My chivalry has become metrosexual. I do it for both women and men if needed. It doesn't bother me for some reason.
Gentlemen, Is chivalry dead?
- Thread starter DonMartin
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, I can tell you my female friends consider me a gentleman. I don't think chivalry is so much dead as rather... both condoned by some women, as you say, and also just sent down the tube by males who can't be bothered. I mean, it IS much more easy to be an ass. It IS easier to not care. I feel, however, that all in all, I am a man of chivalry, and it has rewarded me beyond belief with great friends. Also, most women that are not stuck in inferiority complexes will tell you that being a gentleman and chivalrous is the way to go.
I, sir, am a geek gentleman. Forever.
I, sir, am a geek gentleman. Forever.
There's a simple rule to chivalry. When you're doing something that would stereotypically be called "Gentlemanly" ask yourself this: "Would I be doing the same if the person in question was a man?"
If the answer is yes, you're fine.
If the answer is no, you're being sexist.
If the answer is yes, you're fine.
If the answer is no, you're being sexist.
In other words, you're a complete and total sexist.Razada said:
Just to point out. Feminism is NOT about equality (not nowadays). It is often wrongly considered to be but that's actually not true. Feminism while at it's core was supposed to move women to an "even" or "equal" level with men quickly became a form of dominating males and increasing the good being of females.DonMartin said:
I personally stand for equalism. Male or Female, similar laws. Having greater laws than "the other side" is NOT being equal.
Also NAY! Chivalry is not dead!
Etiquette and socially acceptable behaviours are in some places but chivalry is still where it used to be.
You just need to remember that while one of the most memorable, the "Gentlemen" were never a really big group. It used to be a group of intellectuals with proper education in a world filled with people barely being able to read. Their higher educational standards allowed them to get a better social standing (not always) thus exhilarating them to rank of "the elites". Just the way you always learn about the kings in history lessons but barely ever about the poor peasants.
A valid point.tommyopera said:
OT: I've been taught good manners and I do use them. Therefore I consider myself as a gentleman of sort. Even the last two most gentlemanish things I remember doing to different girls, kind of sealed me getting some, on both times.
You're off but I understand what you're saying. Chivalry was more a code guided towards a knight, someone of great power and stature, using both for the benefit of the poor and downtrodden. It wasn't all about women. Chivalry was as much a guide to using your power for good than anything else. A Chivalric Knight was a knight who used his abilities to protect those who could not be protected, to safeguard those who were threatened, and if need be die to save innocents. The respectful treatment of women was just one of the many facets of the chivalric code.archvile93 said:
-To fear God and maintain His Church
-To serve the liege lord in valour and faith
-To protect the weak and defenceless
-To give succour to widows and orphans
-To refrain from the wanton giving of offence
-To live by honour and for glory
-To despise pecuniary reward
-To fight for the welfare of all
-To obey those placed in authority
-To guard the honour of fellow knights
-To eschew unfairness, meanness and deceit
-To keep faith
-At all times to speak the truth
-To persevere to the end in any enterprise begun
-To respect the honour of women
-Never to refuse a challenge from an equal
-Never to turn the back upon a foe
That is a true chivalric code. As you can see, the respectful treatment of women was but one small facet of the code itself. If one wishes to decry Chivalry they must decry all facets. Some are not totally necessary anymore in today's day and age, for the most part the religious facets. However, the code still stands.
I do think there's a tangible difference between doing it to make someone feel special, and doing it simply because of their gender. It might not be easy to codify, but it's definitely there.Kortney said:
Now let's not look too much into every socially acceptable way of respecting someone (like letting females go into a room first etc. etc.). We do know there are some... hmmm... structural differences between usSerenegoose said:I do think there's a tangible difference between doing it to make someone feel special, and doing it simply because of their gender. It might not be easy to codify, but it's definitely there.Kortney said:
. And that's it, being nice to a woman because you are a man does not make you sexist. That is just the way you were raised.CALLING somebody sexist for that on the other hand. Oh hypocrisy arises.
How many knights actually followed that thing? If the history texts I read are accurate, knights were no better than common thugs.Baconmonster723 said:
I hope it's dead, since it's a set of rituals derived from the notion that women are property. If you want to be nice, go for it. But chivalry should remain in those times where women were not allowed to say "no" to you.
