any real definition about "sentimental", "manly", or any clue about when being romantic is treating the woman in a sexist way (is "you are looking fine today miss" a sexist remark or not for instance?) or where's the line between "handling it myself" and "can't handle it myself" (waiting for a hint at the appropriate moment is a out of the question)




Well done ireney, now — for your next trick — can you tell us what he wants in a modern woman?


----------



## Kelly B

Ok, since mjscott's suggestion wasn't quite what Alex meant (although it was well put, I think), here's another example:

One of my friends insists that her husband get up in the middle of the night with the baby and do the same amount of housework because they're equals. I would fully agree with that, except that she also views it as his exclusive responsibility to mow the lawn and take out the garbage. She'd never actually _say _it, and may not even have thought about it - but I'm pretty sure that it's because those are man's work. 

I don't think it's deliberate, just one of those unexamined assumptions people make without thinking about it much. Unfortunately, those are the very kind of assumptions that get people called "xxx-ist" (fill in your least-favorite prejudice.)

(I mow the lawn and take out the garbage. I also sharpen the blade and change the oil once in a while. And the power tools in the garage are _mine_.)


----------



## ireney

maxiogee said:


> Well done ireney, now — for your next trick — can you tell us what he wants in a modern woman?




You mean the "I want her to work but also be a super-mom; to have a job, clean the house, and manage to be a sex kitten at night; to be able to nail that bloody shelf herself so I don't have to do it but call me for help for I am the man so I do this stuff better; to be interested in sports but let me and my buddies watch (insert sport here) ourselves" etc?


----------



## .   1

Kelly B said:


> Ok, since mjscott's suggestion wasn't quite what Alex meant (although it was well put, I think), here's another example:
> 
> One of my friends insists that her husband get up in the middle of the night with the baby and do the same amount of housework because they're equals. I would fully agree with that, except that she also views it as his exclusive responsibility to mow the lawn and take out the garbage. She'd never actually _say _it, and may not even have thought about it - but I'm pretty sure that it's because those are man's work.
> 
> I don't think it's deliberate, just one of those unexamined assumptions people make without thinking about it much. Unfortunately, those are the very kind of assumptions that get people called "xxx-ist" (fill in your least-favorite prejudice.)
> 
> (I mow the lawn and take out the garbage. I also sharpen the blade and change the oil once in a while. And the power tools in the garage are _mine_.)


Your friend may be taking advantage of her husband but her husband must be happy with the arrangement or he would not continue.

The terms of reference of this thread appear to have changed as I remember no original overt reference to (+ the feminist movement).

I find the whole feminist movement business to be old hat and mostly used to sell newspapers and the like.

Your final comment is quite interesting.  I have mowed lawns for about 40 years and I have never once sharpened a lawnmower blade.
As a matter of interest there is a well known series of beer commercials down here where the bloke tells his missus that he is going to the shed to "... umm ... sharpen the mover blades" as he troops off to join his mates in their converted shed to drink beer and watch TV.

.,,


----------



## Alxmrphi

Kelly B said:


> Ok, since mjscott's suggestion wasn't quite what Alex meant (although it was well put, I think), here's another example:
> 
> One of my friends insists that her husband get up in the middle of the night with the baby and do the same amount of housework because they're equals. I would fully agree with that, except that she also views it as his exclusive responsibility to mow the lawn and take out the garbage. She'd never actually _say _it, and may not even have thought about it - but I'm pretty sure that it's because those are man's work.
> 
> I don't think it's deliberate, just one of those unexamined assumptions people make without thinking about it much. Unfortunately, those are the very kind of assumptions that get people called "xxx-ist" (fill in your least-favorite prejudice.)
> 
> (I mow the lawn and take out the garbage. I also sharpen the blade and change the oil once in a while. And the power tools in the garage are _mine_.)



Kelly, the woman you described, I understand perfectly and I see, maybe not agree with but she probably has things she will do herself so it evens out.
It is the attitude x50 of this woman I don't like.
A woman who DEMANDS things because they are equal, and will DEMAND (up front or in the weird ways of women) that they get special attention because she thinks she deserves to be given all this extra stuff.

These are the women I refer to, that I can't stand.
The woman you described, there is no harm in anything she does, it might be a little tiny thing, it's fine. To me, it doesn't look like she would demand or get angry if things didn't go how she believe they should.

Everyone should compromise once in a while.


