Is Chivalry Dead ?

ferdi wrote:

nothing to do with sweetness dear, he was trying to get in yer pants.

clearly a true romantic!!:rolleyes:

Agree totally with L4L

Donegal Lass wrote:

clearly a true romantic!!:rolleyes:

sorry but its the truth.
wimmin seem to like extremes (warning: wild generalisation imminent) on the one hand you have the Chivalrous Gent who holds doors, pulls out chairs, pays for dinner, flowers etc etc...and on the other hand you have the fun and irreverent Bad Boy who treats you like sh1t and will forget you in a heartbeat....both seem to hold about an equal amount of appeal to women.

monkey tennis wrote:

This is an example of sexism. One of the worst kinds, in fact, as you don't even think it's sexism. You 'allow the lady the safety of the inside of the path' as you think of her as inferior or weak, needing extra protection. If you would do this for a girl but not for one of your male friends, you are a sexist.

Well, I guess by your definition I am a sexist. But I think you're sorely mistaken. If, for example, I believed that women should stay at home and wash dishes all day, I would be a sexist. If I believed that men should get better jobs or higher pay, I would be a sexist. But I don't believe in any of these things.

The truth is that men and women ARE DIFFERENT. Look at them. They're different. We have different ways of interacting with the opposite sex. This goes for both women and men.

For the life of me I cannot see what is so wrong with a man acting like a man (i.e. being masculine) and making small gestures of protection or politeness towards someone of the fairer sex (yes, women are fairer, i.e. more beautiful than men). I think some feminists have taken this way too far and expect men and women and threat each other exactly the same. This is not natural and it's not realistic. Yes, women should have equal opportunities, equal rights etc. but let men act like men and women act like women.
What's so wrong with that?

Donegal Lass wrote:

the thread was asking was chivalry dead, not 'what type of men do women want'?? yes or no? i was only stating that i didnt think that it was completely dead and i stand by that?! im not going to change my mind about it because you have stated that he only wants in my pants! And I agree with Sar84-at least hes making an effort to get in my pants as opposed to the usual, to quote Tommy Teirnan, "givus a go of yer knockers!"
im sure at some stage that you will learn that it isnt all about the physical aspect of things when it comes to women.

ah relax, i'm not trying to get in your pants.

Darragh29 wrote:

See where you are coming from here! I always make a point of holding a door open for someone (whether they are male or female), but the vast majority of the time, you don't even get a small smile or a thank you and I think women are worse for it than men. I think its a general manners thing more than anything to do with chiverly...

I hold doors open generally too, but tbh i find a vast majority of people say thanks.

Only people i show no courtesy towards are rockers. If you are fat, have purple hair and black lipstick ill deliberately skip the bus queue on you.

As for the whole men bending over backwards for birds thing, its suprising how greatful women are and how they show appreciation when you buy them a crap plastic rose off a Romanian when you are both fcuked

But generally, whilsit ill hold open a door for anyone, kind "nice guy" favours are purely for the pretty girls, for the sole reason of getting in their pants, of course In all honesty though, i think ever man is more likely to, say, do a favour in work for a cute yoke than a fat one.

I remember one day sitting on the bench at a bus stop, this one of about 58 came over and litreally parked her arse infront of me until i offered the seat. ffs if she was an old woman i wouldve gladly, but late 50s? I shouldve pulled her back up the fukin chancer.

punky wrote:

Well, I guess by your definition I am a sexist.

It's not my definition - pick up a dictionary:

sexism
n.

1. Discrimination based on gender
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

punky wrote:

But I think you're sorely mistaken. If, for example, I believed that women should stay at home and wash dishes all day, I would be a sexist. If I believed that men should get better jobs or higher pay, I would be a sexist. But I don't believe in any of these things.

Holy cow :rolleyes: So you're not a full-blown sexist, you're just a casual sexist. What progress! You still can't accept the fact that you're discriminating based on gender. People like you remind me of those people who used to give black kids all the awards in school competitions to 'prove' that they weren't racist.

You clearly have no idea how irritating it is to have someone look down on you because of something completely irrelevant such as your gender (or race?).

Zulu wrote:

but seen as your on a rant there away with you

Jaysus, yeah, must be my time of the month, wha :rolleyes:

Donegal Lass wrote:

well would you treat a man and a woman the same if you were in bed with them?? surely thats a distinction based purely on gender?:rolleyes:

Is that really the best argument you could come up with?? No wonder your bloke has to run around doing everything for you.

Chivalry, originates from the concept that a chavalier or knight would be honour bound to protect those weaker or inferior to himself. So given this, it is, without doubt, a sexist practice.

Women still accept - indeed prefer - it because fundamentally they themselves still cling to sexist romantic stereotypes when seeking a mate; the knight in shining armour, the confident alpha male, an all that. Indeed, women often shun men who fail to be to some degree sexist; few women, for example, would care to marry a househusband.

Given the entire question of equality is still pretty being debated, how do women tend to deal with the apparent contradiction between seeking to be treated as an equal and being treated as an inferior (the chivalric perception of a woman)? Naturally there is a strong sense of “wanting your cake and eating it”, where women will want remove the sexist privileges afforded to men, yet refuse to sacrifice her own sexist privileges (the whole debate of father’s rights being a case in point) or on a more frivolous level where women still expect to have drinks and dinner paid for them (more true in the US than in Europe), yet would demand to be earning just as much as the man in doing the paying.

Naturally, this is ultimately going to backfire, as men will reject this double standard, which means that the chivalric anomaly is going to have to be dealt with one way or another. One possibility is that it will eventually be completely removed, and we will have a truly ‘equal’ society where everyone goes Dutch. Personally, I think that what we will probably find in the long run is that we’ll eventually give up on the idea of complete equality, settling on, say, 95% equality and retaining that 5% of sexist stereotypes that neither gender seems willing to sacrifice.

Either way, until then you’re going to have threads like this.