[PUG] Chivalry is sexist

alcyone said:
Does that mean I can be on top?
Click to expand...
Oh no! Don't start that I have to go to bed! //tries to pull away before next tantalizing reply
 
This argument has become extremely circular, and is largely moot at this point. It is going no where, and will CONTINUE to go no where.

*gag*
 
IndigoSensor said:
This argument has become extremely circular, and is largely moot at this point. It is going no where, and will CONTINUE to go no where.

*gag*
Click to expand...

Great stalling technique isn't it?

Many men like being chivalrous.

Many feminists don't like men being chivalrous.

There is no incentive for men, except those who wish to please displeased people, to cease being chivalrous.
 
Chivalry is a real catch 22. I've never been a fan, and I grew up in a culture where the majority of women that I knew thought of it as something anywhere on the spectrum from outdated to insulting. But, I've also lived where you aren't a gentlemen if you don't play this way. Sometimes I feel like have to make a judgement call in each situation, but it is just easier if I just treat everyone with politeness and respect. I'll let anyone go "first" regardless of gender, and I make sure not to make a show of it. If someone is turned off by it, I just back off and don't make a big deal out of it. When it comes to my wife, I'll admit that I enjoy spoiling her a little bit, and she knows that I know that she is a very capable person, so it's fine.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Great stalling technique isn't it?

Many men like being chivalrous.

Many feminists don't like men being chivalrous.

There is no incentive for men, except those who wish to please displeased people, to cease being chivalrous.
Click to expand...

Feminists don't want men to be men. They want men to be more like women while not having the same protections and rights.
 
Last edited:
IndigoSensor said:
This argument has become extremely circular, and is largely moot at this point. It is going no where, and will CONTINUE to go no where.

*gag*
Click to expand...

Because both extreme feminists and chivalry have sexist connotations.
 
There really is no point in arguing this.

Some people like chivalry, some people don't.

At its core the idea of it is sexist because it has unbalenced expectations of men and women for the way it should be preformed.

If you like it, then do it, if you don't then fine. Respect those who like keeping this value. Those who hold the value should respect that not everyone is going to hold it themselves, and may not reciprocate. Honor both ends.

/argument.
 
IndigoSensor said:
There really is no point in arguing this.

Some people like chivalry, some people don't.

At its core the idea of it is sexist because it has unbalenced expectations of men and women for the way it should be preformed.

If you like it, then do it, if you don't then fine. Respect those who like keeping this value. Those who hold the value should respect that not everyone is going to hold it themselves, and may not reciprocate. Honor both ends.

/argument.
Click to expand...

It's usually the respect the other is where it fails... after being called chauvinist 8 times because of holding the door open(which I do to everyone) I wonder why they get so uppity about it.
 
IndigoSensor said:
There really is no point in arguing this.

Some people like chivalry, some people don't.

At its core the idea of it is sexist because it has unbalenced expectations of men and women for the way it should be preformed.

If you like it, then do it, if you don't then fine. Respect those who like keeping this value. Those who hold the value should respect that not everyone is going to hold it themselves, and may not reciprocate. Honor both ends.

/argument.
Click to expand...

The point is not only will some people not reciprocate - they will downright attack you for your male-chivalrous values.

This is not an arguement, it is a "coming to terms" with what goes on when someone gives you grief for holding a door open.

Basically one's good willed gesture is met with something between mild resentment and outright venom.


I'm moving into the strategic planning of adequate response phase now.
I am no advocate of pettyness, like agreeing to go through the door first and then locking it behind you - but people should realise how anti-social it is to attack people because they hold values one does not.
 
People don't deserve to be attacked for doing what is seen as a kind manuver. If you are attacked, then disarm it. I have been scolded before for holding the door for someone. It's simple, I just say "If you don't want to take a kind gesture as just that, then it's your problem".

Meh, people are going to understand me. I'm done.
 
IndigoSensor said:
People don't deserve to be attacked for doing what is seen as a kind manuver. If you are attacked, then disarm it. I have been scolded before for holding the door for someone. It's simple, I just say "If you don't want to take a kind gesture as just that, then it's your problem".

Meh, people are going to understand me. I'm done.
Click to expand...

I understand.
 
Long Live Chivalry!

Hmm. I actually LUV it when men hold doors open for me. And generally, I hold the door open for anyone (regardless of sex) behind me - just to make sure that the door doesn't accidentally slam on their faces. I regard highly such acts as acts of consideration, and if they're intended to show deference to a lady, then I can respect the chivalrous man for respecting me that way. I don't take acts of chivalry as a sign that I am given special consideration because I am weak or inferior as a female - only as a sign of a traditional regard for women as deserving of special acts of kindness. *bats eyelashes playfully*

There was one instance that a young man ran up beside me just in time to overtake me and open the first door in a passage way for me. And me, being the playful and non-conventional person that I was, walked briskly enough to overtake the young man at the second door in the passage way, and to hold the door open for him. He looked slightly dismayed at my action and refused to go ahead of me, so I just followed the tradition and allowed him to hold the door open for me a second time. And that brought the smile back to his face.

Frankly, if I had a boyfriend/husband who wouldn't hold the door open for me, I'd feel slighted, and slap him on the arm playfully. *cough, cough* Even one of my male friends (who happens to be gay) always holds the door open for me or gives up his seat for me, following traditional gender roles. But I'd still want to be fair, so I'm likely to reciprocate any act of chivalry. :D
 
alright my next thread is going to be "traditionalism sucks"
 
I tend to draw a fine line between manners and chivalry. I just believe the most common concept of chivalry is nothing more than good manners and has no actual bearing on the original definition of the word for many.

Slant is arguing based on a different definition of chivalry than those that argue for it.

So the real argument is, how do you define chivalry?
 
The Jester said:
I open the door for men and women.
Does that make me bicurious?
Click to expand...

If that is the case then we are both in that boat, along with most of my co-workers!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top