NationStates

The Holy Therns wrote:He's agreeing with what part? My disapproval of his views or my clarification that his response was completely off the mark?

No, he said you were right.
You must just be misunderstanding his views.

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:

The Holy Therns wrote:He's agreeing with what part? My disapproval of his views or my clarification that his response was completely off the mark?

No, he said you were right.
You must just be misunderstanding his views.

He is misunderstanding hers, let's make that clear.

Sky Reavers wrote:So it's not concept of chivalry, that is good or bad. It's about individual interpertations of this concept.

Since the OP was kind enough to provide a definition, one might reasonably assume that the definition given is the interpretation we are working under for the purposes of this discussion.

As I said earlier - there’s little good to be had in a definitional debate.

My female friends say “eh” or “mostly”.

There's no particular reason for chivalry. Instead, we should treat all (deserving) human beings with respect and kindness.

This has all the benefits of chivalry, but leaves out the:

-patronizing misogyny (i.e., the idea that women are incapable and need the help of men)
-toxic masculinity (i.e., the idea that men all have to be tough and that receiving help makes someone less of a man)
-and misandry (i.e., the idea that men are disposable and/or undeserving of the kindness that is extended towards women, or somehow worth less.)

Oh yea, chivalry be thy truly honourable institution thy good sire.

Gone art the dank and badarse days when thy knight in shining armor would rideth and when we hath a beautiful knight to kill thy ferocious dragon who speweth forth flames. We shalt bringeth back the Order of the Knights Templars to assassinate thy Bad Assassin.

Thy beautiful blonde knight girl nameth Jeanne d'Arc shalt don again in shining plate armor with long broadsword and rideth and crusadeth for thee.

We shalt maketh back the Knights of the Vale and Littlefinger shalt leadeth it for thy behalf thy good and honourable sire.

Coming to this thread I was thinking of chivalrous attitudes as a bit daft and antiquated, probably frustrating to be on the receiving end of, but I wouldn't have described them as sinister. Then I noticed that 3 of the posters who jumped to their defence have a definite eagle and iron cross motif going on with their flags. And I'm aware of Godwin's law and all that, but still...

We should be teaching women how to be strong and defend themselves. Not making 50% of the population reliant on the other 50% and burdening the other 50% with having to basically slave away every five minutes.

I pity the fool who raises his daughters so poorly that they rely on men for everything they could take for themselves.

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:We should be teaching women how to be strong and defend themselves. Not making 50% of the population reliant on the other 50% and burdening the other 50% with having to basically slave away every five minutes.

I pity the fool who raises his daughters so poorly that they rely on men for everything they could take for themselves.

*Aisha bint Abu Bakr has joined the chat*
*Fatimah bint Muhammad has joined the chat*

Women are either equal or they're not. Why put them on a weird pedestal where it's often going to cost you in resources and you've got a significant risk that a "strong independent women" will take offence and cause you problems if you catch her in a bad mood?

When someone says strong independent woman, one of the things I immediately think about is when Ūmar (ra) was giving a khutbah (sermon) in the mosque, and a woman got up and began yelling and pointing her finger at him telling him “You’re wrong, you idiot! Muhammad said this and that.”
She yelled and waved her finger...
at ŪMAR

Insaanistan wrote:When someone says strong independent woman, one of the things I immediately think about is when Ūmar (ra) was giving a khutbah (sermon) in the mosque, and a woman got up and began yelling and pointing her finger at him telling him “You’re wrong, you idiot! Muhammad said this and that.”
She yelled and waved her finger...
at ŪMAR

Well, what did exactly Umar say?

Little of chivalry actually has anything to do with kindness towards women. It gets misused a lot and - as mentioned earlier - is more just general code of conduct among knights.

In my opinion, kindness extends to...well anyone really. I'm not particularly giving anyone a pedestal over such a basis. My usual holding doors open comes from kindness alone.

(ok that last sentence seems a little braggybut you get the drift)

I don't think it's a bad thing, really, but it can be a little unnecessary and some people are offended by it.

As noted elsewhere, any warrior code seems distinctly unnecessary in a society without warriors.

The warrior caste or role has been supplanted culturally by soldiers, police, and the criminal and civil justice systems. All of which operate professionally and as regulated by fairly utilitarian societal needs and not moral motives of honor or glory. In the west, at least, there's no place for warriors. Ergo, no need for a warrior code.

Geneviev wrote:I don't think it's a bad thing, really, but it can be a little unnecessary and some people are offended by it.

I think if a man just casually holds open a door for a woman even the most feminist ones don't get offended provided the gesture seems natural and he doesn't do it in such a way where body language and facial expressions or words indicate that he has really thought about this and is desperate for credit for being a gentleman.

Esternial wrote:He is misunderstanding hers, let's make that clear.

Plausible, or perhaps they’re both misunderstanding each other.

Kernen wrote:As noted elsewhere, any warrior code seems distinctly unnecessary in a society without warriors.

The warrior caste or role has been supplanted culturally by soldiers, police, and the criminal and civil justice systems. All of which operate professionally and as regulated by fairly utilitarian societal needs and not moral motives of honor or glory. In the west, at least, there's no place for warriors. Ergo, no need for a warrior code.

I mean in theory you're totally right, in practice cops' conduct is often indistinguishable from that of gangbangers, this whole "you gonna respect me or get your head blown off" attitude. This isn't universal and it depends the country, I would imagine most cops in Iceland don't act like this but in America too many do.

