What do you think of Chivalry or guys that are Chivalrous?

[fortasse]

1) This is not politeness, a girl can pull out her own chair. This is deference, almost a servile move (and i dislike the implication of inequality in it.) It could also just be a show "this is my girl." I get that we all want to protect those we love, but, pulling out a chair for a girl seems nonsensical to me.

I was raised by a mom that taught me things about propriety. Yes, I know propriety is old-fashioned and has no place in this Independent 21st century society, but it is how I was raised.

It is proper for a man to pull out a chair for a lady at fancy dinners. He does not do so because of any sort of sense of inequality or because he wishes to show the woman he thinks he is better than her. It is a sign of respect, and he might think it disrespectful if he did not get the chair for her. Personally, I have never even thought to consider such an action as nonsensical or as a sign of inequality. That's completely new to me.

2.) I'd rather not feel indebted to a man though for dinner. You know? I would like to pay my own way so I don't feel indebted to him. Even if he swears up and down that he's just doing it to be chivalrous, it still gives the feeling of indebtedness.

Personally, I think this one is definitely tricky. Moreso that the chair one. While I wouldn't care if someone offered to pay for me (male or female), I can see how it might make some people uncomfortable.

That being said, I was raised to graciously accept gifts. Someone paying for my dinner is a gift to me. I would not want to risk offending a person trying to gift me with a free dinner just because it might make me feel indebted. Granted, I don't feel indebted when people give me gifts. ... well, except during Christmas, but in general I don't feel indebted.

Of course, if I didn't want someone to continually pay for my dinner, I would find a time to tell them before we went out to eat. It seems like that would make for less awkward conversation. Simply tell the person that you intend to pay for yourself, and it would make you uncomfortable if they paid for you. If the person still continues to try and pay for your dinner after you have made it blatantly clear that you don't like it, I would not call that chivalry. I'd call that bull-headedness.

While it can be chivalrous and kind to pay for a dinner, it is not chivalrous and kind to ignore the wishes of the person you are dining with.

3.) I"m sorry, I want to protect the ones I love as much as they want to protect me. I don't understand why it is considered more polite for a man to risk his life, rather than I risking mine.

Because it is traditionally the man's job to protect the woman. If you want to protect the man, I say good on you. There are probably plenty of men out there that would either appreciate that or find it cute. (though I imagine you'd prefer the former over the latter).


Honestly, if someone doesn't like chivalry in a man, I would suggest one find someone else and leave the chivalrous men to old-fashioned women such as myself that do appreciate it. I don't think a man should have to stop being chivalrous because the woman he is with doesn't understand it. But neither do I think a woman should have to deal with chivalry if that is something that tends to annoy her. I imagine it'd make for a difficult relationship.

 

[SophiaGrace]

1) This is not politeness, a girl can pull out her own chair. This is deference, almost a servile move (and i dislike the implication of inequality in it.) It could also just be a show "this is my girl." I get that we all want to protect those we love, but, pulling out a chair for a girl seems nonsensical to me.

I was raised by a mom that taught me things about propriety. Yes, I know propriety is old-fashioned and has no place in this Independent 21st century society, but it is how I was raised.

It is proper for a man to pull out a chair for a lady at fancy dinners. He does not do so because of any sort of sense of inequality or because he wishes to show the woman he thinks he is better than her. It is a sign of respect, and he might think it disrespectful if he did not get the chair for her. Personally, I have never even thought to consider such an action as nonsensical or as a sign of inequality. That's completely new to me.

I think you misunderstand me, I think it's a sign of a MAN being unequal to a woman. Like, waiting on her hand and foot excessively.

I dislike signs of inequality going in both directions you see.

---

3.) I"m sorry, I want to protect the ones I love as much as they want to protect me. I don't understand why it is considered more polite for a man to risk his life, rather than I risking mine.

Because it is traditionally the man's job to protect the woman. If you want to protect the man, I say good on you. There are probably plenty of men out there that would either appreciate that or find it cute. (though I imagine you'd prefer the former over the latter).


Honestly, if someone doesn't like chivalry in a man, I would suggest one find someone else and leave the chivalrous men to old-fashioned women such as myself that do appreciate it. I don't think a man should have to stop being chivalrous because the woman he is with doesn't understand it. But neither do I think a woman should have to deal with chivalry if that is something that tends to annoy her. I imagine it'd make for a difficult relationship.

You said that it is traditionally the man's job to protect the woman and while I agree with this, what is tradition? Where does tradition come from? The past, no? and in the past, didn't women have less rights?

I'm going to address your second paragraph now. I'm not intentionally stirring the pot. I've never actually verbalized how I felt in regards to chivalry, so this thread is just me discovering how I really feel and also, trying to understand why I feel that way and deciding if my preconceptions of chivalry were correct or a bit scewed. Also, I'm trying to figure out how I'd prefer a man to act.

