chivalry - yes or no?

Nevyn

metrovelvet wrote: »

Surely if someone cared there would be a campaign aimed at 12 year old girls telling them to respect themselves and they dont have to give blowjobs in the boys lockerroom.

Yeah, everyone likes to blame porn for this. Frankly I think rap has a lot more to do with the saturation of misogyny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prhF6LE89z4

Rap culture is not a prevalent over here as it is in the usa.

Nevyn

Nerin wrote: »

I thought this thread was about chivalry?

And now it's mentioning some the opposites of chivalry and the lack of chivalrous role models and how it effects people growing up.

If a young man doesn't see his father acting that way towards his mother then he won't act that way, if a young girl doesn't see her father acting that way towards her mother and her mother being able to be gracious about it then she will be awkward and not understand that type of behaviour.

The same applies to disrespect and abuse of all sorts in the home, some people are raised with it as the norm.

Once I reached a certain age my Dad started treating me as young lady rather then a child, his reasoning was so that I would get used to being around a gentleman and there fore would know what behaviour was not acceptable from men and how to behave graciously to such behaviour rather then being awkward and ill mannered in return.

Star Lord

Mordeth wrote: »

surely it is ok to hit girls, doesn't feminism demand that women be treated as equals? If you would hit a man for something, to refuse to hit a woman for the same thing would be pretty damn sexist, about as sexist as refusing her the right to vote, or to earn a wage. You're either equal, or you're not. Choose please, this **** is getting very confusing.

Personally, I find this to be one of the most worrying things I have read on Boards in my couple of years here.

metrovelvet

Yes Thaed, that is true, but he also wont act that way if he has a domineering wretch of a mother. He'll lash out at all the other women in his life for it.

I saw as many women being disrespectful to other women as I have seen men.

As much as young boys need to be taught to respect women, young girls need to be taught to respect themselves and each other.

Nerin

Thaedydal wrote: »

And now it's mentioning some the opposites of chivalry and the lack of chivalrous role models and how it effects people growing up.

If a young man doesn't see his father acting that way towards his mother then he won't act that way, if a young girl doesn't see her father acting that way towards her mother and her mother being able to be gracious about it then she will be awkward and not understand that type of behaviour.

The same applies to disrespect and abuse of all sorts in the home, some people are raised with it as the norm.

Once I reached a certain age my Dad started treating me as young lady rather then a child, his reasoning was so that I would get used to being around a gentleman and there fore would know what behaviour was not acceptable from men and how to behave graciously to such behaviour rather then being awkward and ill mannered in return.

i dont want to get sucked into a serious discussion, but thats not true.
case study example- me.
and i presume i dont have to state that theres plenty of men that have experienced first hand this kind of thing, and its shaped them into better people.

The sins of the father arent the sins of the son.

Nevyn

Nerin wrote: »

i dont want to get sucked into a serious discussion, but thats not true.
case study example- me.
and i presume i dont have to state that theres plenty of men that have experienced first hand this kind of thing, and its shaped them into better people.

The sins of the father aren't the sins of the son.

Having other and better role models help where there is/has been that level of dysfunction and you are right we we grow up we choose what type of adults we want to be, but we have to know and be shown there there is a choice whether a person makes the changes after that it up to them and if you have then you are to be applauded but for some people tat type of 'programing' only kicks in when they find themselves in the dynamic of living with someone and all the stresses and strains that brings.

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote: »

And now it's mentioning some the opposites of chivalry and the lack of chivalrous role models and how it effects people growing up.

If a young man doesn't see his father acting that way towards his mother then he won't act that way, if a young girl doesn't see her father acting that way towards her mother and her mother being able to be gracious about it then she will be awkward and not understand that type of behaviour.

The same applies to disrespect and abuse of all sorts in the home, some people are raised with it as the norm.

Once I reached a certain age my Dad started treating me as young lady rather then a child, his reasoning was so that I would get used to being around a gentleman and there fore would know what behaviour was not acceptable from men and how to behave graciously to such behaviour rather then being awkward and ill mannered in return.

Im sorry Thaed but in so many families the girls have second status and that second status is assigned by the mother who more often than not in Irish familes are in love with [a friend of mine disputes this and thinks Irish mammies actually hate their sons by treating them as incompetant] their sons, so both the males and the females learn to disrespect women and learn this not from their fathers but from their mothers.

Nevyn

metrovelvet wrote: »

Im sorry Thaed but in so many families the girls have second status and that second status is assigned by the mother who more often than not in Irish familes are in love with [a friend of mine disputes this and thinks Irish mammies actually hate their sons by treating them as incompetant] their sons, so both the males and the females learn to disrespect women and learn this not from their fathers but from their mothers.

