Is chivalry good

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

How is it sexism? It’s designed to benefit both men and women and is nothing to do with either lacking equal worth and intelligence.

Chivalry benefits men in what way? It literally involves putting women on a pedestal.

Chivalry benefits men by giving them meaning and a role also many people look at pictures of kittens on the internet because they’re cute/adorable. Men can emotionally feel warm from protecting women.

[The Free Joy State]

Chivalry benefits men in what way? It literally involves putting women on a pedestal.

Chivalry benefits men by giving them meaning and a role also many people look at pictures of kittens on the internet because they’re cute/adorable. Men can emotionally feel warm from protecting women.

A woman is not a fucking kitten.

You want a small fluffy helpless creature, dependent on you for everything so you can go gooey inside -- get a kitten, or a puppy, or a budgie.

To compare a sentient and sapient adult to an animal is beyond demeaning.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

And, yes, I do have research that "chivalry" often masks chauvinism

All you have is a correlation. You don’t even have a study showing that reflects the majority of men.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Nowhere do they say they prefer sexual harassment to chivalry.

I’m referring to their responses to another thread

[The Free Joy State]

And, yes, I do have research that "chivalry" often masks chauvinism

All you have is a correlation. You don’t even have a study showing that reflects the majority of men.

Those goalposts stay right where they were, dear.

My post was not intended to show that it reflects "the majority of men" (the majority do not believe in this antiquated shit, thank god). All you asked for was research supporting my assertion about the degrading nature of chivalry which -- by showing the degrading nature of benevolent sexism and the idea of "wanting to put women on pedestals" -- I provided.

Nowhere do they say they prefer sexual harassment to chivalry.

I’m referring to their responses to another thread

You'll forgive me if I don't just take your word for that.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

All you have is a correlation. You don’t even have a study showing that reflects the majority of men.

Those goalposts stay right where they were, dear.

My post was not intended to show that it reflects "the majority of men" (the majority do not believe in this antiquated shit, thank god). All you asked for was research supporting my assertion about the degrading nature of chivalry which -- by showing the degrading nature of benevolent sexism and the idea of "wanting to put women on pedestals" -- I provided.

Sorry that was a typo. What I meant was: “All you have is a correlation. You don’t even have a study showing that reflects the majority of the men who engage in chivalry.”

[The Free Joy State]

Those goalposts stay right where they were, dear.

My post was not intended to show that it reflects "the majority of men" (the majority do not believe in this antiquated shit, thank god). All you asked for was research supporting my assertion about the degrading nature of chivalry which -- by showing the degrading nature of benevolent sexism and the idea of "wanting to put women on pedestals" -- I provided.

Sorry that was a typo. What I meant was: “All you have is a correlation. You don’t even have a study showing that reflects the majority of the men who engage in chivalry.”

Again, let's leave the goalposts where they were. You asked me for "any evidence", which I provided.

You, on the other hand, have no evidence that chivalry is not, in fact, an excuse for chauvinists to debase and degrade women by patting them on the head and say: "There-there, sweetie, let the big boys handle it." (And, by comparing women to kittens, you have hardly made a good argument against that yourself).

And when I say evidence, I mean peer-reviewed. As mine was.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

You asked me for "any evidence", which I provided.

You implied that that’s what chivalry is almost by definition (or at least a strong enough majority to make chivalry itself bad). The only evidence you provided is a correlation (and not one that necessarily even reflects 50% of acts of chivalry).
Muhammad (PBUH) listened to his wives and respected their abilities whilst still being protective of them.

[The Free Joy State]

You asked me for "any evidence", which I provided.

You implied that that’s what chivalry is almost by definition (or at least a strong enough majority to make chivalry itself bad). The only evidence you provided is a correlation (and not one that necessarily even reflects 50% of acts of chivalry).
Muhammad (PBUH) listened to his wives and respected their abilities whilst still being protective of them.

Firstly, yes. The inherent sexism of treating one sex like china and expecting the other sex to show no weakness does make it bad in itself. It is better to replace it (as most of the opponents have been arguing) with mutual courteousness and helping people not due to social expectation, not because of their gender, but because they are another human being.

Secondly, I asked for peer-reviewed evidence. Not a lesson in Muslim theology. I am not a Muslim.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

comparing women to kittens

I believe all I said was the psychological benefit of chivalry was akin to the psychological benefit of getting a kitten. I did not compare women’s intelligence (which is equal to men or slightly higher on average) to that of a kitten.

[The Free Joy State]

comparing women to kittens

I believe all I said was the psychological benefit of chivalry was akin to the psychological benefit of getting a kitten.

So you compared "taking care of a woman" to taking care of a kitten? Yep... if this was meant to make me feel better about your argument, it failed.

I did not compare women’s intelligence (which is equal to men or slightly higher on average) to that of a kitten.

If a woman has the same cognitive abilities as a man, why should she be treated like a kitten -- who needs tending to -- rather than respected as an equal and treated accordingly.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Secondly, I asked for evidence

And the only evidence you showed shows that some forms of sexism are correlated with chivalry. It did not even suggest the majority (higher than 50%) of chivalrous men show those qualities in the slightest.

Not a lesson in Muslim theology. I am not a Muslim.

I’m not saying “Muhammad was chivalrous therefore you should be.” As an atheist or agnostic, I can hardly expect you to copy the sunnah. I was giving an example of man (who influences countless other men) who was chivalrous whilst also respecting women’s abilities. His wife Khadijah (RA was a merchant), his wife Aisha (RA) was an Army medic in her youth and later an Islamic scholar with her own students.

