...Chivalry is Not Dead, It Just Needs a Resurrection...

[Syrobe]

So...What do you think: Is Chivalry is Not Dead and does it Just Needs a Resurrection like the collumnists say? (this is a debate, so you should give arguments pro pr contra...

I'll give an argument pro.

Personally I do not think that Chivalry is dead. I think of it as quite normal when a men opens the door of a restaurant and enters before I do when it is the first time we enter that place, and I also think of it as quite normal when he enters it after me during our second visit. And guess what: most men I know do that sort of things.

But that was not the case all the time: it also depends on the environment, so reviving it could be needed because rudesness on the other hand, is something a notice too.

(So perhaps you should not curse society for being casual but keep doing what you like, because reviving it may be needed. Some girl will smile at you when you reach out your hand while going down the stairs because she likes you being courteous.)
_________________
- power is gained through wisdom -

[DarkDragon]

I think chivalry isn't quite dead, but it certainly needs a resurrection, though in our equal-sex world, it will undoubtedly end up being a bit different from what it once was. Certainly, the opening of doors and carrying of bundles are things I do see, though we could have that a bit more often... Of course, I'm a knight of the old school, so my views may be a bit skewed...

I know that some women may think negatively of some parts of chivalry, as if we are treating them as fragile flowers that must be protected or, heaven forbid, the gentleman is some kind of "Lady's man". On the flip side of this, I know that there are those who would take advantage of chivalry and turn it into pampering, but that isn't the point here.

So before I begin to ramble and fill several paragraphs with boring observation, I'll simple conclude that yes, chivalry could use a resurrection, or at least some CPR.
_________________
May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows you're dead.
-An Irish toast

[kimodragon]

As long as there are those that remember the ways of our fathers and practice them daily, chivalry will not die. (Plus french men won't let it die.)

I find that todays western bravado male needs to find a reason to do what they do. Or they just won't do it.

But, I also find that young ladies of western society are lacking humility and grace in their upbringing.

I practice good behaviors because my grandfather raised my father in this way and my father passed it on to me. And made sure that we knew how to show proper respect to everyone that we meet.

The women in my family on both my mothers side and my fathers side, also taught all of the young men in my family how a gentleman must act. And the young ladies in the family in turn were taught to wear grace like a robe where ever they went.

Respect is freely given
When first graciously shown



Thanks for listening
_________________
From you I receive to you I give
Together we share
For this we live

[SkieFireYokana]

Hey, look. A debate I haven't posted on yet. Well, time to roll up the sleeves and get to it... rather difficult in my case since I'm shirtless today. I DIGRESS.

I do not think chivalry is dead, IF we are assuming it is no longer gender specific but simply a matter of respect for other human beings. I hold doors open for other people, regardless of gender--maybe a little more often if they're attractive young men but who can blame me for that--and I try to be courteous to people unless they've been jerks to me. Or I'm in a bad mood. I nod for thank you, for hello, and for you're welcome. I try to stay out of the way when things are happening. And I do this in a gender-neutral way. Doors are designed to be easy enough for everyone to operate them, women included. I see no reason for me to open doors for them and not for men. It's just as polite if I do it for guys. And I do. In that understanding of the word, I don't think chivalry is dead.

But I think that if you don't believe gender-neutral respect to be chivalry, then it does not need a revival. What are the fundamental differences between a male and a female human? Well, let's see. They have a larger chest (generally speaking, flat-chested females and males with gynecomastia do exist), they have less upper body strength relative to men and more lower body strength relative to men, they have differently shaped faces, their culturally accepted hairstyles are different, they have "times of the month" and all accompanying annoyances, they can give birth to babies (hopefully live babies, but not always), and they are (again, generally speaking, subversions exist on both sides of this one) more emotional than men. These are the bare biological differences as unaffected by culture. Except the hairstyle one. There are more that don't really matter. So why give them any extra privileges? I see no reasons there why we should treat them daintily. I know a couple female Marines that can do easily twice as much work as I can, and I'm not ashamed to admit that because why should I be? They're just PEOPLE. Come on. It's no worse than saying there are guys that are stronger than me. We aren't so different. Women can do almost anything a man can do. I see no reason to be particularly polite to them other than simple custom, and if you know me you know where I'm going to tell you to shove your tradition.

The only reason to treat women better than men in most circumstances specified by chivalry (I'm sure there are particular cases that disagree with this, but generally speaking it's true) is tradition. We've carried it over from our medieval years and it needs to get thrown out. It's outdated. It's old. It's rusty and weak and broken. Recall another custom from the time that we still practice: circumcision, of which I am a victim. So let's say you have a kid. And you coddle it and love it and whatnot for a while after it's born. Tradition says six days, but lots of people go months for this bit. Or years. So you coddle it for a while and then what? You take it to a doctor so he can cut off part of your child? Why do people do this? Tradition. It's barbaric, and once people stop doing it they'll be able to look back on it the way we do at things like witch burnings.

