Is Chivalry Dead ?

Nevyn

fly_agaric wrote:

Yep. So ye won't be needing the chivalry of random men to help you though life now will yes?:D

Who ever said I needed it ?

Again you seem to be confusing good manners, co operation and chivalrious behaviour.

I don't need the food to have a pleasant flavour to be nutrious but it helps.
I would consider chivalrious behaviour from a man to be either extreme good manners on thier behalf or a subtle way of showing and gauging a romantic or sexual intrest in a polite manner.

There are types of behaviour that we accept from those we are intimate with or intend on being on intimate terms with that we don't accept from others.

stingy

if i hold out my hand, my boyfriend takes it and gives it a kiss. and calls me "my lord".

Sleepy

Shouldn't that be 'my lady'? Or are you a guy?

If so, it raises the interesting question: is it still classed as chivalry if the actions are between two males/two females?

stingy

my lady just doesn't sound as awe instilling as my lord!

bonkey

fly_agaric wrote:

I think he meant "the aged" rather than your "elders and betters".

So he feels that one should treat one's peers with less respect than the aged.

I still don't see how treating anyone with less respect than someone else based on their age counts as good manners.....but its the direct implication from saying you should treat some with more respect than others based on age.

But anyway...

this talk of carrying computers and stuff reminded me...

One company I worked in had a policy that only male staff would carry computers around (we needed to move them periodically for various reasons). Female members of staff were not to carry computers, but were to find a male member of staff and ask them to do so.

Is this policy OK?

If its not OK, is it good manners / chivalrous for male staff to offer to carry the pc's, but bad manners / sexist to require they do it?

adonis

Sangre wrote:

The fact of the matter is, logically speaking, chivalry is sexism. The only reasons to deny this is because it doesn't sit well with your upbringing, family situation or beliefs. The fact some women enjoy it doesn't meant it isn't sexist. Is this form of sexism going to end the world? No, it probably isn't even going to do any damage but the fact of the matter is, it is sexism. Why? Because you are treating people differently based solely on their gender. Either by benefiting the woman or denying the man the gesture.

Ergo, giving a coat to a woman, where you wouldn't give it to a equally healthy male is sexism and thus, not a bizarre comparison with racism. They are both exact same thing, discrimination based on something that the person can't change. The only thing bizarre is why you see the analogies as so ridiculous. People always use extremes to make points, while not being the most effective way to argue, to dismiss their whole post as null and void is equally extreme.

im really with fanny craddock on this one.
His is by far the most logical and RATIONAL approach to the whole argument.
Its just ridiculous that you can be called sexist for holding doors for women - and anyway, so what if you are called sexist. Im happy to say that there are differences between men and women, they exist, they have existed and they will always exist. These differences should be accepted and people should realise that they are not something to be ashamed of (monkeytennis) but things to be cherished and lauded.

Sangre, i think you misunderstood the rascism/sexism analogy.
Fanny (i think) was trying to say that (for example) **ALL** chinese people would not like to be discriminated against because of them being chinese.
But, ***certain*** women actually like random acts of chivalry, which seems perfectly normal to me.

And monkeytennis is completly over the top with her BIMBO quote..you are insulting a lot of women there, and a lot of them that i know who appreciate "chivalry" and are certainly not bimbos and cut put your laddish/literature acumen to shame

punky

"I'd be interested to see where I 'accused you of being racist'. Do you read the words on the page in front of you, or do you just make them up in your own mind?"

"Holy cow So you're not a full-blown sexist, you're just a casual sexist. What progress! You still can't accept the fact that you're discriminating based on gender. People like you remind me of those people who used to give black kids all the awards in school competitions to 'prove' that they weren't racist.

You clearly have no idea how irritating it is to have someone look down on you because of something completely irrelevant such as your gender (or race?)."

Monkey Tennis, you didn't directly accuse me of being a racist but it's definitely implied. Have another read of what you wrote above. The 'or race?' is quite telling. Anyway, accusing, implying or comparing someone to a racist isn't very nice now is it?