[Molither]

Regardless of gender, if a man or woman is seen to be struggling than it's my duty to assist. However if a woman bodybuilder was carrying heavy items it might be seen as insulting to ask if she needs assistance.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

If a woman has the same cognitive abilities as a man, why should she be treated like a kitten -- who needs tending to -- rather than respected as an equal and treated accordingly.

A number of reasons, not all of them in any way consequentialist. Here are some major ones.
1. She’s predisposed to be physically weaker. If she is stronger it’s probably because she worked a lot harder (good for her!) and shouldn’t lose any entitlements because of that.
2. She’s disadvantaged by institutionalised sexism. Treating a disadvantaged group the same won’t compensate for their disadvantage.
3. The majority of women like chivalry in Britain, Afghanistan, Jordan and many other countries around the globe.

[The Free Joy State]

Secondly, I asked for evidence

And the only evidence you showed shows that some forms of sexism are correlated with chivalry. It did not even suggest the majority (higher than 50%) of chivalrous men show those qualities in the slightest.

Did you read actually read it? Here, we are, a nice little excerpt for you, discussing likelihood of behaviours -- which is what the study was about:

Researchers evaluated the men's verbal and nonverbal expressions during these interactions. Male volunteers also completed a questionnaire that evaluated their levels of sexism. When researchers cross-referenced the men's behavior with their sexism ratings, they found that men who qualified as "benevolent sexists" were likely to show warmth and patience towards their female partners, while "hostile sexists" were likely to act critical and negative — the way one might expect a misogynist to act. As the study's authors explain, "hostile sexism" reinforces the subjugation of woman through "dominance and denigration." "Benevolent sexism" achieves the same effect, but by perpetuating the belief that women are "pure and warm yet helpless and incompetent beings in need of cherished protection from men." The difference in action: A benevolent sexist is likely to agree with the statement "A good woman should be set on a pedestal by her man," while a hostile sexist is likely to agree that "Women exaggerate problems they have at work" (actual statements used on the questionnaire that male participants completed).

Not a lesson in Muslim theology. I am not a Muslim.

I’m not saying “Muhammad was chivalrous therefore you should be.” As an atheist or agnostic, I can hardly expect you to copy the sunnah. I was giving an example of man (who influences countless other men) who was chivalrous whilst also respecting women’s abilities. His wife Khadijah (RA was a merchant), his wife Aisha (RA) was an Army medic in her youth and later an Islamic scholar with her own students.

I am neither agnostic not atheist. I am just not Muslim. Those are not the only options.

And you are still yet to provide research to contradict mine.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Did you read actually read it?

It shows that benevolent sexists are likely to show warmth. Where does it show the converse?
I never disputed that some types of sexists might be likely to be chivalrous what I disputed is that chivalrous people are likely to be more sexist. There’s a difference (for example most murderers are male that doesn’t mean most males are murderers)

[The Free Joy State]

If a woman has the same cognitive abilities as a man, why should she be treated like a kitten -- who needs tending to -- rather than respected as an equal and treated accordingly.

A number of reasons, not all of them in any way consequentialist. Here are some major ones.
1. She’s predisposed to be physically weaker. If she is stronger it’s probably because she worked a lot harder (good for her!) and shouldn’t lose any entitlements because of that.

Women have fought in the military, women have been secret agents (I suggest you look up Noor Inayat Khan -- it took several men to bring her down), women can be more resilient against pain and sickness; in short: women can be just as physically strong as men.

The "weaker sex" is garbage.

2. She’s disadvantaged by institutionalised sexism. Treating a disadvantaged group the same won’t compensate for their disadvantage.

So you propose more sexism, disadvantaging her more by telling her she is too weak and frail to do what she wants to do, to combat that?

Weird.

Research has shown that women's more aggressive tendencies come to the fore in completely gender-free examination (no name, no gender on the paper), so maybe removing all identity markings in examination papers and hiring would help all women rise to the surface.

3. The majority of women like chivalry in Britain, Afghanistan, Jordan and many other countries around the globe.

Source, please. Peer-reviewed.

I mean, I'm yet to meet a woman who thinks it's a good idea.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

I am neither agnostic not atheist

What religion are you? All the six major ones (with the possible exception of Buddhism) teach chivalry towards women.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Source, please

For most women in Britain a university study published in the Telegraph

[The Free Joy State]

I am neither agnostic not atheist

What religion are you? All the six major ones (with the possible exception of Buddhism) teach chivalry towards women.

Really?

I hear kindness and compassion, I hear courtesy and consideration, I hear love and forgiveness -- I have never heard chivalry preached once.

Source, please

For most women in Britain a university study published in the Telegraph

I would like you to link the source. Then I may dissect it.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Noor Inayat Khan

A Muslim woman who supported chivalry. Also I explicitly acknowledged the possibility of some women being stronger than men. I’m not responsible for the fact you can’t read.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

I hear kindness and compassion, I hear courtesy and consideration, I hear love and forgiveness -- I have never heard chivalry preached once.

Are you a Christian?

[The Free Joy State]

I hear kindness and compassion, I hear courtesy and consideration, I hear love and forgiveness -- I have never heard chivalry preached once.

Are you a Christian?

I don't see what possible relevance this has to this thread.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

I don't see what possible relevance any personal fact about me has to this thread.

It’s relevant to chivalry.

[The Free Joy State]

I don't see what possible relevance any personal fact about me has to this thread.

It’s relevant to chivalry.

I have no intention of telling you any personal information about myself.

I take it you have no sources you care to link?