I have seen that, my granny was that way, thankfully my Nana wasn't and
even as my mam had her brothers put before her she never did that to any of us.
So again it's up to people to choose to make things different.

Dublin_Andy

metrovelvet wrote: »

You think it's the same?

Somehow... I don't. One is based on equality and the other is rooted in something else. People confusing respect with seduction?

Why do we need a campaign for this? Does anyone else find this disturbing?

i dont think letting a woman out a door first is a kind of seduction...its respect, politeness and common courtesy...

metrovelvet

What do you mean by "letting"?

Nuravictus

metrovelvet wrote: »

What do you mean by "letting"?

Holding the door open for her to walk past first.

Practical Chivalry

When women are present, so should there be gentlemen, especially in this age.
A gentleman always defend the honour of a lady. (i.e. if an unhonourably man disrespects a lady it is the responsibility of a gentleman to restore her honour)
A gentleman always respect a lady. (i.e. he should only speak honourably of her)
A gentleman always take a route that is most suitable for the lady. (i.e. a cab ride instead of walking 2 miles in the rain)
When walking down a foot path with a lady a gentleman will walk on the side closest to the road but when there is no road the lady is always on the right arm of her gentleman.
When entering or exiting a room a gentleman will hold open the door for the lady and allow her to pass first unless the gentleman is concerned for her safety.
A gentleman should be accustomed to standing for a lady when she does. (i.e. if a lady stands at a table for instance so should a gentleman)
A gentleman orders for his lady at a restaurant.
A gentleman is responsible for the comfort of the lady. (i.e. he will give up his coat to keep her warm)
A lady will always feel special in the company of a gentleman.
The correct answer to a lady from a gentleman is always a compliment.
A gentleman will not only respect a lady but also the family of that lady. (i.e. he will ask her father for her hand in marriage)
A lady should never have to open her own door or pour her own glass of wine while in the presence of a man.
A gentleman thinks with his head and his heart and never testicularly. (i.e. a gentleman's relationship with a lady is more then sexual)

Courtly Love

Marriage is no real excuse for not loving.
He who is not jealous cannot love.
No one can be bound by a double love.
It is well known that love is always increasing or decreasing.
That which a lover takes against the will of his beloved has no relish.
Boys do not love until they reach the age of maturity.
When one lover dies, a widowhood of two years is required of the survivor.
No one should be deprived of love without the very best of reasons.
No one can love unless he is propelled by the persuasion of love.
Love is always a stranger in the home of avarice.
It is not proper to love any woman whom one would be ashamed to seek to marry.
A true lover does not desire to embrace in love anyone except his beloved.
When made public love rarely endures.
The easy attainment of love makes it of little value: difficulty of attainment makes it prized.
Every lover regularly turns pale in the presence of his beloved.
When a lover suddenly catches sight of his beloved his heart palpitates.
A new love puts an old one to flight.
Good character alone makes any man worthy of love.
If love diminishes, it quickly fails and rarely revives.
A man in love is always apprehensive.
Real jealousy always increases the feeling of love.
Jealousy increases when one suspects his beloved.
He whom the thought of love vexes eats and sleeps very little.
Every act of a lover ends in the thought of his beloved.
A true lover considers nothing good except what he thinks will please his beloved.
Love can deny nothing to love.
A lover can never have enough of the solaces of his beloved.
A slight presumption causes a lover to suspect his beloved.
A man who is vexed by too much passion usually does not love.
A true lover is constantly and without intermission possessed by the thought of his beloved.
Nothing forbids one woman being loved by two men or one man by two women.

Source: http://www.gregology.net/gregsguidetochivalry/

metrovelvet

yeah, I dont think its seduction [chivalry] either. It is manners.

People are wrongly equating the two.

Nerin

metrovelvet wrote: »

What do you mean by "letting"?

Are you just looking for a fight?

Zaph

Nerin wrote: »

Are you just looking for a fight?

I might be wrong here, but I think metrovelvet is in the States, and it's possible that Dublin_Andy's use of "letting", while familiar to us, isn't common use in the States. Of course I could be way off the mark too.

Nevyn

Chivarly doesn't equal seduction.

Hate the ideas behind seduction anyway that is it a secret ploy and a dishonest way to get a relucantly lady to grant her 'favours'. Being seduced can be wonderful but at least be honest about the premise and what is going on, nothing worse then someone being all seduction and no action at the end of it.

Chivalry is looking out for people it is beyond good manners, tis is being concerned for thier well being and showing it in your deeds. The most chivalrous behaviour I have ever experienced was from two gentlemen who never dreamed of getting into my knickers and no other gain to get from being that way towards me other then their own satisfaction of comporting themselves as chivalrous gentlemen.