 

[fortasse]

I think you misunderstand me, I think it's a sign of a MAN being unequal to a woman. Like, waiting on her hand and foot excessively.

I dislike signs of inequality going in both directions you see.

Ooooooh. Excuse my confusion.

That's an even newer way of looking at things I never thought to consider. Now that you mention it, I do think men can be taken advantage of when they have a chivalrous tendency. Some women would use that tendency to get a man to do everything for them, and that would certainly be wrong.

But if a man is just treating a woman the way he was raised to treat a woman, I don't think it should be considered as him waiting on her hand and foot.

---

You said that it is traditionally the man's job to protect the woman and while I agree with this, what is tradition? Where does tradition come from? The past, no? and in the past, didn't women have less rights?

Rights had nothing to do with it.

Certainly, it did come from a time when men thought women too weak to protect themselves, but it was also based on the belief that men were supposed to protect women. It was their job to protect women, and so they stood on the outside of the sidewalk to protect women from runaway buggies/wagons/etc. And frankly, with their billowous skirts and organ-crushing corsets, women certainly needed protection back then. They couldn't very well take care of themselves in such attire.

I'm going to address your second paragraph now. I'm not intentionally stirring the pot. I've never actually verbalized how I felt in regards to chivalry, so this thread is just me discovering how I really feel and also, trying to understand why I feel that way and deciding if my preconceptions of chivalry were correct or a bit scewed. Also, I'm trying to figure out how I'd prefer a man to act.

that's fine. I was just speaking in general, saying if a woman doesn't like chivalry she shouldn't try to change a man who is chivalrous. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with chivalry, but I do think some men can be chivalrous for the wrong reasons.

If you find that you like chivalry, that's okay. If you find that you don't like chivalry, that's okay too.

 

[nerdygirl]

I am NOT weak. Thank you very much. I take offense that there are women like you who accept being the little woman who can't open a jar by herself. If you look back at all the **** I had to do in my life, and all the **** I STILL do, you would not think I was weak. It's women like you who set humanity back centuries. Just because you settled for being weak and pointless other than to appear dainty and quaint, doesn't mean the rest of us have to.

Now I'm mad that people actually think like this. Before, I could pass it off as people just trying to live roles, but to think there are people who actually really think this way blows my mind.

Yea, that's pretty much how I took the post, too. Then, I remembered other posts Jales has made and realized that she's coming from the position of somebody who supports the idea that men are supposed to be strong and alpha and whatnot.

I haven't had a man around to open any jars- let alone repair the fence, patch the roof, pressure wash the house, cut the tile, install the kitchen cabinets, knock down a concrete wall, or uninstall the toilet and carry it out of the house (my goodness, it has been a busy month).

Of course, there is also no medical evidence that heavy lifting causes miscarriages. Good grief, think how many miserable children there would be if pregnant moms couldn't pick them up.

I suppose you and I shall just have to be glad that average women can go beyond the limits others propose. Or maybe... we are She-Ra and just don't know it yet! (I kind of like that thought)

 

[SophiaGrace]

Well, admittedly I wouldn't mind if a guy did the repairs around the house, or did the landscaping. I'm not into heavy lifting and whatnot. =P So that I'd be okay with. However, I think learning and being able to do those skills is important for anyone to know.

 

[Limlim]

Ugh you're all reminding me of all the reasons why I don't want to get a house. Screw this I'm buying a condo. (d)

 

[jales]

My comments are this.

1) Humans, animals, rocks.. we are equal. A man doing servant like things does not make him unequal because that would imply that servants are not equal which is simply not true.

2) @nerdygirl.. you simply do not know what you are talking about and this is especially upsetting to me because it has just become personal. I have sister who went through the same thing you say is not medically proven...

I dont really want to talk about it (at least not if no one wants to know) but if anyone want to know more about it I will tell the story.

and also to nerdygirl.. you clearly know nothing about my opinions because i do not believe that men are supposed to be anything else but themselves!

 

[Kenny]

Equality:

Man opens door for woman, and, Woman walks through and makes sandwich for man.

No need to overcomplicate things.

 

[Callie]

Okay, yes there ARE some women who have to restrain from carrying or lifting heavy items when they are at a high risk of an m/c and it is recommended that they don't do that just to be on the safe side, but that does NOT prove that it can NOT be done. You can lift things when you are pregnant. I had to lift many things, including my 6 years old son when he was hurt while I was 8 months pregnant.

 

[fortasse]

Well, admittedly I wouldn't mind if a guy did the repairs around the house, or did the landscaping. I'm not into heavy lifting and whatnot. =P So that I'd be okay with. However, I think learning and being able to do those skills is important for anyone to know.

Agreed. Of course, I don't know how to do any sort of repairs around the house. I'm spoiled in that respect, but I imagine I'll learn quick enough once I move out on my own.

