BTW you should have started with your ending which was a valid statement and is strong enough to stand alone. The rest of the post muddied the water. IMHO
Because some people have trouble with simple ideas, sometimes I'll say the same simple thing several different ways. For instance, if you can't understand "I'm not saying 'don't open doors for women', I'm saying 'don't open doors only for women,'" then maybe give another sentence a try:
"Chivalry is when a man does something nice for a woman not because they're both people, but because he's a man and she's a woman."
If that doesn't make sense to you, maybe take a gander at:
"Chivalry says: 'Who ought to get a seat depends on gender.' Courtesy says: 'Who ought to get a seat depends on who needs it most.'"
Still not getting it? Consider "Gender doesn't make anyone more (or less) deserving of courteous treatment."
And so on.
Some people understand the first sentence and don't need to read the rest. Some people don't get it until they hit a certain sentence somewhere in the middle. Some people understand the TL;DR, but nothing else. It's true that some folks can read the whole thing through, TL;DR and all, and still completely misunderstand the simple idea I'm trying to get across... but for the sake of my remaining faith in human intelligence, I'd like to think they're rare.
This is why we can't have nice things. Smh
@DarrenWalker Ok Im just going to go through your post that I copied and pasted below. I dont have the Knowledge to use the faded technique and dont have the time to figure it out now. My comments are in * *
Wheee lots of posts and I've just got a few minutes between shifts hooray.
@snuggleme123: I think you might be misunderstanding me I probably did and apologize I'm not saying "don't open doors for women." I'm saying "don't open doors only for women." Chivalry persists because women like being treated politely, and men can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that people other than women might like to have doors opened for them, too.
I agree till the word politely then then you made a universal and hostile statement about men. Such statements lead to misunderstandings. I would imagine it would not be easy to find a person who opens doors for women and flatly refuses to open doors for men. Your statement is absurd
Chivalry is when a man does something nice for a woman not because they're both people, but because he's a man and she's a woman. * Webster would agree*
Saying women are greater than men (and you want to honor their greatness), or that they're weaker than men (and you want to aid them in your strength)—either way, it's making approximately half of humanity not equal to the approximate other half. It's setting them up on a pedestal, or looking down at them condescendingly, or somehow both. And any way you slice it, it's taking men and saying they don't deserve to have doors opened for them or seats given up.
Yep, you got me, my practice of honoring women surely makes approximately half of humanity not equal to the other. And yes honoring women means those scabrous dogs dont get the door opened, in fact I often look and laugh at them from the other side and I defecate on a seat before giving it to a penis wearer. wait maybe I was being absurd there.
Sometimes one person is exhausted and another person is in good shape to stand. Why should the tired one be embarrassed when the energetic one says "here, take my seat"? What kind of stupid set of social rules says that even if you're completely worn out, you shouldn't sit if it means a younger, less tired person (with boobs) has to stand?
*depends on the quality of the boobs. 🙄 *
Chivalry says: "Who ought to get a seat depends on gender." yes, that is why only women sit Courtesy says: "Who ought to get a seat depends on who needs it most."
Gender doesn't make anyone more (or less) deserving of courteous treatment. You know what does? * I thought your thesis is "all" warrant courteous treatment* Humanity. gender is part of our humanity, you used it as such above Personality. So funny people get the door opened? Actions. so wheelchair people are in trouble. Decent behavior. * I guess we should not model good behavior to the bad* Or just plain being another sentient being on this earth. Does a man (or an enby) have to be a war veteran before you'll open a door? * oh, I forgot about my get away with a penis free card for war vets. Sorry*
TL;DR Do those "chivalrous" things for EVERYBODY. Respect EVERYBODY. That's courtesy. agreed,
lets see if I got it
ok, next time
I do not mean to be anti Darren as I have said before I respect him a lot. I am just taken aback that the idea of chivalry is under attack. Why are we so damn quick to be offended by every ideal, especially if it is more that ten min old. I mean really, with all of the true horrors humans are bestowing on each other we are attacking a construct that at least tries to make people be nice to someone. It is a building block and like I said before I would be surprised if you could find a significant number of people who were chivalrous in their heart and it did not manifest into courtesy to all. There really are bigger evils in the world. I sincerely hold the door to my heart and mind open for @DarrenWalker . His punk ass is welcome any time. (sarcastic humor, not the door part)
(I think we should ALL watch a Christmas movie and SNUGGLE!!! ❄️ Thank you arrant first the fabulous suggestion!! ❣️)
@sillysassy Woot!