LightningBolt

Zaph wrote: »

I might be wrong here, but I think metrovelvet is in the States, and it's possible that Dublin_Andy's use of "letting", while familiar to us, isn't common use in the States. Of course I could be way off the mark too.

Fecking culture differences...

metrovelvet

Zaph wrote: »

I might be wrong here, but I think metrovelvet is in the States, and it's possible that Dublin_Andy's use of "letting", while familiar to us, isn't common use in the States. Of course I could be way off the mark too.

Yes I am in the US but back and forth quite a bit. It was just a gentle reminder of how that could be read.

I personally don't have a problem with ANYONE holding the door open for me as most of the time my arms are full and I am most appreciative of it, but some would be sensitive to this language, as it implies you are giving someone permission to go ahead of you, which is kind of questionable.

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote: »

Chivarly doesn't equal seduction.

Hate the ideas behind seduction anyway that is it a secret ploy and a dishonest way to get a relucantly lady to grant her 'favours'. Being seduced can be wonderful but at least be honest about the premise and what is going on, nothing worse then someone being all seduction and no action at the end of it.

Chivalry is looking out for people it is beyond good manners, tis is being concerned for thier well being and showing it in your deeds. The most chivalrous behaviour I have ever experienced was from two gentlemen who never dreamed of getting into my knickers and no other gain to get from being that way towards me other then their own satisfaction of comporting themselves as chivalrous gentlemen.

Thaed - that is not chivalry, that is being kind and a good friend. You are only calling it chivalry because it is MEN who behaved that way. If a woman behaved that way, youd just call it being nice.

I would agree with you about seduction though, it is convincing someone they want to do something they really dont want to do and it is dishonest although I did find it intriguing when Boudriard [sp? - long time since I have been in college] had suggested that feminists, instread of arguing and being contentious instread try seduction, as it may have been a better tactic.

Nevyn

metrovelvet wrote: »

Thaed - that is not chivalry, that is being kind and a good friend. You are only calling it chivalry because it is MEN who behaved that way. If a woman behaved that way, youd just call it being nice.

Really by your rationale then women can't be chivalrous ?

Nuravictus

Thaedydal wrote: »

Really by your rationale then women can't be chivalrous ?

The qualities idealized by knighthood, such as bravery, courtesy, honor, and gallantry toward women

:rolleyes:

Dragan

Thaedydal wrote: »

Really by your rationale then women can't be chivalrous ?

Not in the vast majority, if not all, of the places where chivalry was an established concept.

shellyboo

Thaedydal wrote: »

Really by your rationale then women can't be chivalrous ?

Ooh, you just reminded me of a great blog post on this topic... I shall try to root it out.

Found them! The blog is by a butch lesbian, who writes on sex and queer theory, feminism and gender roles. She's got a few posts on the topic. Site doesn't have any pics, but it IS a sex blog, so NSFW for some.

On Chivalry: http://www.sugarbutch.net/2008/03/march-masthead-bringing-butch-back/

Chivalry is deeply feminist to me ... Femininity is not made for comfort or movement, it is made to accentuate the sexualization of a woman’s body - and that’s why things like holding her doors open (so she doesn’t dirty her white gloves or expensive manicure), pulling her chair out (so she doesn’t have to awkwardly move a bulky piece of furniture, and risk getting it caught on her skirt or stockings and ripping something) or holding her coat (so she doesn’t have to reach around and risk ripping the tight seams in her shoulders or upper back) are necessary to me, as an acknowledgement of how restrictive femininity can be, and of how difficult it is to walk around the world in these clothes, as a celebration of the beauty of femininity on the body, and with deep respect for the courage to costume and perform femme to begin with.

On Romance vs Chivalry: http://www.sugarbutch.net/2008/08/romance-vs-chivalry/

I do think some things are not so chivalrous and are exclusively romantic - candlelight dinner, gazing into each other’s eyes, promises of love + affection - but pretty much all the chivalrous actions seem to fall under a romantic umbrella. Like a sub-set of romance. But see, sometimes chivalry is purely kind and thoughtful, with no romance whatsoever. When I hold the door open for a stranger, or for my mom or sister or a straight girl friend, I do it with no romantic intent.

On receiving Chivalry: http://www.sugarbutch.net/2008/09/define-need-a-word-for/

Some women don’t much care for chivalry, and some do; those who do have a different kind of interaction with it, an appreciation and understanding that definitely alters the dynamic of the exchange. It’s actually kind of complicated to allow someone to pull out your chair, take your coat or help it on, to take their hand or arm or elbow. Those are skills, too: how to receive chivalry.

So... I suppose it sort of reinforces the idea that chivalry is a gendered concept - although the writer here is female, she identifies as butch and so assumes the stereotypical 'male' role when dating - and she only dates femmes. So while it's not your traditional male > female chivalry, some of the same aspects exist.

