Is chivalry good

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

What about combat or a ship sinking?

It is wrong for an able-bodied man to hang out at home playing video games and working as a barista while a woman is protecting him from harm (if the country is being invaded). It is OK for women to serve in non-combat military jobs but they should not be in dangerous combat jobs. Also, men are supposed to give up their space on a raft when the ship is sinking (unless the man is very elderly or seriously disabled).

Life or death situations should not be based on gender, but instead on strength.

[Imperium Latine]

Chivalry is good. Kindness, compassion and respect, which is part of chivalry, should really be applied by everyone to everyone.
But I do think men have a special and natural obligation to protect others (women, children, old people) since men are biologically stronger and therefore should use that strength to the improvement of society.

[The Free Joy State]

A good man holds a door open for a lady (even if she is obese),

A good person holds the door for everyone, I'd have thought.

avoids swearing around a woman (unless she attacks him physically, steals from him, spits on him, or cheats on him, or she is physically abusing a child or an elderly relative), tries to avoid hitting a woman unless forced to (she attacks him with a weapon, she bites him very hard, or he catches her in the act of cheating on him in a very intimate way and he was faithful to her, or she is physically abusing a child or an elderly relative),

You (general) don't get a free pass on spousal abuse, just because your spouse is fucking someone else.

tries to discourage her from going into combat unless there is a great need (like Israel has),

Unless she wants to go to war.

and make sure she gets space on a life raft along with children before he gets on the life raft.

The Titanic is statistically highly unlikely to reoccur with modern technology.

People are unhappier and society is crumbling and one reason is because men and women are confused about their gender differences and expectations because society says we are 'the same' when we are not (and inside we know we are not the same). Men naturally want to be chivalrous but are afraid of offending feminists that dislike it.

Source -- not a Catholic one -- an accredited one. Any reasonably recent peer-reviewed research would be fine.

I have research: Men and Women: No Big Difference:

Mars-Venus sex differences appear to be as mythical as the Man in the Moon. A 2005 analysis of 46 meta-analyses that were conducted during the last two decades of the 20th century underscores that men and women are basically alike in terms of personality, cognitive ability and leadership. Psychologist Janet Shibley Hyde, PhD, of the University of Wisconsin in Madison, discovered that males and females from childhood to adulthood are more alike than different on most psychological variables, resulting in what she calls a gender similarities hypothesis. Using meta-analytical techniques that revolutionized the study of gender differences starting in the 1980s, she analyzed how prior research assessed the impact of gender on many psychological traits and abilities, including cognitive abilities, verbal and nonverbal communication, aggression, leadership, self-esteem, moral reasoning and motor behaviors.
[...]
Furthermore, Hyde found that gender differences seem to depend on the context in which they were measured. In studies designed to eliminate gender norms, researchers demonstrated that gender roles and social context strongly determined a person's actions. For example, after participants in one experiment were told that they would not be identified as male or female, nor did they wear any identification, none conformed to stereotypes about their sex when given the chance to be aggressive. In fact, they did the opposite of what would be expected - women were more aggressive and men were more passive.

Men and women are both valuable to society, but it is expected that men handle certain tasks like combat. Women are generally better at tasks that require someone who is nurturing like child care.

Women have done very well in combat for decades (the female SOE fighters were some of the most courageous and certainly helped win the war; just look up Noor Inayat Khan -- it took multiple men to bring her down). And the second part is patriarchal nonsense (and exactly why chivalry should be given no quarter); men are equally capable and willing to be nurturing, but are discouraged due to negative stereotypes.

[Risottia]

OP makes a solid point that I don't usually consider.

That a medieval warrior code is somehow applicable today?

That women should be treated as though they'll break and not as equals worthy of respect?

Female serfs, though, aren't even people. They're fair game for the chivalrous nobility.

[Sundiata]

That a medieval warrior code is somehow applicable today?

That women should be treated as though they'll break and not as equals worthy of respect?

Female serfs, though, aren't even people. They're fair game for the chivalrous nobility.

Too far.

[The Free Joy State]

That a medieval warrior code is somehow applicable today?