Chivalry is carried over from the same sort of Bronze Age hunter-gatherer tradition. It's outmoded in today's day and age, and while I think respect for other people is a must, it shouldn't be gender specific. We, as a species, have advanced beyond this sort of gender binary in most other areas of our social life. We have female doctors, female soldiers (and Marines, and sea(wo)men, and air(wo)men), female heads of state. The "fairer sex" (and let's face it, I've seen some pretty fair-looking boys too) doesn't need chivalry, it can get by on its own. Let's just respect other humans, regardless of gender, and maybe then I'll have one less reason to hate on mankind.
_________________
Happy Fourth of July everybody! The funniest thing about this signature is that I wrote it on the fourth of July, 2010, and it's probably going to be here for several months.

[Shiari]

I would like to counter the idea that women are more emotional than men. That is entirely untrue. We just weren't brought up with the cultural conception that repressing our emotions is a good thing. Women cry, Men are tough is the way society still brings up its children. My brother and father are no more or less emotional than my mother or myself. Many of my uncles are the same, because they were brought up that showing emotions is okay. They are physically demonstrative with each other, silly, and not afraid to cry.

The only *slight* way women could be considered biologically "more emotional" is in the fact that females tend to have a heightened perception of pain, which makes sense evolutionarily because you need many females, but only one male to propagate the species.

[SkieFireYokana]

It's not how I was brought up. It's just how I am, and it's how my father is. Every indication is to me is that, rather than being a cultural thing, this is a biological tendency enhanced and reflected by culture. From what you've said, it sounds more like a case of two things: one, I would presume that genetically speaking they have "emotional" stock in them to begin with, so to speak. And two, it also appears that they are emotional with family, natural for anyone.

Also, how does a heightened perception of pain in females make sense for the reason you described? It sounds to me like something you'd say is a cultural thing, based on what you just argued, though I'd disagree and say that it's a matter of evolutionarily not needing to experience as much pain as the males, who were the ones hunting, making weapons, and building homes for the most part. Women were gathering berries and other plants, which would facilitate a more finely tuned system of pain, as they were less likely to get severely injured but more likely to step on a thorn or brush their hand against a sharp twig or get bitten by a spider. This traditional role in humans' evolutionary history would also point towards women having better memory and dexterity, two things which (I'm fairly certain, anyway) we know are true. And it would suggest that they were the ones with a more advanced system of disgust and fear for smaller things like insects. Insects and mice spread disease; "disgusting" things such as rotting fruit were unfit to eat, therefore the gatherers of vegetable food had to be more in tune with these emotions. Men, being hunters, would have a greater tendency towards anger and the "thrill of the hunt," the adrenaline rush that happens when something exciting is happening around you. Hence, perhaps, "chick flicks" containing significantly fewer explosions than action movies, and nothing to really "cheer" about, as you may see particularly "emotional" (in some sense of the word) men doing for their football games or whatever happens to be on TV at the time. Emotions such as romance and tendency towards being more easily upset (in the sad sense) are also evolutionarily selected for the female, as males began to select for younger and younger looking mates. The former, romanticism, is similar to the clinginess and comfort of a child with a parent. The latter evokes an impression of helplessness, another sign of a young mate.

Essentially, what has happened over the course of these past few millions of years (or even perhaps a couple tens of thousands) is women have become more emotional in the classic feminine way, more easily "grossed out", more commonly afraid of mice, spiders, et cetera, more sensitive to pain, more romantic, and more of a tendency towards sadness. Men have become more or less adrenaline junkies, but in a different sense than typically thought of. Not all men jump off mountains; most get their fix from the TV these days.
_________________
Happy Fourth of July everybody! The funniest thing about this signature is that I wrote it on the fourth of July, 2010, and it's probably going to be here for several months.

[kimodragon]

Chivalry is offered in order to provide a sense of safety and well being to those around you. So that they may precieve you as a gentle man or a gentle woman. It is given as an offer of comminality. It is an offer to be of assistance. It is meant to be an act of kindness!

Common courtesies are taught. You are not born to show beneviolence. Chivalry is not biological, it is not genetic. Like I stated previous, western society seems to need to know why something is to be done before it is enacted.

To make someone feel at ease in your presence is not the worst thing that you can do to someone. And it may lead to an outbreak of smiles and good feelings. Or it may even lead to an offer of friendship. I have most recently found that it might also be contagious!

It is a good, good thing in my life to feel the warmth of the smile of a stranger. To know that someone does not view me as a threat to their well being.

To be precieved as a gentle man actually makes me smile and chuckle!


Thanks for listening
_________________
From you I receive to you I give
Together we share
For this we live

[Shiari]

The reason why it might be "more important" for females to feel pain is because, frankly, we're more important to the species. There is also a genetic tendency for females to be more cautious than males. Without many females, a species is in serious trouble. With only a couple males, the species can still do fine.