And by the way, any chivalrous actions I've ever made have not been because I felt that the lady was weaker or 'needed' protection. It's just courtesy and a way of showing affection. You don't need to read anything more into it. I'm not looking down on anyone. Do you really want all men to interact with women the exact same way they interact with men? And vice versa? Not very romantic, methinks.

My advice to you to is to try letting down your guard. Let go of your cynicism. There are a lot of nice blokes out there who are totally intimidated by the modern Irish woman. It's no wonder more and more of them are finding foreign girlfriends.

Sangre

adonis wrote:

im really with fanny craddock on this one.
His is by far the most logical and RATIONAL approach to the whole argument.

Hardly, he is maniplulating the definitions of two well established words, sexism and chivalry.
Since, chivalry, by definition is sexist, I really can't see the confusion on this.

Sexism:
1.Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.

2.Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

How does an act of chivalry towards a woman (like giving her a coat just because she is a woman) not fall into this category?
It obviously not sexist if the woman has a cold, or is wearing very little. That perfectly acceptable, as long as you wouldn't preclude the same gesture to a man in a similar situation.
If the act is just because shes a woman, and grrrr you're a man who can 'handle' the rain then, yep, thats sexist. Especially since it promotes a negative stereotype of woman as the weaker/inferior sex.
(of course woman are generally physically weaker but I'm pretty sure they can withstand the force of rain).

So, the only reason to deny this connection is because you want to. You don't want to admit to yourself this because its the way your parents were raised and its the way you were brought up. Well, your parents were also probably brought up being told a woman's place is in the home, does that make it socially acceptable as well?
Of course, the two aren't nearly as serious but BY DEFINITION, they are the same.

adonis

if its sexist its sexist, it doesnt matter what state the woman is in.
If its racist its racist, it doesnt matter what the person has done.

I dont understand you.
You seem to be hardline in some areas of argument and then wilt with comments such as "It obviously not sexist if the woman has a cold, or is wearing very little"
So you are saying that women that wear very little are entitled to chivalrous acts? major flaw there, would this act then be considered an act of wanton sexism?
So in fact, you are actually agreeing with fanny's argument. You either need to argue from the red or the blue corner, but not on some fence in between.

And dont assume anything about the way people were brought up due to their opinion on certain matters, it makes you seem foolish when your assumptions are wrong.

Sangre

pffft......

you hurt my head. can someone else take over? I don't know how I could possibly make it any clearer. gotta scoot

adonis

looks like u can fix that signature so

Wez

I'm completely siding with Sangre.. No matter how you phrase it, you're treating them different, purely based on their sex.

I don't understand women sometimes, they want equal rights, equal pay, equal jobs etc, yet they're not willing to make the sacrifices a man has to. There are many examples : chivalry, insurance, manner (a girl can be a b!tch at a club, pushing and slapping, yet a guy can't touch her) etc etc..

monkey tennis

punky wrote:

Monkey Tennis, you didn't directly accuse me of being a racist but it's definitely implied. Have another read of what you wrote above. The 'or race?' is quite telling.

Actually, you're wrong - you're reading too much into it. The casual/unintended racism example was intended as nothing more than a parallel to the discussion of casual/unintended sexism. There was no other intended implication, you're making the leap to the idea of me calling you a racist on your own. I added the 'or race' part because people seem to be far more sensitive to issues of racism than issues of sexism for some reason, so I thought it might help to clarify my point (unintentional or even 'well-meaning' discrimination based on an irrelevant factor such as gender or race).


Another thing I'm finding very funny is the number of people claiming I'm 'bitter and twisted' or have a chip on my shoulder about something. Bit of a tabloidesque knee-jerk reaction, eh? I don't see why someone should be accused of being a bitter, feminazi biker-dyke or whatever just because they have the balls (so to speak) to call a spade a spade. Awfully sorry to disappoint all you people, but I've never yelled at someone for carrying a computer for me or offering me their coat or whatever, but that doesn't stop me from recognizing it for what it is.

monkey tennis

il gatto wrote:

In all honesty, most men are stronger than women. Thats just the way it is. Men don't ask other men if they want them to lift something heavy because it rarely happens that they come across a man who is unable to lift a reasonable weight. You may be stronger than an average woman, but that's just it. An average woman isn't that strong.