----------



## curly

Well then you don't have a question do you?
Chivalry is clearly not dead just sometimes mistaken for supeurity(terrible spelling, i'm aware). If anyone erupts in anger because of a good deed, it is clearly their problem. Feminism sometimes suffers from going too far but it's hard to take offence or even give second thought to these things, if someone wants to be called a policewoman, or policeperson just call them that(in particular if they really are a cop) , and get on with your life.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> If anyone erupts in anger because of a good deed, it is clearly their problem



We're not talking about that, we're talking about women who "want" it, anyone who doesn't want people to be chivalrous to them is outside the scope of what we are talking about.


----------



## curly

But the same applies, if someone wants you to be chivalrous then be chivalrous, it makes you feel good! There's nothing wrong with wanting someone's help with something! (Beside isn't giving the little fluff-for-brains the vote, equality, and a sense of inclusion to the club, just another way of being chivalrous?)

Just in case fluff-for-brains WAS infact blatant sarcasm.


----------



## .   1

curly said:


> But the same applies, if someone wants you to be chivalrous then be chivalrous, it makes you feel good! There's nothing wrong with wanting someone's help with something! (Beside isn't giving the little fluff-for-brains the vote, equality, and a sense of inclusion to the club, just another way of being chivalrous?)
> 
> Just in case fluff-for-brains WAS infact blatant sarcasm.


I quite agree.  Perhaps I will step around some of your terminology on my way to a concensus but your views are clean and clear to me.  Thank you.

Chivalry is in the eye of the giver and the manner of the receiver has nothing to do with the act of chivalry.
I have stood and held many a door to watch a scornful reply.  Does that make me less chivalrous?
As I watch each poor sod mutter off in high dugeon I am left with choices but they are my choices and perhaps this is where there is a confusion.
There are many choices I am forced to make and I will be happy to expand if there is interest but I will focus on the two obvious and pressing choices.
What do I do at the next door?
Do I open it or do I sulk because some poor sod who was probably just having a bad day did not tell me I was a good bloke.  That would not be the chivalrous thing to do.  To chose not enhance to another persons day because I lost a tiny little bit of enhancment to my day is not going to make me feel good about myself.  
Giving in to the wreckers is most certainly not in any code of Code of Chivalry I have ever encountered.
The second choice is my immediate reaction to the poor sad sod.
It is obvious that a Chivalrous act is an attempt to enhance the mood of a stranger ergo the mood of the stranger has not been accurately gauged but the intention is to enhance a mood.
You must remember that the Chivalrous person has chosen to interact with the stranger.  
If the stranger responds in an unthankful manner that is the right of the stranger but that is a slightly separate topic.
If the stranger responds negatively it is incumbant upon the doer to attempt to at least not make matters worse and the stranger should be ignored and let go on their way.

.,,


----------



## rsweet

This thread is treating chivalry as a code that was valid for both men and women. Historically, it applied only to men. I'll leave each of you to ponder the significance of that. 

I guess I would call myself a feminist in that I want to be a strong woman--creatively, financially, physically, spiritually, and emotionally. I also want my daughter to have every chance to achieve all her dreams without being forced into a box that doesn't fit her soul. I believe that my strengths support my husband, as his strengths support me. We are partners and don't need to nitpick about the balance of our responsibilities. We're a team and work together to make a life. 

I don't want to be a man. I don't think the way to raise the status of women is to downgrade or insult men. I do want to be treated as a fully participating human being in the endeavors of my choice.

If a man opens a door for me, I graciously thank him. I find it charming and kind, yet I do not expect this behavior. I also open doors for men if the situation warrants it.

If I choose to work in law enforcement, I would feel uncomfortable being called a policeman; I'd prefer police officer. I don't think we should go to rediculous extremes to find gender-neutral words, but we should try -- some of the gender-neutral words that have come into use work wonderfully.

Yes, and I'd prefer "staffed" to "manned."


----------



## maxiogee

Yes indeed, ireney.

This whole thread smacks of men who don't know how to deal with people. We hear of women "who want it" and "attitude x50 of this woman" - but I seriously doubt that these are much more than caricatures of a societal fringe.


----------



## coconutpalm

I don't think there is the "tradition" of chivalry in China. I suppose it only exist (or existed?) in the western world.

