Is chivalry good

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Chivalry here means men protecting women in a way that involves treating them differently to other men.
My opinion

I think chivalry is good because it follows natural law and Islamic law, because it benefits both men and women and because women have a harder time in some areas (due to a range of factors ranging from patriarchy to biology)

[The Greater Gothic Empire]

Chivalry here means men protecting women in a way that involves treating them differently to other men.
My opinion

I think chivalry is good because it follows natural law and Islamic law, because it benefits both men and women and because women have a harder time in some areas (due to a range of factors ranging from patriarchy to biology)

I remember listening to a song by Trevor Wesley, but it's sad to see that this generation nowadays has lost even a significant semblance of chivalry, which is considered "old-school" for progressive standards when it comes to treating ladies and gentlemen.

[Risottia]

this generation nowadays has lost even a significant semblance of chivalry

About fuckin' time.

Chivalry is dead as the society that produced it.
Just replace it with kindness: keep the good bit, discard the bad one.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

No. Gender equality works both ways. There should be no arena of social activity in which men are favoured merely for being men, and there should similarly be no arena of social activity in which women are favoured merely for being women. What is to understand?

Be courteous and respectful to your fellow human beings. That's all that needs to be done. All these distinctions of gender and whatnot unnecessarily complicate things.

[The Free Joy State]

this generation nowadays has lost even a significant semblance of chivalry

About fuckin' time.

Chivalry is dead as the society that produced it.
Just replace it with kindness: keep the good bit, discard the bad one.

^ This.

Statues belong on pedestals. Not flesh and blood women.

Reciprocal courteousness -- holding the door for the person behind you (regardless of their gender), standing on a full bus for the person who looks unable to stand (whether male or female) -- is the way to show respect to your fellow human beings, not antiquated ideas that women must be made of bone china and men must never show weakness.

[Celritannia]

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

You don’t know what chivalry means, do you?
Chivalry is bad, kindness is good.

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

I remember listening to a song by Trevor Wesley, but it's sad to see that this generation nowadays has lost even a significant semblance of chivalry, which is considered "old-school" for progressive standards when it comes to treating ladies and gentlemen.

Yeah, cause chivalry is dumb.
It’s good that the generation nowadays stops doing it.
Just be nice, everyone.

[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?

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

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.

Ah yes, whooping out the good ol’ strawman defence.
When used on you, oh it’s so horrible. But of course it’s only fair when you yourself use it.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

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?

Literally nobody has come to the defence of today's celebrities as good role models.

---

-snip-

-snip-

While I don't disagree with your basic ideas, it's generally courteous to accept the definitions given by the first speaker. Considering how the word is used in modern colloquial speech, it's not an unreasonable definition, and definition arguments over semantics is helpful to no-one.

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

-snip-

-snip-

While I don't disagree with your basic ideas, it's generally courteous to accept the definitions given by the first speaker. Considering how the word is used in modern colloquial speech, it's not an unreasonable definition, and definition arguments over semantics is helpful to no-one.

Although you’re right, changing the meaning of words only makes confusion.

[The Free Joy State]

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?

The goalposts... we'd like them back, please.

People here have argued the semantics of chivalry, that it is an antiquated idea that sucks and that it should be replaced by normal courtesy.

The only person talking about these people (are they celebrities... I've never heard of them before) is you.

[Sundiata]

I think it's fine.

[Jedi Council]

Chivalry is a medieval warrior code.

Kindness and respect are more appropriate for the modern world.

[Jedi Council]

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?

What in God's name?

I dont even know where to begin with this

[The Free Joy State]

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?

What in God's name?

I dont even know where to begin with this

I believe it's saying that you must either support a medieval warrior code with no practicality for the modern day or you must worship (apparent?) celebrities.

There is no middle ground like the regular reciprocal courtesy most people use daily.

[Sundiata]

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

[The Free Joy State]

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?

That men should not be given consideration as sensitive beings, sometimes needing caring for?

Please expand on the "solid point" you have taken from the OP.

Or was it just, "Woo! Patriarchy rocks!"?

[Sundiata]

Please expand on the "solid point" you have taken from the OP.

Well, OP raised a point about natural law. It raises the question, "How should men and women treat one another in that context?" That's interesting stuff.

[Freiheit Reich]

Chivalry is good.

A good man holds a door open for a lady (even if she is obese), 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), tries to discourage her from going into combat unless there is a great need (like Israel has), and make sure she gets space on a life raft along with children before he gets on the life raft.

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.

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.

Why Should Men Be Chivalrous?

https://www.catholicmatch.com/institute ... hivalrous/

Because men and women are different. Males and female are, according to Blessed John Paul II, absolutely equal in dignity before God, but constitute different ways of being human.

Why Should Men Be Chivalrous?
Posted December 13, 2013 by Mary Beth Bonacci

25+

Share
6
Tweet
Pin
1
7 SHARES
The last time I wrote about chivalry, I received 44 comments in the first 48 hours. Looks like chivalry is a hit again. Or at least discussions about it, if the response to my last column is any indication.

And it’s not just here. The link to the column went viral on Facebook. I’ve been asked to do a radio interview about the subject. I’ve written a follow-up for my syndicated column.

And I’m seeing lots and lots of comments in lots and lots of places. Some positive, some negative. I appreciated all of it. But seeing them made me want to clarify a few things.

The first was the comment that “Chivalry is really just kindness.” Many of you talked about how kindness is lacking in this culture—particularly between men and women—and how we all need to take the time to be thoughtful and considerate of each other, regardless of gender.