 

[Doubt The Rabbit]

Well, even though this wasn't intended as a battle of the sexes thread, I will say that while men probably have more muscle, women can take a LOT more wear and tear than men, which makes it possible for them to find some means to build their own kind of strength that rivals that of a man's. I have met women who can take down men double their size. My mother is one of them.
I will say that the body make-up of a man allows him to be able to lift things and work things that the average women cannot without some kind of training. THIS, I think, is true.

However, a man is torn down by heavy lifting and such. Very quickly, too. By the time they're in their forties, they start to feel the effects of it. These effects don't wear off, either.

But how many old women have stories about life as a young woman, tending to the farm, taking care of children, taking care of the man's job when he's off to war, and still able to walk around as proudly today as they were back then? Very, very many.

On the subject of childbirth, once again, I think that's a matter of how easily a woman recovers from wear and tear. That, to me, is a remarkable ability.

In all, though, there is nothing stopping a woman from being physically able to do the same tasks we put on males (except impregnation). Not from an "equal rights" point of view, but just from what the body is able to do. The body is able to make up for its shortcomings to get a job done.

From an equal rights standpoint, if we're all for equality, then we should also stop being hypocrites and let chivalry run across the board. I've held doors open for men, helped them with their groceries and boxes, and have treated them to coffee. You know what I get from that? Appreciation.
I'd appreciate any man or woman who does the same for me.
This is what I mean by it doesn't matter who does it - just get the job done. And, truth be told, even if it has to be done yourself, who cares? Women need to stop worrying about having a man - or anyone - come to the rescue. Sometimes you just have to pull up your panties, get it done, and get on with your life. Anyone who comes to help along the way - thank them and move on. I do get a lot of women complaining about what a man does or doesn't do, and to be honest, if you can do it yourself, then quit your bitching and do it.

I, myself, love making repairs, painting rooms, and solving problems. And if I don't know how to do a task a man would typically do, I just learn how to do it. Let equality be truly equal.

But anyway, back to the chivalry discussion

 

[fortasse]

Okay, yes there ARE some women who have to restrain from carrying or lifting heavy items when they are at a high risk of an m/c and it is recommended that they don't do that just to be on the safe side, but that does NOT prove that it can NOT be done. You can lift things when you are pregnant. I had to lift many things, including my 6 years old son when he was hurt while I was 8 months pregnant.

Because it seems you and the others have misread what jales originally said, "lifting heavy objects can cause miscarriages and some studies imply that it affects your fertility even when not pregnant" (emphasis added)

Jales never said lifting heavy objects will cause spontaneous abortion, or that pregnant women cannot lift heavy objects. She simply said that lifting heavy objects can cause miscarriages.

 

[Kenny]

What I will never understand is why women that squawk about equality in strength, why don't they demand they have to sign up for the draft and stay in a co-ed prison if they dodge it?

 

[Doubt The Rabbit]

And, you know what, nerdygirl, Nills, and Callie are simply examples of women who've moved past the age-old "women are weak" stage and into the present day that recognizes the potential that women have. That's wonderful.

However, I don't think Jales meant that women are just inherently weak.

Even if she had - getting too caught up in a person's words isn't a strength. To first understand what the person is saying, decide you disagree, and then move on is.

---

What I will never understand is why women that squawk about equality in strength, why don't they demand they have to sign up for the draft and stay in a co-ed prison if they dodge it?

LOL, I don't believe in getting drafted anyway. And, like I said, unless the woman has some kind of training or self-conditioning, men do generally have the physical power to take advantage of a woman.

Co-ed jail: **** abound.

 

[SophiaGrace]

What I will never understand is why women that squawk about equality in strength, why don't they demand they have to sign up for the draft and stay in a co-ed prison if they dodge it?

I don't think anyone wants to go off and die in war.

and 2, would you really want to risk a bunch of babies in prison?

Let me tell you my perspective, I think I am a nice person, a nice woman, and as such will not engage with a man who might take advantage of me even if this predisposition is caused by his past, because, just because bad stuff happened to you in your past, doesn't make future exploits excusable. While I believe we, meaning you and I share a fear of being in a vulnerable state with the opposite sex regarding relationships, I, will never harm or manipulate a person just because I fear this, because I subscribe to "Love all, trust few, and do harm to no one." I too felt for a long time that taking advantage of others was one-upping the ones who threatened me, but, I realized that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and that, I would just be spreading more pain and fear into the world by becoming like those I feared would hurt me if I didn't become like them.

 

[fortasse]

And, you know what, nerdygirl, Nills, and Callie are simply examples of women who've moved past the age-old "women are weak" stage and into the present day that recognizes the potential that women have. That's wonderful.

By this statement, are you trying to imply Jales and myself think women are weak and think women don't have potential? Because I don't see the point of such a statement otherwise.