That women should be treated as though they'll break and not as equals worthy of respect?

Female serfs, though, aren't even people. They're fair game for the chivalrous nobility.

This alleged right, though, was only documented -- in period -- by Gerald of Aurillac who was angling for Sainthood (and claimed a miracle happened to save the serf).

While so-called chivalrous knights were a marauding bunch in general (and can't be said to have been very courteous), the female serfs are much disputed by history.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

But I do think men have a special and natural obligation to protect others (women, children, old people) since men are biologically stronger and therefore should use that strength to the improvement of society.

It's not a given that an arbitrarily selected man would be stronger than an arbitrarily selected woman of equal age. If you are interested in a society where those that cannot protect themselves are protected by others, and I agree that this is a very just and noble goal, would it not be more reasonable to directly state that the capable have an obligation to protect the incapable, regardless of gender?

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

A good person holds the door for everyone, I'd have thought.

Exactly. I believe in politeness based on practicality. I get out of the way for a man carrying something heavy just as I would get out of the way of someone with a push chair. None of this crap about 'status'.

[Esternial]

You let youngsters look up to today's mainstream role models as 6ix9ine or Cardi B, but let's face it, they're considered 'chivalrous' according to mainstream standards, but they're nothing more or less than sham role models that do not embody either the ideals of chivalry or kindness. The likes of boujees showing off their cars and money aren't kind but pretend to be kind so why should I look up to them?

If you're looking at those people for instructions on how to behave like a decent fucking human being your parents and the education system really dropped the ball.

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

Chivalry is good. Kindness, compassion and respect, which is part of chivalry, should really be applied by everyone to everyone.
But I do think men have a special and natural obligation to protect others (women, children, old people) since men are biologically stronger and therefore should use that strength to the improvement of society.

First of all, chivalry is a medieval code, but if we use the modern version, then yeah, it’s fine, as long as it’s applied to everyone.
Second of all, men don’t have a natural obligation to protect others, of course it’s honourable if you do.
But some men don’t care about other people, and some women also decide to protect others.
So I don’t really see your point.

[The Greater Gothic Empire]

You let youngsters look up to today's mainstream role models as 6ix9ine or Cardi B, but let's face it, they're considered 'chivalrous' according to mainstream standards, but they're nothing more or less than sham role models that do not embody either the ideals of chivalry or kindness. The likes of boujees showing off their cars and money aren't kind but pretend to be kind so why should I look up to them?

If you're looking at those people for instructions on how to behave like a decent fucking human being your parents and the education system really dropped the ball.

So saying people who dress and behave decently and not garrishly are just plain narrow-minded and judgemental? I wore a foot-length petticoat but I understand what I wear shows what I act. I am attempting to remind people of emulating social provocateurs as an alternative to discarding chivalric values, not tolerating repairing broken nutjobs (getting them to rehab and expect them to be in some sensitivity training venue) like those two I mentioned above.

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

So saying people who dress and behave decently and not garrishly are just plain narrow-minded and judgemental? I am reminding people of emulating social provocateurs as an alternative to discarding chivalric values, not tolerating repairing broken nutjobs like those two I mentioned above.

Here he goes again.
Please, stop making assumptions, and come up with a valid argument for the conversation.

[The Holy Therns]

You can hold the door open for me as many times as you like, I'm still not sleeping with you.

[The Greater Gothic Empire]

So saying people who dress and behave decently and not garrishly are just plain narrow-minded and judgemental? I am reminding people of emulating social provocateurs as an alternative to discarding chivalric values, not tolerating repairing broken nutjobs like those two I mentioned above.

Here he goes again.
Please, stop making assumptions, and come up with a valid argument for the conversation.

You were saying the values chivalry embodied were a bad thing nowadays, as if women refuse and resent the assistance of men.

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

You were saying the values chivalry embodied were a bad thing nowadays.

Nope, I was saying chivalry was bad for the modern ages.
Kindness works better.

[Disgraces]

But of course

[The Free Joy State]

Here he goes again.
Please, stop making assumptions, and come up with a valid argument for the conversation.