So perhaps some kind of warrior code might still be useful.

Insaanistan wrote:When someone says strong independent woman, one of the things I immediately think about is when Ūmar (ra) was giving a khutbah (sermon) in the mosque, and a woman got up and began yelling and pointing her finger at him telling him “You’re wrong, you idiot! Muhammad said this and that.”
She yelled and waved her finger...
at ŪMAR

Nowadays she'd get stoned to death for being at a public meeting without a chaperone.

Page wrote:

Kernen wrote:As noted elsewhere, any warrior code seems distinctly unnecessary in a society without warriors.

The warrior caste or role has been supplanted culturally by soldiers, police, and the criminal and civil justice systems. All of which operate professionally and as regulated by fairly utilitarian societal needs and not moral motives of honor or glory. In the west, at least, there's no place for warriors. Ergo, no need for a warrior code.

I mean in theory you're totally right, in practice cops' conduct is often indistinguishable from that of gangbangers, this whole "you gonna respect me or get your head blown off" attitude. This isn't universal and it depends the country, I would imagine most cops in Iceland don't act like this but in America too many do.

So perhaps some kind of warrior code might still be useful.

You are right that the American police are hardly exemplars of professionals. They show basically no restraint or concern for the community.

But they are governed by regulations born of societal practicality without regard for silly things like honor. I firmly believe chivalry, bushido, aryyaran, or other warrior code of conduct plus American police would give us far, far worse outcomes. Good lord, the bloodshed in the name of "honor"...

Uan aa Boa wrote:Coming to this thread I was thinking of chivalrous attitudes as a bit daft and antiquated, probably frustrating to be on the receiving end of, but I wouldn't have described them as sinister. Then I noticed that 3 of the posters who jumped to their defence have a definite eagle and iron cross motif going on with their flags. And I'm aware of Godwin's law and all that, but still...

My nation's flag has nothing to do with the german iron cross or eagle, nor am I a fascist or a nazi for that matter, so yeah, shut up with that argument.




What I said about Chivalry (obviously the softer and modern version as we don't live in the medieval times nor are we knights) is my personal opinion, while I added that we should really behave honorably, with kindness and compassion towards everyone (unless they are a total jackass and are the ones doing harm to others). Also, I was not defending women aren't capable of defending themselves per se, or are less capable than men in life or some areas, what I mean is the following, as some of you seem to have a hard time understanding since you guys like to make a problem out of everything:

In general women are less physically strong than men, as such men should protect them (as we should children and the elderly) when needed, and specially when the aggressor is another man. Women should be treated by law equally and be presented the same opportunities, never said otherwise.

But my behavior will be a bit different if I see a women carrying a lot of things in the street, I'll ask if she needs help a bit quicker and naturally, I'll hold the door (but then again I'll hold the door to everyone because it's just good manners), I'll help a women putting the baby stroller on the train/bus, for example. Men can usually do that kind of stuff better because they have superior upper body strength, it's biological (But of course I would help anyone in need, never said otherwise), I'll stand up on public transport if a women and/or children/elderly arrives and every seat is taken. I'll also accompany a female friend home if we're walking so that she arrives safe when it's night because women are more vulnerable to some kind of crimes as we well know, a male friend it's not that dangerous so I really won't. The same with vulnerable situations, a female alone and drunk after a nigh out, runs greater risks than a guy, I'll help both, but I'll probably see that the girl arrives safe at home, to her friends, wtv. Women are more vulnerable than men and men have a bigger responsibility to safeguard women children and the elderly because of biological reasons, some "social constructs" or wtv you want to call it are based on our own nature as human beings. You can call it patronizing but it really isn't, if people don't want my help I'll take my leave, but it doesn't hurt to to that extra mile for women. Chivalry is not about expecting anything in return, it's not about patronizing, it's not about simping, it's about respecting and protecting women.

Just wanted to add this because you all have a tendency to think that by a 2 sentenced paragraph that you know anything about people and their ideas.

Imperium Latine wrote:In general women are less physically strong than men, as such men should protect them (as we should children and the elderly) when needed...

Do you think that in the same way a female athlete or bodybuilder should protect a skinny guy who never works out and is less physically strong? Should she open doors for him and give up her seat on the bus? Offer to walk him home in case he gets mugged?

Uan aa Boa wrote:Coming to this thread I was thinking of chivalrous attitudes as a bit daft and antiquated, probably frustrating to be on the receiving end of, but I wouldn't have described them as sinister. Then I noticed that 3 of the posters who jumped to their defence have a definite eagle and iron cross motif going on with their flags. And I'm aware of Godwin's law and all that, but still...

The Nazis broke the code of chivalry by killing women and children.

In my opinion, I believe that chivalry is fine. I don't see anything wrong with giving a name to the act of a man helping a woman. If chivalry offends a woman, then don't be chivalrous, simple as that. It's just on a case to case basis.

Uan aa Boa wrote:

Imperium Latine wrote:In general women are less physically strong than men, as such men should protect them (as we should children and the elderly) when needed...

Do you think that in the same way a female athlete or bodybuilder should protect a skinny guy who never works out and is less physically strong? Should she open doors for him and give up her seat on the bus? Offer to walk him home in case he gets mugged?

In general... Learn how to read.