 

[Doubt The Rabbit]

And, you know what, nerdygirl, Nills, and Callie are simply examples of women who've moved past the age-old "women are weak" stage and into the present day that recognizes the potential that women have. That's wonderful.

By this statement, are you trying to imply Jales and myself think women are weak and think women don't have potential? Because I don't see the point of such a statement otherwise.

No, no. I wasn't excluding the both of you, I was just addressing them alone, since they were the ones who took offense to what Jales said.

"However, I don't think Jales meant that women are just inherently weak. "

I did say that, because that's what I meant.

 

[Callie]

Okay, yes there ARE some women who have to restrain from carrying or lifting heavy items when they are at a high risk of an m/c and it is recommended that they don't do that just to be on the safe side, but that does NOT prove that it can NOT be done. You can lift things when you are pregnant. I had to lift many things, including my 6 years old son when he was hurt while I was 8 months pregnant.

Because it seems you and the others have misread what jales originally said, "lifting heavy objects can cause miscarriages and some studies imply that it affects your fertility even when not pregnant" (emphasis added)

Jales never said lifting heavy objects will cause spontaneous abortion, or that pregnant women cannot lift heavy objects. She simply said that lifting heavy objects can cause miscarriages.

Lots of things can CAUSE m/c's. An imbalance in the hormones, misplacement of the fertilized egg, age, the lifestyle you live. And sometimes there is absolutely no reason other than the fact that it was just not a viable egg. I know all about pregnancy and m/c's and birth, so I don't need someone telling me what's what.

 

[fortasse]

And, you know what, nerdygirl, Nills, and Callie are simply examples of women who've moved past the age-old "women are weak" stage and into the present day that recognizes the potential that women have. That's wonderful.

By this statement, are you trying to imply Jales and myself think women are weak and think women don't have potential? Because I don't see the point of such a statement otherwise.

No, no. I wasn't excluding the both of you, I was just addressing them alone, since they were the ones who took offense to what Jales said.

"However, I don't think Jales meant that women are just inherently weak. "

I did say that, because that's what I meant.

Mkay. Sorry for misunderstanding you.

---

Okay, yes there ARE some women who have to restrain from carrying or lifting heavy items when they are at a high risk of an m/c and it is recommended that they don't do that just to be on the safe side, but that does NOT prove that it can NOT be done. You can lift things when you are pregnant. I had to lift many things, including my 6 years old son when he was hurt while I was 8 months pregnant.

Because it seems you and the others have misread what jales originally said, "lifting heavy objects can cause miscarriages and some studies imply that it affects your fertility even when not pregnant" (emphasis added)

Jales never said lifting heavy objects will cause spontaneous abortion, or that pregnant women cannot lift heavy objects. She simply said that lifting heavy objects can cause miscarriages.

Lots of things can CAUSE m/c's. An imbalance in the hormones, misplacement of the fertilized egg, age, the lifestyle you live. And sometimes there is absolutely no reason other than the fact that it was just not a viable egg. I know all about pregnancy and m/c's and birth, so I don't need someone telling me what's what.

I'm a bit in a rush, b/c I'm about to leave to go eat out, so excuse my post if it makes no sense.

You seem to be purposefully misunderstanding Jales just so you can take offense. You have just admitted yourself that you know lifting heavy objects can be a cause of miscarriage. As such, it was pointless of you to contradict Jales' statement if you knew it to be true. Also, the point of Jales' post was not to tell you what can cause miscarriage, and I assume you are not *****, so I assume you knew that was not the point of her post. If my assumptions are correct, then the next logical step in this sequence would have been for you to figure out why Jales mentioned the fact that heavy lifting can cause miscarriages. The point was to show that women are inherently weaker than men.

The point was not to say pregnant women should not lift heavy objects.
The point was not to say women are weak and helpless creatures.
The point was not to cause offense.

The fact that you seem to be misunderstanding her point in order to bear some sort of offense that was never intended and never even present in her post makes one wonder if perhaps you simply have a vendetta against women who might have old-fashioned ideals about feminine strength(or lack thereof).

 

[VanillaCreme]

Now I'm mad that people actually think like this. Before, I could pass it off as people just trying to live roles, but to think there are people who actually really think this way blows my mind.

And I'm mad that some women don't seem to have the mental wherewithal to be able to separate statements such as "The average male is stronger than the average female" from statements such as "women are weak, weak, weak."

It would seem the reason some males think women are not capable of the same intellectual standards as themselves is because of reactions such as your own to a rather benign, and completely true, statement from jales. I have a male friend that thinks women should not be president because they are too emotional. Your response does nothing more than give credence to his belief.

She flat-out said that women were weak. How is that me not having the mental wherewithal? So at least read, before you want to try and slam me for having an opinion. And I know guys who are way more emotional on a daily basis than I've ever been in my life, so that isn't a good enough reason.