Nerin

Should a modern version of chivalry not be opened up. While i get people are saying women can't be called chivalrous because women weren't knights,we've got equality now,and wimminz can be soldiers,so present day chivalrous acts aren't limited to menfolk.

Dragan

Nerin wrote: »

Should a modern version of chivalry not be opened up. While i get people are saying women can't be called chivalrous because women weren't knights,we've got equality now,and wimminz can be soldiers,so present day chivalrous acts aren't limited to menfolk.

For me, no.

And I am sure that caused a collective intake of breath from people who see me as open minded and all that jazz.

Look, I am all about equality, I truly am. If someone stands in front of me and says "I want you to treat me like everyone else" then I am going to do that. I will hold you to the same values, I will show you the same respect and I will treat you exactly the same way as I would anyone else.

However, I honestly think that keeping some differences between the sexes and not glossing over everything in history that might not be all that equal is important. Chivalry, as an actual concept and as a way of living is, by and large dead. Sure, I and others have POSSIBLY some chivalristic traits but I lack the horse, the armour, the Feudal Lands and a Lord to Serve in order to call myself a knight.

Why hinge on changing the past when we can change the present and ensure that change follows through into the future? Leave chivalry to men like me who like to think in some tiny way our small acts of help and kindness to others mean something, that we are maybe standing up and trying to show people that it's actually alright to just be nice and treat people well once you are willing to draw the line on bad behaviour. That despite the threads after threads after threads that occur on this site and others that knock men, that mock men there are blokes out there who will not allow either the actions of our fellow males or the constant scorn of certain females to make us doubt that there are values that can be passed on in simple actions that might still show that us blokes……we ain't all bad.:)

Star Lord

Very very well put Dragan.

Puddleduck

Gotta say, I know someone who Id call chivalrous. He opens doors, offers to help me carrying things, lets me go first out doorways or whatever and it really does make you think better of the person. I think its nice that there is still men out there that havent let the hard nosed b!tches that take these things for granted get to them

Nerin

DamoElDiablo wrote: »

Very very well put Dragan.

I agree,its a decent and well presented response. Yore still in dragan

Snowie

Nerin wrote: »

Should a modern version of chivalry not be opened up. While i get people are saying women can't be called chivalrous because women weren't knights,we've got equality now,and wimminz can be soldiers,so present day chivalrous acts aren't limited to menfolk.

fare point show me a woman whos like that please ...

i do it a lot its cool i think it allso shows that your confident, i allways let ladys go first onto bus's etc when queing...

metrovelvet

Puddleduck wrote: »

Gotta say, I know someone who Id call chivalrous. He opens doors, offers to help me carrying things, lets me go first out doorways or whatever and it really does make you think better of the person. I think its nice that there is still men out there that havent let the hard nosed b!tches that take these things for granted get to them

My mother does that too for me. I wouldnt call her chivalrous. And I woud do that for anyone I was with who was burdened with luggage. I would think any other way is just mean. I have a friend who grew up in Berkely with a very feminist mother, who wont help any woman with their luggage because he thinks it's disrespectful to do so, as it implies she is unable to do this herself, after all there is nothing in this world a man can do that a woman can't.

I also stand up for people weaker than me, mostly children who I see getting pushed around in the playground. Why do I do this? Because they cannot stand up for themselves. Does this make me chivalrous? God I hope not.

To label behavior chivalrous is to attach to it, romantic undertones. Without the romantic undertones, it is basically, consideration for people weaker or more burdened than you are.

Furthermore, a lot of the detail being put forth here, like letting women go before you through a door, or pulling a chair out, or walking behind her while she ascends a stair, also has it's motives in watching her from behind. Its as much about surveillance as it is about kindness.

Don't get me wrong, I am by no means anti-chivalry, but lets not pretend it isnt rooted [rooted does not mean it equals btw Thaed] in seduction and gender.

What we see nowadays is chivalry "light", small tokens which gesture towards something more archetypely about the chase, pursuit, hunt and capture.

Puddleduck

metrovelvet wrote: »

My mother does that too for me. I wouldnt call her chivalrous. And I woud do that for anyone I was with who was burdened with luggage. I would think any other way is just mean. I have a friend who grew up in Berkely with a very feminist mother, who wont help any woman with their luggage because he thinks it's disrespectful to do so, as it implies she is unable to do this herself, after all there is nothing in this world a man can do that a woman can't.

Yes, I open doors for people too, that is just manners, letting someone walk ahead of you, Is chivalrous imo. And I dont mean bags as in a whole heap of stuff, I mean a bag with a cd in it or something.

There are basic manners, but then there is chivalry too