Is chivalry dead?

[SgtRick]

I could, but honestly I'd rather not. I'll leave it with that on numerous occations both public and privite he has made it clear that he dislikes any race not his own....except of course when he's "Gettin' paid".

I've heard that as well.

 

[Black Dahlia]

I think chivalry isn't dead, but perhaps less prominent these days. I had a gent open and hold a door for me today, as I scrambled to get through. Just a simple gesture, but living in a city of rude people, it certainly stands out!
X
BD

 

[Wojo]

Pompidou,

What do you mean regular people?

Are courtesy and respectfulness really "Golden Era" values? I thought they were part of the"Golden Rule". Fashion and style come and go that's why there is a FL. Good manners should be a constant. IMHO they should be required by society they help keep the societal fabric together. I never said I wanted everyone to be like me. God forbid. But I would like all to act with a sense of decorum. I hope people can "just be themselves" still be respectful of others. The examples I have seen lead me to believe these two viewpoints are divergent.

 

[Wojo]

Originally Posted by LizzieMaine
Well said. Clever innuendo requires a lot more talent than just laying it out straight. Modern culture, in general terms, seem to have completely lost the ability to appreciate subtlety -- not just in entertainment but in anything else. If it isn't dished up in the broadest, flattest manner possible they just blink incomprehendingly.

And this is why, I think, modern people tend to think vintage culture was "too repressive" when it came to matters of sex. All that stuff was there -- you just had to understand the code to pick up on it.





So maybe society isn't becoming more coarse or Hedonistic or barbaric, maybe we are just becoming less smart!

 

[mflemming]

Libber, "Don't you think I can open that door myself?"
Me (continuing to hold door and smiling), "Yes."

My version: Of course you can, but if there is a gentleman nearby you shouldn't need to.

Just noticed: I seem have been promoted to "familar face".

 

[Pompidou]

Pompidou,

What do you mean regular people?

Are courtesy and respectfulness really "Golden Era" values? I thought they were part of the"Golden Rule". Fashion and style come and go that's why there is a FL. Good manners should be a constant. IMHO they should be required by society they help keep the societal fabric together. I never said I wanted everyone to be like me. God forbid. But I would like all to act with a sense of decorum. I hope people can "just be themselves" still be respectful of others. The examples I have seen lead me to believe these two viewpoints are divergent.

By regular people, I meant all the average Joes that just live their lives doing what modern society expects.

Are courtesy and respectfulness really golden era values? Are they the values the TFL is trying to revive/cling to? Do most of our topics where modern values are discussed claim that modern society by and large shares the values of the golden era? I think that courtesy and respectfulness are universal values, but that what it means to be courteous and respectful is ever changing. Golden era courtesy and respectfulness are golden era values, and they differed some from Victorian courtesy and respectfulness, courtesy and respectfulness of other nonwestern cultures, etc. The same ratio of people are well intentioned in any era. What it means to do right changes.

***Edit***
On the dating site I use, chivalry came up in one forum topic, spurred on by the theoretical old fashioned guy dating a modern girl, and people put forward that it was patronizing. Is chivalry chivalrous if it's deemed offensive by the recipient? The brunt of the debate, rather than being on door opening, was on the idea that the gentleman always pays. In this discussion, the girl insisted, and the guy "allowed her" to pay. The conclusion was something to the effect of him having essentially said, "Oh, the lady wants to try and be independent." Doesn't really matter if that's the right conclusion to draw. It only matters if that's a commonly drawn conclusion. If courtesy is actually discourteous half the time, it might as well be discourteous all the time, because being rude to half the people you come across might actually be worse than being more polite than average to the other half.

 

[Wojo]

Are courtesy and respectfulness really golden era values? Are they the values the TFL is trying to revive/cling to? Do most of our topics where modern values are discussed claim that modern society by and large shares the values of the golden era? I think that courtesy and respectfulness are universal values, but that what it means to be courteous and respectful is ever changing. Golden era courtesy and respectfulness are golden era values, and they differed some from Victorian courtesy and respectfulness, courtesy and respectfulness of other nonwestern cultures, etc. The same ratio of people are well intentioned in any era. What it means to do right changes.

That's exactly my point. What is the standard of courtesy and respectfulness today would be viewed as boorish behavior a hundred years ago . It is a gradual decline.
It's not a condenmnation on the your generation. Every generation is guilty of it. Good manners are not being handed down to the children either because of laziness or ignorance [IMO]. Where does that end? In a society where anything goes. That could be a very vulgar and dangerous place.

 

[John in Covina]

Part of this comes down to those that have been taught that women should be like men and men should be like women that's when "surprisingly" a lot of confusion comes in.

