Is chivalry good?

[Privateer Stockholm]

By chivalry,
here I mean the protectiveness by men and boys towards women and girls.
So please avoid discussions of other aspects of the code of medieval knighthood and whether the ideal I’m referring to, or other ideals in the code, were always or often followed in practice
(Unless where relevant).
My opinion

Personally, I support chivalry as in the best interests of both the genders concerned and society as well as being right, as a deontological principle, in itself.

[Northern Seleucia]

I have absolutely no issue with it.

[Nilokeras]

So please avoid discussions of other aspects of the code of medieval knighthood and whether the ideal I’m referring to, or other ideals in the code, were always or often followed in practice
(Unless where relevant).

You cannot divorce an idea from its historical context. Chivalry, as a code of behaviour, was always an affectation of the elite in medieval society that was never particularly congruent with reality. The same medieval military class that wrote flowery poems about courtly love had absolutely no problem raping and murdering peasant and lower class women on a large scale while on campaign. Chivalry was always, and is always, a deeply class-oriented and misogynistic belief system that placed certain women on a pedestal at the expense of others, and even for that privileged class of noble women expected impossible standards of behaviour while circumscribing their rights and freedoms. Its modern iterations are no different.

[Privateer Stockholm]

Its modern iterations are no different.

Hence why Virginia hasn’t executed a woman (of any race or class) in over 12 years.

had absolutely no problem raping and murdering peasant and lower class women on a large scale while on campaign

Then why was this a capital offence in England and the Holy Roman Empire?
Also, when did Saladin ever commit or order rape?

[GuessTheAltAccount]

So please avoid discussions of other aspects of the code of medieval knighthood and whether the ideal I’m referring to, or other ideals in the code, were always or often followed in practice
(Unless where relevant).

You cannot divorce an idea from its historical context. Chivalry, as a code of behaviour, was always an affectation of the elite in medieval society that was never particularly congruent with reality. The same medieval military class that wrote flowery poems about courtly love had absolutely no problem raping and murdering peasant and lower class women on a large scale while on campaign. Chivalry was always, and is always, a deeply class-oriented and misogynistic belief system that placed certain women on a pedestal at the expense of others, and even for that privileged class of noble women expected impossible standards of behaviour while circumscribing their rights and freedoms. Its modern iterations are no different.

Damn it, Stockholm, quit making me agree with Nilo!

On a sidenote, isn't chivalry also unfair to men and boys with medical conditions that leave them in less position to enforce it?

[Privateer Stockholm]

On a sidenote, isn't chivalry also unfair to men and boys with medical conditions that leave them in less position to enforce it?

If woman are the only group given an extra protected status beyond that of “human being” then potentially, yes.
However if the measure of being part of a gender is willingness to live as such, wouldn’t there be the argument that men and boys would naturally want chivalry?

even for that privileged class of noble women expected impossible standards of behaviour while circumscribing their rights and freedoms

Many of the suffragettes used chivalry in their campaigns and public outrage at their treatment by the police was widespread.

[Zanderlock]

To an extent, being polite is a great thing, but chivalry is often either turned into 2 things at either extreme. One extreme being “Simping” and the other being a sexist incel.

[Stellar Colonies]

I’m in favor of women being better at self-defense partially so that I’m not expected to do it for them.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

On a sidenote, isn't chivalry also unfair to men and boys with medical conditions that leave them in less position to enforce it?

If woman are the only group given an extra protected status beyond that of “human being” then potentially, yes.
However if the measure of being part of a gender is willingness to live as such, wouldn’t there be the argument that men and boys would naturally want chivalry?

even for that privileged class of noble women expected impossible standards of behaviour while circumscribing their rights and freedoms

Many of the suffragettes used chivalry in their campaigns and public outrage at their treatment by the police was widespread.

My high school history teachers told us no such thing. In what sense, and in what context, did suffragettes invoke chivalry? Did they invoke it directly, or just ironically, to cast a light on how plainly insincere the charade of "chivalry" always was?