How about this situation (the actual situation upon which the earlier hypothetical example was based):

A skinny 14-year-old boy is carrying a monitor up a flight of stairs. He's not having too easy a job of it. Behind him is a woman well-used to carrying monitors, carrying another (smaller, as it happens) monitor up said stairs. A colleague of said woman and boy offers help to the woman who is clearly having no difficulty with the smaller monitor, seemingly without even noticing the young boy is huffing and puffing with his monitor. This man (with whom I get on perfectly well and have no other grievances) would swear blind that he's not sexist.

If you think he's not unconsciously sexist, offering help to a strong woman before a weak, struggling boy, you're just ignoring reality. The reason he offered help has nothing to do with physical strength, it's because it was ingrained in his mind to help a female.

fly_agaric

Thaedydal wrote:

Who ever said I needed it ?

I said "ye" - not "you".

I though that need was the key to chivalry. That women as group needed this extra consideration/good-manners category from men as a group in the past. Like the elderly. Or children. Or people who are ill, or disabled. Or any other special cases.
So to not give them any special treatment would be to act in an ungentlemanly and ill-mannered way. To expect anything in return would of course be quite ill-mannered also.

Thaedydal wrote:

Again you seem to be confusing good manners, co operation and chivalrious behaviour.

How so? Others were doing that - saying that chivalry from men towards women is a subset of general good manners. Maybe in the past?

Thaedydal wrote:

I don't need the food to have a pleasant flavour to be nutrious but it helps.
I would consider chivalrious behaviour from a man to be either extreme good manners on thier behalf or a subtle way of showing and gauging a romantic or sexual intrest in a polite manner.

I'm sure being on the receiving end of chivary is very nice (so long as you like the man, and you don't think he is after anything you won't give) and I'm sure that having both "equality" and "chivalry" switch positions which one can flip at will as the mood takes or situation requires is to have the best of both worlds but it doesn't stop the "chivalry" button from being an irrelevance now IMO.
It's not something women should expect as their due from men in general now.
From what you've said it doesn't seem you would anyway [even though you did make a case for chivalry based on women giving birth].
If you run across some super-super-polite and gentlemanly man who thinks that chivalry to women is not defunct and really isn't chasing after anything at all - enjoy I suppose. And enjoy the chivalrous flirter types too I suppose.

Thaedydal wrote:

There are types of behaviour that we accept from those we are intimate with or intend on being on intimate terms with that we don't accept from others.

But there would be some reciprocal benefit involved there. Or the potential for it. Even the pleasure derived from doing that chivalry stuff and pleasing a person you care about is a benefit.

Bonkey wrote:

I still don't see how treating anyone with less respect than someone else based on their age counts as good manners.....but its the direct implication from saying you should treat some with more respect than others based on age.

I know the negative way you phrased it is equivalent but it doesn't feel like it. I think the language is a problem. Maybe consideration and tolerance is better than respect? I don't know?

Marksie

monkey tennis wrote:

I've never yelled at someone for carrying a computer for me or offering me their coat or whatever.

Do you routinely refuse such help? if you do fine well and good, if you do not then you are in effect perpetuating such behaviour.

monkey tennis wrote:

but that doesn't stop me from recognizing it for what it is.

I will routinely hold a door open for either gender, as a matter of courtesy. However, if i hold the door open for you .. by your definition it is a sexist act.. But you are relying on supposition and a lack of data (it is a point in time): you are therefore making the assumption that because i am a man i simply MUST be openeng the door in as a result of sexist conditioning. You are therefore discriminating based on your own bias... a case of guilty until proven otherwise

Sangre

marksuttonie wrote:

I will routinely hold a door open for either gender, as a matter of courtesy. However, if i hold the door open for you .. by your definition it is a sexist act..

No, she is saying the act opposite.

Now, go back and read the entire thread as punishment.

