Why is chivalry good for anyone?

Post Reply New Topic

Thanks

/spoil warning

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWytAaX6DDY[/youtube]

You still have to learn them somehow, and agree with the ideals behind them. I profoundly dislike identifying femininity with impracticality, and was never taught to treat women any differently from men, except for the very obvious cases where physical strength is important. The only reason I’m interested in those rules is because I know they’re sometimes expected, but I also know I’d make a fool of myself trying to follow them in other cases. Then again, I’m lacking a lot of experience in life to have more solid criteria.

But I was just answering this:

Spider, Fnord was good enough to post the actual chivalric code. Out of curiosity, is there anything in that code that you think identifies femininity with impracticality?

Okay, I probably don't disagree with you that much. It's kind of hard to argue when I'm not sure I have a real strong understanding of what does or does not constitute chivalry. I think holding a door for someone is just common courtesy, regardless of the gender of the people involved. Also, when carrying heavy personal items, its common courtesy for the physically larger person to take the heavier load, and that will usually be the man. When I think of chivalry I think of things like saying "ladies first" out loud or pulling out a woman's chair for her. I'm not going to judge people who do that but I think I'd personally feel weird doing that kind of thing. Some women might find that kind of old fashioned stuff charming, but in the more modern era you kind of have to judge based on the woman's culture and personality whether she would find it appropriate, charming, or irritating. I agree it's probably easier for guys in the past when culture dictated that the same rules applied universally. It's just that times have changed and now you have to be more careful.

As for public displays of affection, I don't think that's exactly black-and-white either. It can be over the top if it's overdone and all one sided. That's a sign of douchey showoff and/or over-protectiveness. If it's a situation where a couple is deliberately trying to build romance sometimes on partner or the other pushing the envelope in public and causing a little bit of embarrassment can add to the chemistry. I just think it's so hard for someone on the autism spectrum to gauge what would or would not be taken the right way that it isn't really worth it. For me it's not something I could ever see myself doing. It might be that because I'm just not an assertive person at all and I hate making people uncomfortable, that kind of thing comes off as manipulative and douchey. It might not be though if the woman actually likes it.

Marshall, as I just responded, Fnord posted the complete code of chivalry on this thread. I would encourage you to read it and let me know what it is you disagree with.

As far as times changing, they have, but I find it difficult to get worked up about what is fashionable and what is not.

Hey Spiderpig . . . I'm not sure I would eliminate a suitor because of failed attempts at chivalry.
One thing I will note: If a woman is wearing high heels then she is deliberately hobbling herself (I've realized this with my recent attempts to wear heels {total failure}] and in this case, chivalry may be called for.

I don't disagree much with any of the non-religious parts of the code. Maybe the OP is confusing chivalry with traditional gender role activities. There's obviously some overlap but apparently these things aren't fully synonymous. I was talking about what the OP was talking about i.e. asymmetric gender role activities. Obviously chivalry in the traditional meaning of the world applies to concepts that apply much more broadly than the asymmetric gender role activities the "anti-chivalry" crowd complains about.

Anyways, I'm a little annoyed that everywhere I post on this forum I only seem to get these snippy defensive retorts and nobody really fully reads or appreciates anything I actually say about anything. I don't always think in simple black-and-white terms and this seems to make me an outcast to a lot of "aspies" on this forum. I'm kind of tired of being forcibly painted into a corner every time I make a post.

Not necessarily, except the assumption that widows are particularly helpless people seems outdated, and it leaves the honor of women undefined. But I was talking about the rules Ann2011 mentioned in the post I answered. Opening doors doesn’t usually require much strength, and I see no reason to go out of your way not to let a woman do it herself if she’s not wearing an unwieldy dress or similarly encumbered. In addition, I’m not very interested in hanging out with a woman who likes to “hobble” herself.



I didn’t say you would; just that it’d be the one reason I see to accept such treatment.



I don’t like high heels.

"Not necessarily, except the assumption that widows are particularly helpless people seems outdated, and it leaves the honor of women undefined. But I was talking about the rules Ann2011 mentioned in the post I answered. Opening doors doesn’t usually require much strength, and I see no reason to go out of your way not to let a woman do it herself if she’s not wearing an unwieldy dress or similarly encumbered. In addition, I’m not very interested in hanging out with a woman who likes to “hobble” herself."

Spiderpig, one thing I hope you would bear in mind regarding widows is that in Medieval times, there was no welfare state. Nor were there professional police forces. So, widows, and particularly elderly widows or those with young children, oftentimes were vulnerable.

As far as women being helpless, once again, these were different times. In the absence of any kind of power devices, excepting animals, it took a lot more strength to live. Things are obviously different today, at least in this respect.

They're totally impractical.

Boo, if you ever visit Texas, don't give us the benefit of the doubt. Bigotry toward anyone perceived as Middle Eastern or Muslim is not uncommon.

Texans are really proud, and will say we're just the friendliest people in America, but that is not accurate to all Texans. And if you try to have a conversation about it, as evidenced here in this thread, many will try to turn it around and act as if they're the ones being discriminated against.

Really, my most sound advice would be not to visit Texas.

They're commonly loved by a lot of women because they make them look taller. On dating sites a lot of women consider the heels into calculation when they look at men's heights (ie. my height + heels > his height ....naah). How did I know that? Experience. lol

It's just what you do. It's done here, it's manners, and everybody expects it to happen, just like I'm expected to say Maam and Sir to older people.

You seem like a guy who seems genuinely interested in being a decent person to other people regardless of gender, despite views on chivalry that I pretty strongly disagree with. But I don't get how chivalry as practiced in the antebellum South was a good thing. If by "our societies would be much better places in which to live", you mean people owning other people as slaves, and men raping their female slaves while their wives get the consolidation of meaningless and at the time legitimately patronizing gestures of chivalry, and the chance to make life even more hellish for the female slaves being raped because of how they must have "tempted" their husbands into their infidelity, then sure, the antebellum South sure could be considered a great model for society. But as we're all reasonable people here, let's not romanticize a society that wasn't nearly as idyllic as the first few minutes of "Gone With the Wind" would have us believe. And I know I'm mixing southern literature here, but adhering to antebellum-era standards of chivalry in a modern world didn't work out too well for Quentin Compson, or pretty much any other Faulkner character, did it?

You know, not everything that has to do with the Old South has to do with slavery. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater please.