• Unless all feminists are Hypocrites.

    If feminists are going to cause such a huge fuss over women being equal to men and everything, then they better also be willing to give up any benefits that come from women being considered weaker. They can't be yelling about how women are better than men one day and then expect men to be be treating them special the next day (e.G. Holding open doors, paying for stuff on dates, observing the "ladies first" rule, etc., etc., etc.). That would be pure hypocrisy. I myself do believe that women should be totally equal to men and have all the same opportunities, but if they want that sort of equality, then they have to give up the benefits of being weaker. You can't be strong and weak at the same time. Choose one and stick with it.

  • Absolutely, even in definition, and I am sad to see it go

    Chivalry was, and IS, a code of honor. Honor has driven my life as it has others through all ages and genders. I must object to am5iv's comment about it being arbitrarily inherited through culture, and not needing to exist. While need is an extreme wording, the reasons for honor are as present now as they were in the middle ages if not more.
    As well as the assumption that chivalry is condescending to anyone.
    Stating that it is arbitrary and unneeded says that we no longer need morals and honor to guide our actions.

    A code of honor, depicting how I should act toward, and treat others, in no way implies that the person i am "treating" is inferior. In fact, historically, females have been called the fairer sex, and that is why they must be revered, respected, honored.
    Your honor is based on your conduct towards yourself and others.
    By treating others with honor and respect , by placing their life and their needs above your own, an going out of your way to show your respect, is the exact definition of the code of honor that chivalry (in its historic, and more so in its modern usage) represents.

    Now, this may be an assumption, but in my opinion, feminism (and similar movements, or perhaps some of the cultural followings borne from their ideals) has allowed people's opinion to label my actions. Which by intent is to honor and respect you, as a sign on disrespect and belittling.

    We are at a time in the world when people have the self appointed entitlement to tell me what my intentions are behind my actions, instead of recognizing that, despite you receiving it adversely, the intention was noble and commending honorable behavior.
    It saddens me to think that the only logical course is that those with noble intention will stop trying for fear of insulting someone accidentally.

    Chivalry was invented to guide a moral compass to honor yourself and others, not accentuate their differences as inferior.
    To imply that all people are equal is a shortsighted, uninformed fallacy. Men and women are different. We are both human, but posses many differences, just as one person possesses differences in comparison to the next. That is what makes us better as a whole, is acknowledging and honoring those differences.

  • Nature abhors imbalance

    The childish view of feminism is that its about getting more but not giving anything up. I perceive this as a supremacy mentality - not one of equal rights. Women can't understand why treating men/masculinity like it is the worst thing like ever would result in men pulling back. Cause and effect ladies. Women have used men as a pinata for 50ish years. Enough already - carry your own heavy bags and open your own damn doors. Oh - and don't hit guys thinking they won't hit back. Dish out not that which thy cannot receive back in kind. Equality, right? Chivalry was about the weak/strong dichotomy. Now that y'all are so 'equal'; see to your own needs.

  • Yes, there is feminists deemed chivalry as a "misogyny" in nature.

    However, you just can't kill men' benevolent nature forward to women if women is kind. Feminists are so hellbent on proving that men' and women' gender roles are social construct. Feminists failed to realize these gender roles are BASED on biological differences of men and women.

    You could say that women' bra to be "social construct". However, women' bra is developed based on women' physical dimensions in which is biological. Men' physical strength is note worthy in times of war, hardship, protectors, guardians and more. Social construct? No, it is based on the biology of Men, naturally. My point is that gender roles are developed by biological differences of men and women.

    However, chivalry can be given by choice and still has relevant to men' nature. Chivalry is dead? Nope, it's just men being selective of women. Besides, I just don't offer chivalry to cruel women that doesn't give the kindness in return.

  • Reverse-chivalry does not exist, so forward-chivalry is obsoleted

    There are many situations which warrant the woman to step up be supportive, initiate or extend support backwards. Women in general aren't doing this. Many times a man in his life encounters with situation when help was needed but not extended. Chivalry is something a person with more money, power or status must show to a potential mate or member of the opposite sex.
    Women do not exhibit chivalry or it may seem ludicrous to suggest so. The lack of reciprocity causes its obsolescence.

  • Yes, feminism makes chivalry obsolete.

    Feminism has made a lot of things obsolete. Most women want a man to show them chivalry. The man should not do this because women claim to be able to do everything on their own with no help. I say let them. Maybe they can open the door for me.