Laslo

The Corinthian wrote:

Please don’t breed while you’re at it.

Lovely attitude for a moderator. Besides, you're too late. Now perhaps you should pack up your PC and Star Trek collection, get a haircut and go out and do the same. If anyone would have you. I'm sure spotty, nerdy forum moderators are in big demand these days

monkey tennis

marksuttonie wrote:

Do you routinely refuse such help? if you do fine well and good, if you do not then you are in effect perpetuating such behaviour

I don't think that's true. If there's one thing that this thread has shown, it's that men who believe they're being 'chivalrous' very often don't even realize that it's a sexist gesture. I'd be quite surprised if any of the blokes on the pro-chivalry side of this thread are going to stop and think about what they're doing next time they offer their coat to a woman or shoo them away from lifting anything, so it would do as much good to talk to the wall. I'm not on a crusade for equal rights, I don't have time to have this discussion with knuckleheads on a regular basis - I'd die of exhaustion (I'll rarely let it go without a smart comment, if that makes you feel any better).

marksuttonie wrote:

However, if i hold the door open for you .. by your definition it is a sexist act.. But you are relying on supposition and a lack of data (it is a point in time): you are therefore making the assumption that because i am a man i simply MUST be openeng the door in as a result of sexist conditioning.

Wrong. You're making assumptions to conveniently support your own side of this discussion.

I specifically avoided the issue of door-holding as I would normally assume (sorry to disappoint you) that someone holding a door open for me is doing it out of politeness rather than "chivalry" and would do the same for a man as well. But if a man offers me help with a computer monitor and not a struggling boy, it's a pretty clear-cut example of sexism IMO.

Laslo

monkey tennis wrote:

I don't think that's true. If there's one thing that this thread has shown, it's that men who believe they're being 'chivalrous' very often don't even realize that it's a sexist gesture. I'd be quite surprised if any of the blokes on the pro-chivalry side of this thread are going to stop and think about what they're doing next time they offer their coat to a woman or shoo them away from lifting anything, so it would do as much good to talk to the wall. I'm not on a crusade for equal rights, I don't have time to have this discussion with knuckleheads on a regular basis - I'd die of exhaustion (I'll rarely let it go without a smart comment, if that makes you feel any better).



Wrong. You're making assumptions to conveniently support your own side of this discussion.

I specifically avoided the issue of door-holding as I would normally assume (sorry to disappoint you) that someone holding a door open for me is doing it out of politeness rather than "chivalry" and would do the same for a man as well. But if a man offers me help with a computer monitor and not a struggling boy, it's a pretty clear-cut example of sexism IMO.

You sound like great craic to be around.

The Corinthian

Laslo wrote:

Besides, you're too late.

Where's a eugenics programme when you need one?

Laslo

The Corinthian wrote:

Where's a eugenics programme when you need one?

It's obviously been abandoned now that being an ignorant, self-righteous and rude twit is fashionable.

The Corinthian

Laslo wrote:

It's obviously been abandoned now that being an ignorant, self-righteous and rude twit is fashionable.

LOL. Take a look in a mirror and soak in the irony mate

Laslo

The Corinthian wrote:

LOL. Take a look in a mirror and soak in the irony mate

No irony there. I think opening doors and generally being mannerly and polite is perfectly acceptable, you seem to think that it's a declaration of superiority and an insult to the recipient of that good will. I was raised to be a gentleman and nothing anyone could say would change my mind. I suspect you weren't but if your hyper-PC, twisted view of things means that you want to label me a sexist pig who 'shouldn't breed' then so be it. But I think your initial response to my posts speaks volumes about the kind of person you are.

theTinker

monkey tennis wrote:

How about this situation (the actual situation upon which the earlier hypothetical example was based):

A skinny 14-year-old boy is carrying a monitor up a flight of stairs. He's not having too easy a job of it. Behind him is a woman well-used to carrying monitors, carrying another (smaller, as it happens) monitor up said stairs. A colleague of said woman and boy offers help to the woman who is clearly having no difficulty with the smaller monitor, seemingly without even noticing the young boy is huffing and puffing with his monitor. This man (with whom I get on perfectly well and have no other grievances) would swear blind that he's not sexist.