@snuggleme123: This promises to be long, so I'm going to put a >! in front of (and between) each paragraph, which will stick everything in spoilers. Sometimes I'll preface a paragraph with >! > which will put a quotation (that's what the > does) inside the spoiler. And I'm halving it, because yup... it's long.
Chivalry persists because women like being treated politely, and men can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that people other than women might like to have doors opened for them, too. "I agree till the word politely then then you made a universal and hostile statement about men."
Chivalry persists because women like being treated politely, and men can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that people other than women might like to have doors opened for them, too.
"I agree till the word politely then then you made a universal and hostile statement about men."
Well, you have a point. I could have been more specific. But I thought you were already annoyed by how long my post was: would you really have been happier to read "Chivalry persists because everyone likes being treated politely, including women—so women often not only don't object to being treated politely (even though they know men don't receive this treatment), they'll sometimes object to not receiving it. This double standard also persists because people (especially the men who are, according to this 'chivalry' idea, in charge of handing out this polite behavior) can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that people other than women might like to have doors opened for them, too."
Chivalry is when a man does something nice for a woman not because they're both people, but because he's a man and she's a woman. "Webster would agree."
Chivalry is when a man does something nice for a woman not because they're both people, but because he's a man and she's a woman.
"Webster would agree."
Believe it or not, in this particular instance I don't care about Webster. What I care about is common use.
Now, there are some people out there who're trying to redeem the word "chivalry" by changing the meaning; I wish them the best of luck. As soon as "chivalry" means "a person of any gender being polite to another person of any gender simply because they're both people," I'll be all for it. But while it continues to mean "a man being polite to a woman because he's a man and she's a woman," I'll continue to object vociferously.
It's not the word I dislike. That's just letters and sounds. It's the meaning.
Saying women are greater than men (and you want to honor their greatness), or that they're weaker than men (and you want to aid them in your strength)—either way, it's making approximately half of humanity not equal to the approximate other half. It's setting them up on a pedestal, or looking down at them condescendingly, or somehow both. And any way you slice it, it's taking men and saying they don't deserve to have doors opened for them or seats given up. "Yep, you got me, my practice of honoring women surely makes approximately half of humanity not equal to the other."
"Yep, you got me, my practice of honoring women surely makes approximately half of humanity not equal to the other."
Eh... did you not read the "saying women are greater than men" part? Where in there did I say anything about snuggleme123's personal practice of honoring just women, only women, specifically women, women more than anybody else? If you actually do that, then yes—your practice of honoring women more than anyone else does indeed make approximately half of humanity not equal to the other.
Sometimes one person is exhausted and another person is in good shape to stand. Why should the tired one be embarrassed when the energetic one says "here, take my seat"? What kind of stupid set of social rules says that even if you're completely worn out, you shouldn't sit if it means a younger, less tired person (with boobs) has to stand? "depends on the quality of the boobs. 🙄"
"depends on the quality of the boobs. 🙄"
You're probably trying to be sarcastic here, but in many cases chivalry, in practice, does turn out this way: sexually attractive women get even more "chivalrous" behavior from men than ones who the men aren't especially attracted to that way.
And doesn't this tell us something about how chivalry? Only women get it—and the sexier they are, the more of it they get.
Chivalry says: "Who ought to get a seat depends on gender." "yes, that is why only women sit"
You seem to be having trouble with the concept of "ought" vs. "is." What a set of rules says ought to be the case isn't always what is... and (in this case at least) thank sanity.
Gender doesn't make anyone more (or less) deserving of courteous treatment. You know what does?
"I thought your thesis is "all" warrant courteous treatment"
My argument is that people should be courteous, not chivalrous. Courtesy is treating everyone politely, yes. But dang, dude—I'm not claiming that a terrible human being deserves to be treated politely! I'm just pointing out that chivalry says they only get somebody else's seat on a full bus if they have boobs, while courtesy says they get the seat if they need it more than whoever's got it right now.
