And those who still practice it have at least a chance of being appreciated by those upon whom they do so, and so have a leg up in relationships.Imat said:Many say that chivalry is, itself, sexist, a statement which I, myself, reject outright.omicron1 said:I think this falls not under sexism, but chivalry. Racism/sexism/otherism tends to be applied to negative attitudes towards those deemed inferior, while positive attitudes/actions don't fall under the same label. If you're not hitting a girl because "it wouldn't be worth it" or similar, that might be sexism, but if you're not hitting a girl because you're trying to be nice - even if you're just trying to be nice to her because of her gender - it's not really sexist at all.
Chivalry in the Middle Ages may have been sexist as many claim, I really can't put myself in the mindset of an 1100's knight with nothing better to do than chase after women using the power of charm and subservience (to an extent), but I can say that I try to be what I believe to be "chivalrous" towards women, and not all of them appreciate it. Chivalry isn't about "protecting the weaker sex" or "helping women do things they couldn't possibly do on their own, because they're women," the objective is to help for the sake of being a gentleman, to do something which may not be in any way directly beneficial to yourself because you want to be a nice guy or a good person. Chivalry is not sexist, nor is it dead. There are simply noticeably fewer practitioners of this worthy art.