If you think he's not unconsciously sexist, offering help to a strong woman before a weak, struggling boy, you're just ignoring reality. The reason he offered help has nothing to do with physical strength, it's because it was ingrained in his mind to help a female.

oooohhhhh.....this was a bit of an eye opener to me...., After reading this thread I think chivalry even though WELL intentioned is sexist...I think I'm a bit sexist too because of that which is really surprising to me as i always viewed it as a nice thing to do for a woman. I think im ok with it still though, like if a bit of sexism seems to improve the general daily life of 50% of people, I cant see a reason to remove it from my live. Its also been engraved into me i think.

Can any of you more english writing professionals who find chivalry sexist or not, write a good concise paragraph explaining your views of it being used as a sign of respect for women because they are mothers, who nearly all boys have depended thier lives on? and breeders, who again nearly all men charish the woman who lets them have a baby? Like chivalry being used as a sign of respect by men for what woman kind have and can do in the thier(mans)life.
Like i know I was completely dependent on my mother so i really admire women from that perspective(yes i see the sexist part)

This thread is really good(ignoring the rants).

The Corinthian

Laslo wrote:

No irony there. I think opening doors and generally being mannerly and polite is perfectly acceptable, you seem to think that it's a declaration of superiority and an insult to the recipient of that good will.

If you actually bothered to read what I’ve read, I’ve never at any stage suggested anything of the sort. Indeed, I’ve even gone so far as to say that not only am I rather fond of chivalry but practice it myself - possibly for longer than you’re been alive.

I was raised to be a gentleman and nothing anyone could say would change my mind. I suspect you weren't but if your hyper-PC, twisted view of things means that you want to label me a sexist pig who 'shouldn't breed' then so be it.

No, I simply pointed out that it is a sexist practice, both by definition and by historical origin. This does not imply that it is a bad thing or its practitioners are in any way insulting women (although the chap who suggested that women are somehow automatically ‘delicate’ does need to grow up), only that we should be aware of where our social practices come from. I wouldn’t mind but I’ve actually tried to clarify this on a number of occasions.

Of course, some knee-jerk imbeciles, who seemingly have never actually bothered to work anything out anything for themselves, appear to believe that even the suggestion that we may make this examination - for good or ill - is somehow attacking their social credibility simply because the term ‘sexist’ is dispassionately applied.

It’s not; I’ve not even made a moral judgement, let alone the suggestion that it should be stamped out, although it does raise some interesting follow up questions - more about Feminism than chivalry. However we have seen the most amazing number of stupid arguments, firstly assuming that what I said was an attack on chivalry, and secondly relying on the logic that because this is how they were raised it somehow proved something. In short, I would never and have never suggested that anyone should not breed on account of being sexist, but I would because they’re dumb.

But I think your initial response to my posts speaks volumes about the kind of person you are.

As have yours. Understand the discussion before you engage it.

Laslo

Oh right, so now it's a 'dispassionate' use of the word so that it doesn't have any negative connotations. Your argument just disappeared up its own arse.

The Corinthian

Laslo wrote:

Oh right, so now it's a 'dispassionate' use of the word so that it doesn't have any negative connotations. Your argument just disappeared up its own arse.

Of course it was dispassionate - the only thing I've been passionate about here is the idiocy of some of the posts and their authors, not chivalry. If not feel free to quote otherwise from my posts.

Fanny Cradock

Feel free to elaborate on the identities of those authors.

Buceph

But the idea and connotations sexism and racism hold are very passionate. The main problem here seems to be that you are using sexism in an absolute way, and others are in the sexism is evil mode. The two ideas don't meet well.