Humanity. "gender is part of our humanity, you used it as such above"
Gender ain't a part of my humanity. I don't got no gender. So I find it difficult to believe that I used "gender" as a synonym for "an important part of humanity, on which decisions about polite behavior ought to be based" at any point.
You do recognize that humans are considered less human when they do terrible things? Lack of humanity is a valid reason to say "that person is less deserving of polite behavior"—an excess of humanity and humane behavior is a valid reason to say "that person is more deserving of polite behavior."
Personality. "So funny people get the door opened?"
I tell you this now: someone with Scrooge's personality isn't terribly deserving of polite treatment. Mind you, courtesy says he ought to get it anyway... but then courtesy (like chivalry) doesn't care what you deserve. It just says that if you have quality X, you get treatment Y.
Actions. "so wheelchair people are in trouble."
...I legitimately don't know what to say to that. Are you seriously saying that people who use wheelchairs can't do things? What do you think wheelchair users are, dead?
Decent behavior. "I guess we should not model good behavior to the bad"
You're not seriously saying that indecent behavior doesn't make a person less deserving of courteous treatment. Are you?
Now, courtesy says all humans deserve to be treated courteously because they're human—so if someone abandons their humanity, courtesy doesn't say anything about them anymore. It is eloquent in its silence. Chivalry, on the other hand, says all women deserve to be treated courteously because they're women—so guess what happens when someone, say, transitions? Chivalry's silence is most eloquent.
Does a man (or an enby) have to be a war veteran before you'll open a door? "oh, I forgot about my get away with a penis free card for war vets. Sorry"
Does a man (or an enby) have to be a war veteran before you'll open a door?
"oh, I forgot about my get away with a penis free card for war vets. Sorry"
...Though you're obviously being sarcastic, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. That war veteran status functions as a "get polite behavior even though you have a penis" card for you? You are aware that, while some war veterans (now and in the future) are men, others are women and some are non-binary—not all of them would qualify for that "with a penis" bit on your imaginary, sardonic card.
You do know that my argument is "they shouldn't need a card," right? It's only chivalry that says "women get courteous treatment from men," thus implying that special cards (mental or actual) are needed if a man's going to be courteous to someone not a woman.
Do those "chivalrous" things for EVERYBODY. Respect EVERYBODY. That's courtesy. "agreed,"
I think you're missing the point. Doing these things for everyone is courtesy. Courtesy, get it? Not chivalry. Courtesy, not chivalry. Do these things for everyone—courtesy—instead of only for women—chivalry.
The things chivalry says you should only do for women? Do those "chivalrous" things for EVERYBODY. Respect EVERYBODY. That's courtesy.
Courtesy, not chivalry.
For those of you who don't wanna read all that, I'm attacking the idea of men (only men, no one else) doing nice things for women (only or especially women, not really anyone else) because women (and only women) are deserving of this type of polite behavior. I'm attacking this idea because I hate it with a fiery burning passion.
It's a rare man who's such a true exemplar of this idea that he's only ever polite to women. But those men are out there, and they're what this idea touts as ideal, and they are awful.
A note because I feel like it's needed: if you treat everyone with the same politeness you do women, you're not one of these men.
@DarrenWalker
This double standard also persists because people (especially the men who are, according to this 'chivalry' idea, in charge of handing out this polite behavior) can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that people other than women might like to have doors opened for them, too."
We will probably have to agree to disagree. But once again I dont believe that even a simple majority of men that extend kindness to women refuse it to men. It is not the way I roll and I have not seen your premise bear out in my experience.
Believe it or not, in this particular instance I don't care about Webster. What I care about is common use. Now, there are some people out there who're trying to redeem the word "chivalry" by changing the meaning; I wish them the best of luck. As soon as "chivalry" means "a person of any gender being polite to another person of any ?gender simply because they're both people," I'll be all for it. But while it continues to mean "a man being polite to a? woman because he's a man and she's a woman," I'll continue to object vociferously. It's not the word I dislike. That's just letters and sounds. It's the meaning.
