Why is chivalry good for anyone?

Post Reply New Topic

[quote="appletheclown"]Librarian, why the heck did you bring it up anyways? I want to get back to chivalry as well. For the most part, I thought to treat ladies how they would want to be treated, although we are already supposed to do that anyways, I guess just do that instead.[/quote

This digression began because of the rather strongly expressed opinions against chivalry on this thread. I think this is a result of the battle cry of the 1960's radicals that the personal is political.

One quick question for you on racism, and then I'll let it go:

Dr. Albert Schweitzer was for a number of years the most widely admired man in the world, and not all that long ago. Yet today his name is rarely mentioned. Here's why:

Schweitzer was a missionary and medical doctor who ran a clinic in west Africa--the only one for many hundred of miles. Schweitzer dedicated his life to serving these Africans; he undoubtedly alleviated more black suffering than anybody who has ever lived. He spent his life doing for people who could do little for him in return.

Yet on the issue of granting the European colonies in Africa their independence, Schweitzer was adamantly against it. He felt that blacks were too childish in both intelligence and impulsiveness ever to be able to run their own affairs successfully.

Was Dr. Schweitzer a racist? I don't want an answer; it's just something for you to mull over if you are so inclined.

As far as chivalry being a code, I agree with you that, unlike social rules that come almost subconsciously for NT's, these rules can be learned. If you haven't seen them, here they are:

http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/knights-c ... ivalry.htm

I don't see how you can't be a feminist and be seen as an equal and still have a guy hold open a door for you. They aren't the same thing at all. Guys don't open the door for ladies because the lady isn't capable of opening it for herself. They don't stand up when a lady walks in the room because the lady is morally or spiritually superior to them. They don't offer her their seat on the bus because she isn't as capable of standing for long periods as they are. They do it because it's simple manners. That's all it is.

It's the same as saying please and thank you, or asking how someone is. I may ask the girl at the doctor's office if I can please make an appointment for Tuesday, but that doesn't mean I'm supplicating or begging, I simply say please because it's polite. Someone may hand me a sale paper when I walk into Wal Mart and I say thank you but that doesn't mean I'm really thank them because I'm grateful for the paper, I say it because it's polite. I may ask the cashier at the grocery store how she is while she's ringing me up but that doesn't mean I really want to know how she is, I say it because it's polite. When someone sneezes I may say "God bless you" but that doesn't mean I want them to have divine blessings or even believe in the same God that they do, or even assume that they believe in any God at all, I just say it because it's polite. So while on some level those things are completely meaningless, they aren't on another level. They create an atmosphere of friendliness and warmth. The same way a guy opening a door for me or offering me his seat just creates an atmosphere of being polite and friendly. It doesn't come across as rude or unfriendly if he doesn't go out of his way to do it, but it's just nicer to do so.

If they're doing it for women and not for men, and women aren't doing it for men, then why is ok for everyone to be rude to men?

With all due allowances for individuality, men and women are treated differently because they are different. It is also the case that chivalry can apply to men. Being chivalrous is the essence of the old idea of being a gentleman.

Different to the extent that one sex can't open their own doors and will be terribly upset if people stay seated when they enter the room?

It's the way people different than yourself do things. Do other groups have the right to be different from you? I'm not sure why this would bother you.

Stop trying to shut down conversation by behaving as if people are attacking you just because they have different opinions than you. This "Can't you be tolerant of ME and not discuss things I don't like?" s**t is getting old, dude.

Of course women can open the door for me and should do so when the guy's hands are full. Nobody gets terribly upsetif a guy doesn't stand up when a lady walks into the room. Where did you get that from? Nobody said anything like that at all. I said it was simple manners. You certainly aren't bound by them and are totally free to be as rude as you want. In fact, it's actually much better if people who are so upset over other people's politeness just don't try and pretend to be polite, so the rest of us with manners just won't expect anything out of them in terms of niceness.

It's simply manners, not something to tie your underwear in a knot and pull it up over your head about. If it offends you that much that some people were taught manners, then totally ignore them and refuse to participate in polite society.