  • Equality for feminists, chivalry for non-feminists

    Feminists call chivalry "benevolent sexism." Chivalry is based on traditional, non-equal gender norms, which feminism adamantly opposes, in favor of treating women and men equally - which precludes chivalry.

    True feminism is about not offering men greater privilege than women and (ostensibly) vice-versa. Chivalry supposes that men should treat women with greater consideration, deference, and courtesy than they treat other men. Hence, chivalry and feminism cannot co-exist. For that reason, feminists call chivalry "benevolent sexism."

    However, most women aren't feminists and reject that whole notion. So, chivalry for them but equality for feminists

  • The end of the Middle Ages did.

    I hate to tell people this, but men paying for dates and holding open doors isn't chivalry. Chivalry was the medieval knightly code involving religious, moral, and social codes. Even the ideals of the knighthood that later came to be called "chivalry" weren't about treating women as inferiors or paying for things- it was about gallantry and etiquette towards women (that does not mean treating them as weaker or incapable), bravery, courage, courtesy, and honor. Treating women as equals does not prevent any of these qualities from manifesting in a male.

  • I think women can be chivalrous too.

    Chivalry is just a moral code, it shouldn't be limited to just men. Chivalry isn't about how you treat a female, it's about how you treat another human being. With kindness, respect, and love. If I'm too short and I need my boyfriend to reach something, then so be it, that's chivalry. But if I hold a door open for him, then that's chivalry too.

  • No it Does not.

    Feminism does not make Chivalry obsolete, because feminism is summed up to be equal rights for women, and as long as there is feminism that means that society still accepts a difference between men and women. For every woman who feels she is not equal to a man politically, economically, and/or socially, then there is a man who feels he must stand up for a woman economically, politically, and/or socially.

  • Because all actions taken in the context of free, enthusiastic consent support Feminism.

    There are many customs that are arbitrarily inherited from culture that don't need to exist. If I am exposed to a style of music and, therefore, listen to that style of music rather than other styles available in other environments, I am not denying other artists any rightful equal opportunity. My preference for that music is a subjective, irrational preference based on my exposure. If any individual absorbs customs from culture, appreciates these customs for any cause, and adheres to these customs with a freely, enthusiastically, happily consenting party, then the action is acceptable. Different definitions of feminism exist. I, however, embrace the definition that feminism establishes that both men and women are equal in dignity and deserve to proceed through life without RESTRICTIONS that hinder them because of assumptions about their gender-related needs and abilities. AKA equal rights and opportunities. If anyone offers anyone a privilege for any reasons, as long as the privilege does not restrict another person's choice and the other person happily accepts the privilege, the action is consistent with feminism. The purpose of feminism was to give women more options outside of a narrow tradition-to give women the same options that men had. However, feminism should not be a philosophy that restricts what freely consenting parties are happy to embrace in a private context. If a man and a woman wish to have an unequal relationship and happily, freely consent to such a relationship, there should be no discouragement or interference. Feminism should give everyone the right to an equal ground, but it should not force people to equally distribute behaviors and responsibilities if they freely, happily embrace an unequal ground. Feminism should be about giving all humans a wider range of choices. If a man pays for a woman's dinner for whatever reason while she happily accepts such an arrangement, there is free, enthusiastic consent; if he, however, insists that he should pay for her as the man or she demands that he pay for her as the man, then there isn't a lack of restriction or free consent. All of us have subjective preferences that we appreciate because of arbitrary introductions in culture, and we shouldn't necessarily reject the haircut that we wish or the dress that we wish because current cultural norms happen to promote that, as long as the option for non-conformity exists and as long as non-conformity is recognized as a reasonable option that merits equal dignity.

  • Why would it?

    Chivalry, in how it relates specifically to women may be outdated to a certain degree, but that is only a part of what chivalry was and is. Chivalry was a code of conduct for knights in the middle ages, with its origins in German customs. It was originally an aristocratic warrior code, specifically those the went to war on horseback, that eventually came to include " ideals such as the knightly virtues of honour, courtly love, courtesy, and less martial aspects of the tradition." The Knights Code of Chivalry stated that all knights should protect those who could not protect themselves. Examples would children, the elderly and widows. Children and the elderly really have nothing to do with feminism, so no feminism really doesn't make chivalry obsolete. The only thing that could really make chivalry obsolete would be the fact that there are really no more warrior knights anymore. But I think we can let that slide.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.