TL;DR: [HEADING=1]Chivalry: DO WE NEED IT?![/HEADING]
There seems to be a recurring theme around these parts and the internet as a whole regarding chivalry in which some love-lorn guy will say, with a heavy sigh and a shake of the head, "why do women not love me? I hold doors open for them, listen to them whine about their boyfriends and always remain polite in front of them!"
However, rather than deal with chivalry as a meta-concept within the many romance threads that are endemic of the Off-Topic Discussion forum, I thought that it might be better to debate chivalry itself right here. So throw in your arguments and let's try and work this one out, is chivalry good or bad?
Here's my view: Chivalry is an outdated concept from a pre-equality society. It is often tempting to romanticise the past and gloss over the realities, but it must be faced that Chivalry was not a lifestyle choice, but an essential part of male courtship. In the times from which the concept hails, women were not capable of doing anything for themselves so chivalry wasn't simply a way of 'being nice to women', it was a way of showing women all the things that their suitor could offer them and, of course, holding open a door etc was hardly forbidden for women, but all the small acts of 'kindness' were symbolic of the easier lifestyle that would accompany the woman accepting her suitor's wooing.
Secondly, chivalry is sexist. One should not be especially nice to any particular gender or race, but should instead make being nice a general rule in dealing with all people (unless, of course, their behaviour should warrant another reaction). If you wish to show preference of politeness to one particular gender you must show what it is about yourself, or about that gender, that warrants this behaviour. I firmly believe that any person who is preferentially polite to one particular gender is making an underlying assumption that said gender is not equal to his/her own (said gender is either superior, thus their superiority warrants additional respect, or inferior, hence their inferiority affords them less rights (the right to honesty, to mutual respect etc)). Please, chivalry advocates, show how chivalry avoids the superiority/inferiority predication.
Lastly, please explain the purpose of chivalry. It is oft claimed by chivalrous men who've lost out to 'those arseholes' that 'all women love' that they're not being chivalrous to get into women's pants. So why are you being chivalrous? As it is, chivalry seems like little more than mere flattery with exactly that intention.
Here I should point out that replies along the lines of "because it's the right thing to do" are not arguments, they're axiomatic postulations leading to ultimately circular logic (it's right because it's right because it's right). Have a think about why you do or don't think chivalry is positive. Oh, and just to clear up any misconceptions, I'm Male, 20, and in favour of treating all people as they deserve to be treated.
There seems to be a recurring theme around these parts and the internet as a whole regarding chivalry in which some love-lorn guy will say, with a heavy sigh and a shake of the head, "why do women not love me? I hold doors open for them, listen to them whine about their boyfriends and always remain polite in front of them!"
However, rather than deal with chivalry as a meta-concept within the many romance threads that are endemic of the Off-Topic Discussion forum, I thought that it might be better to debate chivalry itself right here. So throw in your arguments and let's try and work this one out, is chivalry good or bad?
Here's my view: Chivalry is an outdated concept from a pre-equality society. It is often tempting to romanticise the past and gloss over the realities, but it must be faced that Chivalry was not a lifestyle choice, but an essential part of male courtship. In the times from which the concept hails, women were not capable of doing anything for themselves so chivalry wasn't simply a way of 'being nice to women', it was a way of showing women all the things that their suitor could offer them and, of course, holding open a door etc was hardly forbidden for women, but all the small acts of 'kindness' were symbolic of the easier lifestyle that would accompany the woman accepting her suitor's wooing.
Secondly, chivalry is sexist. One should not be especially nice to any particular gender or race, but should instead make being nice a general rule in dealing with all people (unless, of course, their behaviour should warrant another reaction). If you wish to show preference of politeness to one particular gender you must show what it is about yourself, or about that gender, that warrants this behaviour. I firmly believe that any person who is preferentially polite to one particular gender is making an underlying assumption that said gender is not equal to his/her own (said gender is either superior, thus their superiority warrants additional respect, or inferior, hence their inferiority affords them less rights (the right to honesty, to mutual respect etc)). Please, chivalry advocates, show how chivalry avoids the superiority/inferiority predication.
Lastly, please explain the purpose of chivalry. It is oft claimed by chivalrous men who've lost out to 'those arseholes' that 'all women love' that they're not being chivalrous to get into women's pants. So why are you being chivalrous? As it is, chivalry seems like little more than mere flattery with exactly that intention.
Here I should point out that replies along the lines of "because it's the right thing to do" are not arguments, they're axiomatic postulations leading to ultimately circular logic (it's right because it's right because it's right). Have a think about why you do or don't think chivalry is positive. Oh, and just to clear up any misconceptions, I'm Male, 20, and in favour of treating all people as they deserve to be treated.