Yes, in an absolute form chivalry is sexist, but it's not in the same league as non-equal pay.

adonis

monkey tennis wrote:

I don't think that's true. If there's one thing that this thread has shown, it's that men who believe they're being 'chivalrous' very often don't even realize that it's a sexist gesture. I'd be quite surprised if any of the blokes on the pro-chivalry side of this thread are going to stop and think about what they're doing next time they offer their coat to a woman or shoo them away from lifting anything, so it would do as much good to talk to the wall. I'm not on a crusade for equal rights, I don't have time to have this discussion with knuckleheads on a regular basis - I'd die of exhaustion (I'll rarely let it go without a smart comment, if that makes you feel any better).



Wrong. You're making assumptions to conveniently support your own side of this discussion.

I specifically avoided the issue of door-holding as I would normally assume (sorry to disappoint you) that someone holding a door open for me is doing it out of politeness rather than "chivalry" and would do the same for a man as well. But if a man offers me help with a computer monitor and not a struggling boy, it's a pretty clear-cut example of sexism IMO.

one can use extremes to prove any argument.
I dont think we are arguing these kind of cases though.

il gatto

monkey tennis wrote:

How about this situation (the actual situation upon which the earlier hypothetical example was based):

A skinny 14-year-old boy is carrying a monitor up a flight of stairs. He's not having too easy a job of it. Behind him is a woman well-used to carrying monitors, carrying another (smaller, as it happens) monitor up said stairs. A colleague of said woman and boy offers help to the woman who is clearly having no difficulty with the smaller monitor, seemingly without even noticing the young boy is huffing and puffing with his monitor. This man (with whom I get on perfectly well and have no other grievances) would swear blind that he's not sexist.

If you think he's not unconsciously sexist, offering help to a strong woman before a weak, struggling boy, you're just ignoring reality. The reason he offered help has nothing to do with physical strength, it's because it was ingrained in his mind to help a female.

If a colleague of yours hasn't the manners to help a scrawny child, I don't see how it reflects on my point. I never said you should assist a woman if someone else needs it more. The issue of a skinny 14 year old was never mentioned. I'm far from ignoring reality. That people refuse the little nicities afforded them day to day because it's "sexist" and they adhere to strict political correctness, says more about their grasp of reality than mine.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Laslo wrote:

No irony there. I think opening doors and generally being mannerly and polite is perfectly acceptable, you seem to think that it's a declaration of superiority and an insult to the recipient of that good will. I was raised to be a gentleman and nothing anyone could say would change my mind. I suspect you weren't but if your hyper-PC, twisted view of things means that you want to label me a sexist pig who 'shouldn't breed' then so be it. But I think your initial response to my posts speaks volumes about the kind of person you are.

not only is is acceptable but its the norm ( for people brought up to respect others ) and you are spot on about how posts here speaks volumes about people and how they were brought (dragged) up.
good post

The Corinthian

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

not only is is acceptable but its the norm ( for people brought up to respect others ) and you are spot on about how posts here speaks volumes about people and how they were brought (dragged) up.
good post

Pity you don't seem to be reading what's actually been posted though.

The Corinthian

il gatto wrote:

If a colleague of yours hasn't the manners to help a scrawny child, I don't see how it reflects on my point. I never said you should assist a woman if someone else needs it more. The issue of a skinny 14 year old was never mentioned. I'm far from ignoring reality. That people refuse the little nicities afforded them day to day because it's "sexist" and they adhere to strict political correctness, says more about their grasp of reality than mine.

How would you react in that scenario then?

fly_agaric

Buceph wrote:

Yes, in an absolute form chivalry is sexist, but it's not in the same league as non-equal pay.

Is that partly because it's generally a 'good' or a 'plus' for women (unless they are on some kind of crusade against sexism and become personally miffed by it)?
So even if is sexism, it's kind of nice sexism....:)

Before we start about manners, what men may do for those they care about, and definitions of "chivalry" again - I'd point to monkeytennis' monitor-carrying situation or similar as an example of the sort of chivalry I'm referring to here.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

fly_agaric wrote:

Is that partly because it's generally a 'good' or a 'plus' for women (unless they are on some kind of crusade against sexism and become personally miffed by it)?
So even if is sexism, it's kind of nice sexism....:)

Before we start about manners, what men may do for those they care about, and definitions of "chivalry" again - I'd point to monkeytennis' monitor-carrying situation or similar as an example of the sort of chivalry I'm referring to here.

interesting points,

RainyDay

Mrs_Doyle wrote:

On holidays he happily jumped off the bus, grabbed his little hold all, and didn't even look back to see her struggling with her suit case.
At the pool, he never passed her a towel, or offered to do her sun cream, and if he went to the pool bar, he would never ask her if she wanted anything while he was there.