On one level, I agree wholeheartedly. I think kindness of all varieties is in particularly short supply, and I am heartily in favor of anything we can do to remind ourselves that we are all created in the image and likeness of God, and that we need to act accordingly.

But I want to clarify that chivalry and kindness are not interchangeable.

All chivalry is kindness, but all kindness is not chivalry. Chivalry, as we understand and use the term today, refers to a particular type of kindness. It is an act of kindness done by one type of person (men) on behalf of another type of person (women), for a specific reason.

Why is there an expectation that men will do these specific things for women, but not vice versa?

Because men and women are different. Males and female are, according to Blessed John Paul II, absolutely equal in dignity before God, but constitute different ways of being human.

And part of that difference is that women are physically weaker than men. Now every man is not physically stronger than every woman, but on the whole, men average a significantly higher percentage of muscle mass than women. And hence, most men who are not yet eligible for Social Security benefits are capable of physically overpowering most women who aren’t Olympic weight-lifters. And, whether we admit it or not, that causes a certain feeling of vulnerability in women.

Perhaps I’m particularly sensitive to this because I was recently on the receiving end of a man’s misuse of physical strength. He was convicted of third degree assault. And I was left feeling shaken, vulnerable, and extremely thankful to the nearby men who came to my defense.

Modern chivalry is supposed to be one way that men signal to women that they respect them and would never use their physical strength against them. As the chivalry article in Atlantic Monthly said, “Gentlemen developed symbolic practices to communicate to women that they would not inflict harm upon them and would even protect them against harm. The tacit assumption that men would risk their lives to protect women only underscores how valued women are—how elevated their status is—under the system of chivalry.”

The article goes on to describe an incident in an elevator in Harlem where a pastor tipped his hat to a young girl and she retorted “What’s that supposed to mean?”

The article continues, “The pastor’s response was: ‘Madame, by tipping my hat I was telling you several things. That I would not harm you in any way. That if someone came into this elevator and threatened you, I would defend you. That if you fell ill, I would tend to you and if necessary carry you to safety. I was telling you that even though I am a man and physically stronger than you, I will treat you with both respect and solicitude. But frankly, Madame, it would have taken too much time to tell you all of that; so, instead, I just tipped my hat.’”

And a note for those of you who asked “Why should I be chivalrous? What’s in it for me?” The answer is the same as it is for any other act of genuine kindness. Nothing. Kindness is not a quid pro quo arrangement whereby you give something and get something tangible back as a result. What does someone “get” from giving an elderly person their seat on the train? What do they get from helping a lost child, or shoveling a neighbor’s walk, or any other random act of kindness? They may get a warm feeling. They may get gratitude from the recipient. But that’s not why they do it—or at least why Christ commands them to do it.

What we get is the realization that we’re doing the right thing. That we’re respecting the image and likeness of God in this flesh-and-blood human person. That’s what we’re all called to do, and chivalry is just one small way in which we do it.

So if chivalry is so very respectful of women, why do so many well-intentioned and chivalrous men find—like the pastor in the Harlem elevator—that their efforts to be respectful are rebuffed by these very women themselves?

I’ve been thinking about that question. And I think it’ll be our next topic.

Do you have a question for Mary Beth Bonacci? Send it to askmarybeth@catholicmatch.com.

(This post has been read 5,164 times)

[The Free Joy State]

Please expand on the "solid point" you have taken from the OP.

Well, OP raised a point about natural law. It raises the question, "How should men and women treat one another in that context?" That's interesting stuff.

Though, you do "usually" consider this, don't you? You didn't just consider this due to the OP, you were discussing this yesterday, even saying "yes" when asked -- if opening the door for a man (not a dainty, helpless ikkle woman -- my words and heavy sarcasm) -- if you'd open the door and just push out in front. You consider this a lot, it seems.

So, it appears you think it's okay to treat men rather shabbily.

That doesn't seem very courteous, or respectful.

Which is why chivalry is a load of shit. It discourages respect for both sexes (treating one as pathetic and the other as worthless).

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

Well, OP raised a point about natural law. It raises the question, "How should men and women treat one another in that context?" That's interesting stuff.

If you ask me, natural law doesn’t really exist in humans, since it varies from person to person.
This is also why I say I say it doesn’t really exist, since what I might count as natural law, another person will disagree with.
And if it varies from person to person, does it then even really exist?
The same can be said with a lot of things.

[Freiheit Reich]

No. Gender equality works both ways. There should be no arena of social activity in which men are favoured merely for being men, and there should similarly be no arena of social activity in which women are favoured merely for being women. What is to understand?

Be courteous and respectful to your fellow human beings. That's all that needs to be done. All these distinctions of gender and whatnot unnecessarily complicate things.

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).

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

-snip-

I'm sort of tempted to ask "what is natural law", but I'm sure asking that question is just going to get me an earful about Sundiata's magical invisible sky daddy, so I won't.

Suffice to say that I don't believe that obeying how things "naturally" are is an ethical thing to do.

---

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).

No, there's nothing wrong with that. Both men and women should be able to join the military on an equal basis, and in times of crisis they should be conscripted into the military on an equal basis.

It is OK for women to serve in non-combat military jobs but they should not be in dangerous combat jobs.

Provided they meet the same physical standards there's no reason why women should be barred from frontline combat positions.

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).

Why? In an emergency I'll certainly consider it ethical to yield your seat to a child, but yielding your seat to a woman of similar age and status? Why would you do that, if not for sexism?

No obligation nor privilege should be granted on the basis of a coincidence of birth. Seriously - what is to understand?