As for gender roles, there seems to be a double standard in the extent to which people are expected to be treated as individuals. If I so much as entertain the possibility that eliminating all reasons for a man or boy to say no to a woman's advances would be more doable, and a more constructive outlet for boys' sex drives, than to convince women that a boy genuinely meant "no" to her advances, I get accused of being unfair to asexuals. The same group of people NSers have previously denied existed. Yet somehow NSers think it more acceptable to hold disabled men and disabled boys to higher standards of physically protecting the women and girls they know than the most able-bodied of women and girls are to physically protecting the men and boys they know?

By comparison, plenty of pop culture portrays, as endearing, women who are both stalkerish toward; and violently protective of; the objects of their affection. So why, on webforums, is the "boys are the chivalrous ones, disabilities and other medical conditions be damned" gender role held above the "boys always say yes" gender role, when pop culture does the opposite?

[Socialist Montenegro]

If you want gender equality, you have to sacrifice special rights or privileges. Those two go hand in hand. Equal rights, equal responsibilities/obligations. I will take that stand until my last breath.

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

By chivalry,
here I mean the protectiveness by men and boys towards women and girls.
So please avoid discussions of other aspects of the code of medieval knighthood and whether the ideal I’m referring to, or other ideals in the code, were always or often followed in practice
(Unless where relevant).
My opinion

Personally, I support chivalry as in the best interests of both the genders concerned and society as well as being right, as a deontological principle, in itself.

Women do not need to be "protected" anymore. They still certainly face discrimination, yes- but the age of chivalry, the paternalism and patriarchy that dominated society is for the most part gone.

That doesn't mean that I think that men should start beating their wives without the whole fake bullshit of "holding the door". Respect and manners will continue without chivalry just fine.

[Jabberwocky]

Holding the door may be fake for you; not for me. I treat women as ladies routinely. Mostly, they seem to appreciate it.

[Nilokeras]

Hence why Virginia hasn’t executed a woman (of any race or class) in over 12 years.

Waiting with baited breath to hear how you think a medieval code of behaviour can be blamed for Virginia's judicial practices.

Then why was this a capital offence in England and the Holy Roman Empire?

'Capital offense' is a meaningless term to apply outside of a modern legal context with set sentencing requirements. Doubly so in the Empire, considering the vast array of different political and legal systems at work. So is the modern conception of 'rape' - the only Western legal concept that maps onto it is raptus, from the Latin 'to seize'. Medieval courts conceived of it as a crime of property, of unlawful seizure of a woman by a man from the woman's responsible male, ie the father or the husband. It therefore not brought against cases of marital rape, for example. It was also brought against cases of abduction or even elopement by a woman and their lover.

Access to the courts was also entirely dependent on class - the only cases we ever see in the record are dealing with nobles. The rape of lower class people was never considered.

Also, when did Saladin ever commit or order rape?

Chivalry as a code of behaviour is a Western European phenomena.

[Fractalnavel]

Maybe read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry for background. Fascinating stuff.

[Juristonia]

By chivalry,
here I mean the protectiveness by men and boys towards women and girls.
So please avoid discussions of other aspects of the code of medieval knighthood and whether the ideal I’m referring to, or other ideals in the code, were always or often followed in practice
(Unless where relevant).
My opinion

Personally, I support chivalry as in the best interests of both the genders concerned and society as well as being right, as a deontological principle, in itself.

Here's the thing. Why does there need to be "protectiveness by men and boys towards women and girls" at all?
Why can't everyone just look out for everyone, regardless of whatever attributes we prescribe to them?

I'm protective of the people around me, regardless of who or what they are. If I go through a door and someone's behind me, I hold it for them, regardless of who are what they are.
Why does there need to be some weird kind of gendered system behind it when you can just be generally kind to everyone?