There were feminist movement in China. I'm not a historian, and all I can account is that there were two important years. 
1. 1911 
2. 1949
As far as I know, the movement went to a way a bit too far. Women and men ARE indeed different, both physically and mentally. Our brains work differently. Our muscles become different when we grow up. 
Yes, I'm not quite familiar with what exactly feminists claim or advocate, because all around me, most women and girs insist women's rights, but they are not feminists. 
However, the way I see it, although feminists are not denying those differences, they decide to neglect it when delivering their speech. If I'm wrong with this, I think it's still THEY that mislead me to think this.

I help the weak, whether it be men or women. I'm naturally more sympathetic towards old people and little children. 

I don't like making dinners, I WANT to find a husband that prefers doing it to cleaning, but I will try to stand it if he doesn't.


----------



## Span_glish

Fernando said:


> This protection is not simply courtesy: Men are supposed to hold doors or to stand up or to carry things more oftenly with women than with men.


 
This statement sounds like a generalization to me.  After reading everybody's comments and from personal experience, women do open doors, as well as offer a hand to someone who needs it as often as men do regardless of sex.
I open the door for whoever is behind me and many times people do it for me.  I don't feel threatened in any way if someone does it for me, I just make sure I say thanks before walking away.



ireney said:


> You mean the "I want her to work but also be a super-mom; to have a job, clean the house, and manage to be a sex kitten at night; to be able to nail that bloody shelf herself so I don't have to do it but call me for help for I am the man so I do this stuff better; to be interested in sports but let me and my buddies watch (insert sport here) ourselves" etc?


I'm surprised you haven't got any comments on this definition, but I agree 



My opinion is that we're the product of the way we're treated.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Tony, I do think these people are just caricatures of the social fringe, I'm glad they aren't everywhere, but doesn't make the subject not worth discussing.
I was really interested to read that this tradition never existed in China, possibly a lot of the eastern world, that just seems so alien to me, very interesting.


----------



## Fernando

Span_glish said:


> This statement sounds like a generalization to me.  After reading everybody's comments and from personal experience, women do open doors, as well as offer a hand to someone who needs it as often as men do regardless of sex.



In my personal experience, even in the rude Spain, women carry less bags, hold less doors and wait to enter the last less times.

I do not have a strong stance on this. As said before, I use to do some of the things men were supposed to do 20 years ago because of my mother's silent death-threat, but I deny that being chivalrous = being polite with everyone.

Being chivalrous (assuming this word exist in English) is not gender-symmetrical.


----------



## maxiogee

Alex_Murphy said:


> Tony, I do think these people are just caricatures of the social fringe, I'm glad they aren't everywhere, but doesn't make the subject not worth discussing.
> I was really interested to read that this tradition never existed in China, possibly a lot of the eastern world, that just seems so alien to me, very interesting.



I would suggest that what is being attempted here is not "discussing".


----------



## Alxmrphi

Then what would you call it?
I have made my points, we have talked about it, some people have come up with some good counter points (like Kelly_B) and I have had my opinion changed a bit by a few people, and others are bringing in their views, what do you think it should be called?


----------



## maxiogee

Frankly (can we still use Frank like that?) I'd call it an anti-feminist outpouring, which began badly in an ill-worded rant …
"* I can't stand the feminist movement (not the whole thing, the actions of some of the people who are in it)"
… and never really went anywhere. But then, when there was no real definition of what distinguishes "chivalry" from "courtesy" there was unlikely to be progress. I still don't know what you think of as chivalry, and I don't know what evidence you have that it might still be alive?


----------



## Sallyb36

Originally Posted by ireney  
You mean the "I want her to work but also be a super-mom; to have a job, clean the house, and manage to be a sex kitten at night; to be able to nail that bloody shelf herself so I don't have to do it but call me for help for I am the man so I do this stuff better; to be interested in sports but let me and my buddies watch (insert sport here) ourselves" etc?

Ireney, you've described me to a tee!!


----------



## TrentinaNE

This morning in the parking garage of my office building, a man stopped and held open the door to the elevator bank for a good 5 seconds or so (a really noticeable amount of time) until I got there. I thought his action was kind of ridiculous, but I just smiled and said thank you as I walked through the dor. I then proceeded to climb the 3 flights of stairs (68 steps) to the building lobby, and arrived there before his elevator did. Perhaps he won't think me so delicate the next time.  

Elisabetta


----------



## rsweet

So I guess the question is "How do we release men from this double standard of courtesy without being rude?" This is a tough one because men of different generations (and cultures) have been taught different customs with regard to etiquette with women.


----------



## Fernando

I agree with rsweet: that is the question. I will only add that the standards are also double for women.


----------



## rsweet

Good point, Fernando.


----------