I'm not sure how expecting the tolerance and diversity liberals to be tolerant of diversity is shutting down the conversation.

Nor am I sure what you think I am refusing to discuss.

Perhaps you would care to tell me.

I can reference where you did this previously in the thread, to Boo, about bigotry in Texas. And then even after he clarified that he wasn't trying to put Texas down or say Lebanon was a better place, you insisted on talking about how specific negative things happened in Lebanon that didn't happen in Texas. AFTER he clarified he wasn't trying to imply his home was any better than yours, you still felt the need to provide an example to the contrary, all the while stating that you were just hoping for tolerance.

When people have conversations here and their conclusions and opinions are contrary to your own, despite what you seem to think, it does not constitute intolerance.

And referring to people who disagree with you as "the tolerance and diversity liberals" as if you find some fault in tolerance and diversity(honestly that wouldn't shock me, Texas and all) doesn't make a strong case that you actually give a f**k about tolerance.

Quite the opposite, you seem to scoff at the idea of tolerance, and possibly don't even fully comprehend what social tolerance of others is, or one might gather from the way you keep throwing the term around.

I asked you how I was shutting down conversation, and you reply with yet more vague innuendos, insults, and non sequiturs. Part of chivalry means that I don't care to engage in nasty, unpleasant conversations that prove nothing. If you can back up what you say, I'm all ears. Otherwise, you can consider this conversation at an end.

I see, this a brick wall situation. Noted.

He seems to be pulling the tolerance hypocrisy card, a common trick conservatives like to pull. To a lot of conservatives "tolerance" means moral relativism, which basically means you aren't allowed to have any views contrary to anyone else's views - which in practical terms equates to having no views at all... but the conservative is still allowed to be "right" in his/her views since he/she doesn't need to be "tolerant".

Due to this conundrum I don't even try to be a "tolerant liberal". Being an "intolerant liberal" is much better.

This thread perfectly illustrates why they are very few good people anymore-- they are vilified and persecuted for doing good. It's not right. This is why the world is going to hell in a handbasket.

Chivalry has nothing to do with thinking women are weak. It's a form of respect to both genders. At the very least, I hold the door open and such for anyone that goes through it at the same time as me. It's like Olive said, it's just good manners. I am surprised that so many people are so devoid of good manners and think it's an insult to do nice things and to have nice things done for them. It boggles the mind.

EDIT: Of course TheLibrarian is gonna act like that. If I got faced with ad hominem attacks, I'd do the same thing. It's no use to reply to that sort of thing directly. It's like trying to stop the Titanic with a BB gun.

I'm thoroughly familiar with the type, the proud Texas conservative who cannot stand "liberals". Although to them, a "liberal" is basically anyone who doesn't think and act(and let's be honest, LOOK) very similarly to them.

It takes an ego bigger than Texas to look at the world that way.

What kills me is when somebody is labeled either a liberal or a conservative based on their view of one issue. I'm about half and half I guess. I agree with different sides on different issues. I think that's the normal human response, rather than to simply grab a party line and agree with everything because you are "supposed to" if you are a "real liberal/conservative". I've actually known people from both sides who did that and who would say "I don't necessarily agree with this but because I'm a <insert side> I support it". WTF?

Meems doesn't seem like the type of gal who would get upset if a guy opened the door for her or offered her his seat, and I think she indentifies mainly with the liberal side of politics. I mainly do too, but agree with conservatives on some issues. And I'm sure she would open the door for anyone with their hands full, male or female, liberal, conservative, Barak Obama or Phyllis Shafley.

Manners aren't really a liberal vs conservative thing anyway, at least they aren't to me. They should be for everyone, from all political and socioeconomic levels. You say please, you say thank you, guys open doors for ladies, younger people offer older people their seats and say Sir and Maam. It's just manners folks, it doesn't brand you with a label. Well, where I live now, not doing it might brand you with the label of "Didn't get any home training!" but that's about it.