A couple of weeks ago we were all out, and as we were leaving one bar to go to another, we stepped out of the pub only to find it was lashing raining.
My boyfriend took off his jacket, and put it around my shoulders, and my pal, seeing this, asked her boyfriend for his coat.
He replied "are ye mad woman? its fcuking lashing out" - my friends face was a picture and I just had to laugh.

These are just a few examples,

I'm all in favour of politeness & courtesy to all, and it does sound like the guy is a little rude and inconsiderate. But on the other side of the coin, there is an issue of planning and thinking ahead. The GF brought a huge suitcase with (presumably) 3 outfits for every night so she can play dress-up and spend 90 minutes getting ready. If she wants the fun that goes with the multiple outfits, she needs to be prepared to lug the heavy suitcase around. Likewise, she went out for the night with no jacket, and then is surprised when her BF doesn't give up his. She saw him leaving with his jacket and didn't bother to bring her own. She needs to plan to be independent.

The Corinthian

fly_agaric wrote:

Is that partly because it's generally a 'good' or a 'plus' for women (unless they are on some kind of crusade against sexism and become personally miffed by it)?
So even if is sexism, it's kind of nice sexism....:)

Indeed, simply because it is sexism (by definition, because modern chivalry discriminates based upon gender) does not necessarily make it a bad thing - despite the assumptions of a few of the Muppets here, who were apparently brought up so well.

The fact that many women appreciate it would lend to it being a positive thing, however this does not sit well with the commonly accepted view of gender equality. How can we seek gender equality on one hand yet consider some forms of inequality good in the other? Simple biological differences don’t explain a lot of chivalry, for example, so one must re-evaluate how we view gender equality.

Is it basically equal and interchangeable rights? Or do we retain certain gender-based rights that essentially cancel out when weighed against each other? Or something else again?

dr.bollocko

You are now simply arguing re sexism as an abstract term in an argument where nobody can
-make generalisations of any sort for fear of everyone on boards absolutely **** storming them
-say anything bluntly for fearing that they will insult an entire gender because the rules are so mired in bull**** like this, and muddled wannabe pro-gender opinions that have no basis in the real world.
-changing the rules in the middle of the argument.
-using simple definitions and twisting them to your own ends and to elaborate on a point that is not made correctly in the first place.

The fact is that nobody has defined the implicit rules of social interaction enough for anyone to make a compelling argument in this thread. Men will always treat women differently and women will always treat men differently to how they treat their own gender. This is based on human impulse and is older than society or modern gender theory. There is no changing this, it is a human behaviour and one mirrored in the natural world.

If one were to go up and rub a dog on the head, but one wouldnt rub a human on the head in the same way, is that doggist?
This is the essence of what you are saying.
Or is it just some bloke being nice to a dog?

You are taking a dictionary definiton of sexism, oh, to discriminate is to treat a woman differently because she is a woman.
Really?

we see women as different, therefore recognising that women are different and treating them differently is sexist if we modify our behaviour in any way because a woman is in the room.
Do you not see what I am getting at? You are straining to see some way that chivalrous behaviour offends feminine identity.

It doesnt demean women in most situations if someone is polite. There are times when one could say it is over the top, but it is not sexism, and to say "Oh its EVEN MORE sexist, because you dont even realise its sexist" is a ridiculous argument. You think that because you are a woman and you are offended by something it becomes sexist because a man is doing it?

There is no sexism rulebook, and both genders are now floundering around in the dark with no idea of how to interact with each other and what will be seen as PC and what will be seen as sexist. Its bull****, and it just has to stop. Women and men are different. And men are entitled to argue a point that something isnt sexist without "OH GOD! Hes the MOST sexist, because he doesnt even think its sexist" thats a fallacy and its bull****.