You were saying the values chivalry embodied were a bad thing nowadays, as if women refuse and resent the assistance of men.

Firstly, yes: treating one gender as lesser (pathetic and helpless and needing shielding) and the other as disposable (to have their lives thrown away in wars, there is a war side of chivalry, and never to be given protection themselves) is a bad thing. Everyone showing courtesy toward each other, assisting each other when needed (as people have actually argued for), is a good thing.

Second, you can't speak for all women.

Why not address the actual arguments people were making (which are unrelated to whatever celebrities you were referring to or their actions, whatever they were)?

[The Greater Gothic Empire]

You were saying the values chivalry embodied were a bad thing nowadays.

Nope, I was saying chivalry was bad for the modern ages.
Kindness works better.

Of course, we should be kind, but in modern times tolerating people who refuse or resent the assistance of people based on gender or status is something I can never stand. Even progressivism has a hard time trying to fix this out. While the past isn't something to be blamed for, there are some parts of the past that I wholeheartedly hate.

You were saying the values chivalry embodied were a bad thing nowadays, as if women refuse and resent the assistance of men.

Firstly, yes: treating one gender as lesser (pathetic and helpless and needing shielding) and the other as disposable (to have their lives thrown away in wars, there is a war side of chivalry, and never to be given protection themselves) is a bad thing. Everyone showing courtesy toward each other, assisting each other when needed (as people have actually argued for), is a good thing.

Second, you can't speak for all women. I disagree with the feminism of the SJWs

Why not address the actual arguments people were making (which are unrelated to whatever celebrities you were referring to or their actions, whatever they were)?

I am not a pacifist and I do not think martial values has harmed anyone whether one is weak or disposable based on ability. In modern times, one has to be vigilant and make self-defense a lifetime habit even when some hooded ultra-left 'activist' loots your businesses. I have been through this, not once, but several times because the plebians do not need saving; they only had themselves.

Also that does make sense because I too, am a lady. This is due to the point that I disagree with the femimism of the SJWs.

What disgusts me is that this thread has been turned into an open invitation for progressives to shun the past (with all its timeless values) and make fun of nobility as if nobility was something compatible with feudalism, which is, etymologically, not.

[Esternial]

If you're looking at those people for instructions on how to behave like a decent fucking human being your parents and the education system really dropped the ball.

So saying people who dress and behave decently and not garrishly are just plain narrow-minded and judgemental?

I didn't say that.

[The Greater Gothic Empire]

So saying people who dress and behave decently and not garrishly are just plain narrow-minded and judgemental?

I didn't say that.

No, you didn't.

I had someone who told me that what I wear expresses what I behave, for instance, that reference to a petticoat wasn't something I shove on other people's throats. Not all who wear decently are arrogant and narrow-minded, not even all who wear garrishly the same too. Still, their clothing shows their behavior, well-dressed or not.

[Risottia]

Chivalry is good. Kindness, compassion and respect, which is part of chivalry, should really be applied by everyone to everyone.
But I do think men have a special and natural obligation to protect others (women, children, old people) since men are biologically stronger and therefore should use that strength to the improvement of society.

Exactly what about having a couple of testicles makes Mr. Wimpy P. Hysicist stronger than Ms. Oly M. Picjudoka?

[Risottia]

You can hold the door open for me as many times as you like, I'm still not sleeping with you.

The point wouldn't be SLEEPING in the bed, honey.

[Miku the Based]

https://youtu.be/3HBz_JNgoGs?t=16
That's all I'm gonna leave about this topic.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

You can hold the door open for me as many times as you like, I'm still not sleeping with you.

That’s good. I admire your chastity. Chivalry is not about that.

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

Of course, we should be kind, but in modern times tolerating people who refuse or resent the assistance of people based on gender or status is something I can never stand. Even progressivism has a hard time trying to fix this out. While the past isn't something to be blamed for, there are some parts of the past that I wholeheartedly hate.

I’m not sure I fully understand what you mean, but if I do, just because you’re a woman doesn’t mean you need help. That makes no sense.