I figure it this way, if you were going in to have heart surgery would you tell the surgeon to be the anestesiologist and the anestesiologist fill in as the surgeon?

 

[sheeplady]

The brunt of the debate, rather than being on door opening, was on the idea that the gentleman always pays. In this discussion, the girl insisted, and the guy "allowed her" to pay. The conclusion was something to the effect of him having essentially said, "Oh, the lady wants to try and be independent." Doesn't really matter if that's the right conclusion to draw. It only matters if that's a commonly drawn conclusion. If courtesy is actually discourteous half the time, it might as well be discourteous all the time, because being rude to half the people you come across might actually be worse than being more polite than average to the other half.

I think I somewhat agree with what I think you're saying. When you can't tell the motivation behind the act, it is hard to read the act. If some people will always read the act/behavior as sexist or hostile, perhaps it is better to not exhibit the behavior.

So as a society, I see this as a choice: if some portion the people exhibiting a behavior is motivated by sexism, do we need to change the behavior as well as change people's attitudes/perspectives? Or can we keep the behavior and weed out the attitude? Is this sort of behavior so deeply rooted in sexism that we can't separate the behavior from the attitude as a society?

I do have to say, in my experience, I've encountered what I believe to be sexism from all sorts of people, and it hasn't always been related to the person's manners or behaviors. I'd never judge somebody as sexist based upon opening a door for me, or saying they'd like to pay for the first date. Although, to be honest, I've always liked to rotate paying for dates, because I don't see paying should fall solely on the man- that always seemed unfair to me, given the fact that I had a job and made my own money.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The idea of the guy paying as being "sexist" would honestly never occur to me. If the guy asked me out, then it's his treat, period. If anybody invites me somewhere, I understand it as being their treat, unless it's specifically stated that we're going dutch. If I invite somebody somewhere, then I pay. Simple, and no need for Ideology.

 

[SgtRick]

As a member of the male species I would not feel right or comfortable with a woman picking up the check. Not that the jester wouldn’t be appreciated because it would. I know times are different today than the 70’s and 80’s and it might be considered as sexist by some but certainly not meant to be. Should I be offended if a woman holds the door open for me while my hands are full? I would consider that a helpful jester on her part and not a trait of weakness on mine.

 

[rue]

The idea of the guy paying as being "sexist" would honestly never occur to me. If the guy asked me out, then it's his treat, period. If anybody invites me somewhere, I understand it as being their treat, unless it's specifically stated that we're going dutch. If I invite somebody somewhere, then I pay. Simple, and no need for Ideology.

Exactly.

 

[Edward]

The idea of the guy paying as being "sexist" would honestly never occur to me. If the guy asked me out, then it's his treat, period. If anybody invites me somewhere, I understand it as being their treat, unless it's specifically stated that we're going dutch. If I invite somebody somewhere, then I pay. Simple, and no need for Ideology.

As a general rule, I would agree. It can also depend on context - I've had an unspoken, but assumed, arrangement with some friends where we pick up the bill turn about. However it works, as long as the two people concerned are happy with the arrangement, I don't believe it's anyone else's business who pays..... or that it has anything whatever to do with gender. The most irritating thing I have ever encountered in a restaurant was the relation who made a big deal of taking our family to lunch, and then insisted on passing the money to one of the men in the party to hand over to the waitress rather than be seen to be paying (which she in fact was, and had made a big deal out of so doing). It's enough to make you want to throw yourself under a horse.

 

[Wojo]

The idea of the guy paying as being "sexist" would honestly never occur to me. If the guy asked me out, then it's his treat, period. If anybody invites me somewhere, I understand it as being their treat, unless it's specifically stated that we're going dutch. If I invite somebody somewhere, then I pay. Simple, and no need for Ideology.

That nails it Lizzie.


But can these courtesies i.e. holding a door or assisting with a heavy object.. be shown in the work place. The company I work for has so many policies about what you can and cannot do, some acts of politeness could be interpreted as harassment.

 

[Puzzicato]

The idea of the guy paying as being "sexist" would honestly never occur to me. If the guy asked me out, then it's his treat, period. If anybody invites me somewhere, I understand it as being their treat, unless it's specifically stated that we're going dutch. If I invite somebody somewhere, then I pay. Simple, and no need for Ideology.

I totally agree. Although I have heard of some men (who really don't belong in a discussion on chivalry) who think that buying a woman a drink entitles them to take liberties with her person. They see handing over the cash as part of a wider transaction, and that really is sexist.

That nails it Lizzie.


But can these courtesies i.e. holding a door or assisting with a heavy object.. be shown in the work place. The company I work for has so many policies about what you can and cannot do, some acts of politeness could be interpreted as harassment.