Sangre

I agree, women should stay in the kitchen.

dr.bollocko

Sangre wrote:

I agree, women should stay in the kitchen.

*Runs screaming with arms flailing wildly away...in my pants*

Oh wait. Wrong thread.

Sangre

Typical sexist respone. You disgust me.

dr.bollocko

Im a witch! Im a witch!!!! Im a goddamn sexist witch!
Burn me at the stake, quickly, before we have to listen to someone elses opinion, and some how, some way, get something right for once.

Nevyn

Sangre wrote:

I agree, women should stay in the kitchen.

I like the kitchen it is were all the sharp knives are.

Sangre

Thaedydal wrote:

I like the kitchen it is were all the sharp knives are.

Stop cutting yourself you emo freak.

Marksie

monkey tennis wrote:

I don't think that's true. If there's one thing that this thread has shown, it's that men who believe they're being 'chivalrous' very often don't even realize that it's a sexist gesture. I'd be quite surprised if any of the blokes on the pro-chivalry side of this thread are going to stop and think about what they're doing next time they offer their coat to a woman or shoo them away from lifting anything, so it would do as much good to talk to the wall. I'm not on a crusade for equal rights, I don't have time to have this discussion with knuckleheads on a regular basis - I'd die of exhaustion (I'll rarely let it go without a smart comment, if that makes you feel any better).



Wrong. You're making assumptions to conveniently support your own side of this discussion.

I specifically avoided the issue of door-holding as I would normally assume (sorry to disappoint you) that someone holding a door open for me is doing it out of politeness rather than "chivalry" and would do the same for a man as well. But if a man offers me help with a computer monitor and not a struggling boy, it's a pretty clear-cut example of sexism IMO.

Well actually i am not disappointed neither do i need to be made to feel better . Those are two assumptions you have made please refarin from them and i will refrain fom making such assumptions on whether you do or do not have a series of chips on your shoulder.

Ruu_Old

Anymore off topic rubbish and I'm just going to lock this, don't say you haven't been warned. Thanks marksuttonie for bringing it back on topic. Carry on please.

Nevyn

Sangre wrote:

Stop cutting yourself you emo freak.

I am far to old to be an emo.

Oh and they never burned any witches in this country.

We do treat men and women differently, but we need to learn when it is and is not acceptible to do so.
Personally I would hate to live in a world were humans were androgynous.

Dragan

Can I just point out that "The Code of Chivalry" appears to have been misunderstood by many people in the thread. Chivalry was all about the law of the land, respecting the king and living with honour and nobility….it was a rule structure for knights, because at the time there was still a massive sense of honour running through the English army and it had yet to be bent and twisted. The just wanted to be good people, protect there lands and see there people live happy lives.

The Rules of Courtly Love were how knights, who obviously the celebrities of the time, were supposed to treat ladies and love….basically rules to not let the fame get to there heads, no sleeping with everything that moves….would it surprise people to know that part of the ruleset was to "keep yourself chaste for thine true love"?

With the passing of years and the general poetic license of theatre and cinema, "Chivalry" has become twisted into a way to act around ladies, like dropping your coat on a puddle in the old west, or carrying something heavy.

The only thing this could be described as is manners. If I see anyone, male or female who I think needs a little help then I will offer. If they have a problem with that, or are so insecure as to feel that needing help conveys weakness then that issue is their's, not mine.

As for the girls with the "I don't need help carrying stuff argument." I'm a big, strong guy who lifts heavy things for fun, and there have been times when I desperately needed help carrying one thing or another, so if you see me struggling in the street then please offer to lend a hand!!!

I'd rather offer you some help if i thought you needed it and have you think me sexist than leave you in a position to get injured and have you think me uncaring.

Remember, sometimes us guys just offer a girl help because we'd like to think if our mother, or sister, or girlfriend needed a hand that some chap would be nice enough to offer, even at the risk of being branded a sexist.