[Juansonia]

My opinion is that everyone should have equal rights and duties (with exceptions related to medical ability), and I believe that gender roles, if they exist, should be completely voluntary. I don't want to live in a world where women demand that I hold the door for them, a world where me wearing a skirt gets me hate-crime'd, or a world where men act like women are lesser than them.

Everyone should be free to be as courteous or independent as they want. Everyone should be able to protect themselves. Ideally, everyone capable would protect each other, but that won't happen.

I would be opposed to a societal expectation of chivalry.

[Socialist Montenegro]

By chivalry,
here I mean the protectiveness by men and boys towards women and girls.
So please avoid discussions of other aspects of the code of medieval knighthood and whether the ideal I’m referring to, or other ideals in the code, were always or often followed in practice
(Unless where relevant).
My opinion

Personally, I support chivalry as in the best interests of both the genders concerned and society as well as being right, as a deontological principle, in itself.

Women do not need to be "protected" anymore. They still certainly face discrimination, yes- but the age of chivalry, the paternalism and patriarchy that dominated society is for the most part gone.

That doesn't mean that I think that men should start beating their wives without the whole fake bullshit of "holding the door". Respect and manners will continue without chivalry just fine.

Glad that someone has finally dared to acknowledge that patriarchy was abandoned ages ago. I'm tired of people making excuses like "the patriarchy did this" or "the patriarchy did that." Find another scapegoat for your problems, folks.

[Heloin]

Your misogynistic fantasy is not positive and does nothing for equality of the sexes. When you say protective what you mean is possessive, this isn't about keeping women and girls safe it's about holding them down as a lower class in need of a creepy paternalistic kind of protection.

Holding the door may be fake for you; not for me. I treat women as ladies routinely. Mostly, they seem to appreciate it.

You'd hold a door open for most people I assume unless you're actively misandric. It's not chivalry, it's being polite.

[Floofybit]

Chivalry is good

[Morozistan]

To an extent, yes. Men should always treat women with respect, but women should be able to have their own independence as well. And when I mean respect, I don't mean the removal of all sexual desires, but that those desired are voluntary towards the woman in question. Women should be seen on an equal pedestal with men socially, but there's not inherently anything wrong with a man being protective of a women so long as that doesn't extend into over-protectiveness or removing all forms of progressive feminist empowerment (feminism as in the kind where women deserve equal rights to men, not the version where women suppress men to eradicate all forms of masculinity).

[The Black Forrest]

Depends on the woman. A professional fighter can probably handle herself. A tiny woman getting a beating from a guy because “wahhh she slapped me” Hell yes.

[Alcala-Cordel]

Being polite, helpful, and protecting people when needed is cool. Chivalry is weird, sexist, and irrelevant for several hundred years. Assuming women can't do things for themselves is also weird.

On a slightly different note, while I do hate physically fighting I would fight a woman if I had to. Most women are taller than I am anyway.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Depends on the woman. A professional fighter can probably handle herself. A tiny woman getting a beating from a guy because “wahhh she slapped me” Hell yes.

Equal rights equal fights tbh. I'd hit a smaller man back if he hit me, why should the same not be true of a woman?

As for the thread topic, no chivalry is not good and it has no need or reason to exist in our society.

[The Black Forrest]

Depends on the woman. A professional fighter can probably handle herself. A tiny woman getting a beating from a guy because “wahhh she slapped me” Hell yes.

Equal rights equal fights tbh. I'd hit a smaller man back if he hit me, why should the same not be true of a woman?

As for the thread topic, no chivalry is not good and it has no need or reason to exist in our society.

Depends on the man. He can be small and yet muscled.

A guy so willing to punch out a woman has some issues.

[Dwemer]

“Well, I’m dashed! The way I was raised, it was expected that men should open doors for ladies,” says Mr. Dwemer, leaning lightly on his decorative silver-topped cane. “Protecting the fairer sex is an obligation of every gentleman - like learning to ride astride, box ruffians or dance a manly gavotte - and I’m sure many ladies would prefer feeling cherished by society. Rather than discourage chivalry, we should teach it in schools.”