Main > The Round Table

Chivalry is Sexist, Your Opinion?

(1/3) > >>

Sir Steven T.:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080512193422AAqDvAg

Came across this today, I know how I feel about it, how about you?

Sir Edward:

I'm tempted to write a new reply. The problem is, I'd want to write a long essay. :)

Sir Wolf:
but chivalry is not just man for woman. its for all mankind is it not?

Sir Brian:

--- Quote from: Sir Edward on 2013-05-03, 16:11:40 --- I'm tempted to write a new reply. The problem is, I'd want to write a long essay. :)
--- End quote ---

Chill KC, I got this! ;)

I agree somewhat with the ‘best answer’ selected by the one who originally posed the question insofar as how the modern perception of chivalry has been devolved to nothing more than an archaic form of courtesy, however I found this below answer even more misguided and inherently askew from my concept of chivalry.

--- Quote ---As a feminist (LOL FEMINAZI LOLOLOL) and thus someone who believes in equal rights regardless of gender or sex, I am opposed to chivalry for a number of reasons.
1) It is sexist against men.
Chivalry promotes the idea that men have an obligation to women, and that they must take on certain things in a relationship just by virtue of being male.

2) It is sexist against women.
Chivalry encourages the stereotype that women are weak, and turns women into dependents. It also creates a system of obligation on the woman's behalf to repay the "kindness."

3) It encourages gender roles.
Gender roles restrict our social mobility and create homophobia.

People should treat one another with respect because the other person is a human being, not because s/he is female or male.
--- End quote ---
Overall I hold mankind (the male gender) ultimately responsible for allowing this erosion of manliness and chivalric principles to decline by first of all not being men in allowing lesser males and overly assertive females to redefine men’s perception of manhood. – By overly assertive females I mean women who over compensate their reactions and perceptions subjectively based upon their lack of self esteem and discipline.

My perception of chivalry is far more simplified: It is a code of conduct I impose upon myself not for the praise of others but for my own self and how I have chosen to live. It also is neither out of weakness nor servility that I conduct myself towards women, children and other non-combatants in a gracious manner which has never been inspired by haughtiness but by poise and conscientiousness. The key to my distinction of whether I deem someone as a non-combatant is their demeanor. Certainly my life experiences have affirmed in my mind that most women and children do not convey themselves to be physically adversarial as some males are also apt to do in these modern times. Yet for us men we are ‘hardwired’ in various degrees to recognize and react to perceived antagonists.

The above quoted and self-described ‘feminist’ would obviously take exception with me and my sentiments and thus I would appropriately deem her and others like her to be an adversary and potentially subject to being treated just as any other impending foe. – With absolute austerity.

In essence men are beasts. If our natural inclinations were never tempered then humanity would have never progressed beyond the dark ages and it is my firm belief that chivalry is the forge in which humanity’s dross is purged away.

Lord Dane:
'Chivalry' is a manner of mutual respect, decency, and good behavior reflective of how we treat we each other regardless of the gender of the recipient. If a feminist is so unaccepting of its good intent, like I said before... I will treat you as you treat me. Remember this, I can hold the door open for you because that is my way of showing kindness or I can slam that same door in your face. Take your choice of which you prefer. Dwell on that thought & see what response you get.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page