That's not chivalry, that is common sense. And if anyone in your workplace doesn't want the door held when their hands are full, they should just be left to it.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I totally agree. Although I have heard of some men (who really don't belong in a discussion on chivalry) who think that buying a woman a drink entitles them to take liberties with her person. They see handing over the cash as part of a wider transaction, and that really is sexist.

In a way you could say that kind of attitude is a direct result of the death of chivalry, and it goes back to what I was saying before about the relentless cynicism of the modern era. If a man asks a woman out and pays for the date as a courtesy because it was he who invited her, there's no question of quid pro quo. Both participants understand the ground rules, and there's nothing being "bought" or "sold." Remove that courtesy from the equation, add modern cynicism, and see what you get.

Of course, any guy who tried to pull that with me would be walking home with the imprint of a 9 1/2 B where he least expected it.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

I was wondering....as I often do, if ladies still appreciate a man who opens doors for you, pulls out your chair during dinner, or holds the umbrella over you when it's raining. Has womens lib really stopped a man from being nice to the fairer sex? As you watch the classics on TV or DVD and you see a man do these things for his date or spouse do you wonder if we as men have lost "it"?

Good evening,

I always try to be polite and act as a gentlemen should, it's nice to get a smile and thank you from the person you hold a door for etc etc. a Smile and thank you go a long way, shame it seems to be happening less often. Rgds.

 

[Wojo]

:eusa_clap

Originally Posted by Puzzicato
I totally agree. Although I have heard of some men (who really don't belong in a discussion on chivalry) who think that buying a woman a drink entitles them to take liberties with her person. They see handing over the cash as part of a wider transaction, and that really is sexist.
In a way you could say that kind of attitude is a direct result of the death of chivalry, and it goes back to what I was saying before about the relentless cynicism of the modern era. If a man asks a woman out and pays for the date as a courtesy because it was he who invited her, there's no question of quid pro quo. Both participants understand the ground rules, and there's nothing being "bought" or "sold." Remove that courtesy from the equation, add modern cynicism, and see what you get.

Of course, any guy who tried to pull that with me would be walking home with the imprint of a 9 1/2 B where he least expected it.

:eusa_clap

 

[John in Covina]

I'd like to try to bring to this a peek at the older basis of the man paying for the date. It is not actually one of meals for sex, some low lifes my look at it that way but in the overall theme it is not..

It has to do with the idea that, a man, wanting to be seen as a prospect for marriage did so to make a case, to be seen as a "good provider" and is / was a part of the concept or "courtship" not a social put down or a political statement. It is old, it goes back to the days of men as hunters and women as gathers. Since it is not generally acceptable to bring an animal carcass to prove one's hunting prowess to the first date, we have to substitute our earning ability and pay for things to make the case.

One might wish to look at the gesture as intended and be thankful for the idea behind as opposed to doing all one can to undermine it with socio-political reterict. If one approaches every man with the idea that they are evil incarnate, chances are one will never find a good man.

 

[Pompidou]

I'd like to try to bring to this a peek at the older basis of the man paying for the date. It is not actually one of meals for sex, some low lifes my look at it that way but in the overall theme it is not..

It has to do with the idea that, a man, wanting to be seen as a prospect for marriage did so to make a case, to be seen as a "good provider" and is / was a part of the concept or "courtship" not a social put down or a political statement. It is old, it goes back to the days of men as hunters and women as gathers. Since it is not generally acceptable to bring an animal carcass to prove one's hunting prowess to the first date, we have to substitute our earning ability and pay for things to make the case.

One might wish to look at the gesture as intended and be thankful for the idea behind as opposed to doing all one can to undermine it with socio-political reterict. If one approaches every man with the idea that they are evil incarnate, chances are one will never find a good man.

You're right about the origins of the practice, though the origins are also the best argument in favor of losing the tradition. Back in the day, it seems, the man had to prove his worth as a provider, whilst the woman had to prove her worth as a homemaker. That's, by and large, gone out the window. It's a world of two income households and often outsourced childcare, where both partners share in the homemaking. A practice that originated as something of a social bartering of services holds no relevance when such division of labor has been abolished. If we put any other barter in its place, the issue becomes clearer.

The problem is, the services once rendered in return for assuming the mantle of sole provider are no longer required. The very mantle of sole provider, very often, isn't even desired. Women rightfully enjoy their life in the workplace, and men don't want to take on extra jobs for women who don't, in an economy that's already adjusted itself around two income households, leaving single provider households disadvantaged. I enjoy paying for dates and would do so, rule or not, but I imagine the obligation to do so aught go the way of the dodo. In practice, it mostly has. I have a ridiculous time arguing against going Dutch. I end up bartering the paying of one date for her paying the next, where Dutch is replaced with alternation.