Now, there are some people out there who're trying to redeem the word "chivalry" by changing the meaning; I wish them the best of luck. As soon as "chivalry" means "a person of any gender being polite to another person of any ?gender simply because they're both people," I'll be all for it. But while it continues to mean "a man being polite to a? woman because he's a man and she's a woman," I'll continue to object vociferously.
Webster was just a different way to say I agree, I will quot Sheldon Cooper and say...Whats life without whimsy. :P Object and project your definitions. Your time will be just as successful getting the masses to say the sky is green. But what the hell, you never know. Rail on spanky!
your practice of honoring women more than anyone else does indeed make approximately half of humanity not equal to the other.
It has nothing to do with chivalry but men and women are not equal. Men have strengths and weaknesses that women dont have generally and visa versa. We are different and that is a good thing.
Yes you are totally correct it is chivalry's fault that women use their sexuality to get what they want from men. You should email Cosmo so they can warn the readership.
So yes CC lets be kind to all because Darren is correct, semantics aside, it is good to do so for all people involved.
This thread, in short:
“Chivalry is inherently sexist. Its foundations are sexist. Its application is sexist.”
“No I am not! Not all men! Words change over time! There are OTHER things to be worried about! I’m not deflecting! REEEEEEEEE.”
I dont believe that even a simple majority of men that extend kindness to women refuse it to men. Object and project your definitions. Your time will be just as successful getting the masses to say the sky is green.
I dont believe that even a simple majority of men that extend kindness to women refuse it to men.
Object and project your definitions. Your time will be just as successful getting the masses to say the sky is green.
Whee. Okay, @snuggleme123. Let's try bullet points! Those are simple, right?
・ There's an idea out there which says "men (and only men) should do certain specific polite things for women (and only women—or, at the very least, women should get priority)."
・ So far as I can tell, when most people say "chivalry," this is what they mean.
・ A woman opening a door for a man isn't chivalrous.
・ An enby pulling out a chair for a man isn't chivalrous.
・ A woman giving up her seat for a woman isn't chivalrous.
・ So far as I can tell, it's only called "chivalry" if it's a man doing it for a woman.
・ A man who considers himself "chivalrous" will, so far as I can tell, only consider his politeness "chivalry" if he's being polite to someone he considers a woman. Otherwise it's just politeness. If it's to a woman, though, it picks up some special quality which makes it "chivalry."
・ In my experience, this "special quality" usually manifests itself in really obnoxious body language and (sometimes) an affected British accent.
・ There also tends to be some flirting (aka suggestions of sexual interest).
・ I am not saying that thinking of yourself as "chivalrous" means you'll never open a door or stand up for a non-woman. I am saying that thinking of yourself as "chivalrous" means you'll treat the women you open doors for differently than the non-women you open doors for.
As someone who knows both men with breasts and women with beards, I disagree with the idea that the two are fundamentally different.
This brings me to my other problem with chivalry: It insists that, before you do a courteous thing for someone, you decide what gender they are. (Without asking, even.) If you're going to give up your seat to someone who needs it anyway, why do you care what their pronouns are? Because it's not chivalry unless they meet your definition of "woman." That's why.
・ Whatever word you use to describe it (and these days the word seems to be "chivalry"), I hate this idea.
@hogboblin I 100% agree with everything you said.
Ok incase Darren may be saying WTF. Chivalry is man to woman dictate so sure it can be termed sexist. My point is its implementation does not force men to not be nice to other men as well.
To Hogboblin's post I would only add that just because something is sexist doesnt necessarily make it bad. Men mainly only have sex with women and visa versa, sexist. But such a union created you so it is not inherently bad is it.
...I feel the desperate need to articulate a concept, but I seem to be lacking words.
Sure, chivalry doesn't say "Don't anyone go being polite to non-women, now!" But it sure as heck implies the heaven out of the idea that politeness to anyone who isn't a woman is not nearly as all-consumingly important as being polite to those different-from-everyone-else, somehow set apart, gloriously special women.
“To Hogboblin's post I would only add that just because something is sexist doesnt necessarily make it bad. Men mainly only have sex with women and visa versa, sexist. But such a union created you so it is not inherently bad is it.”
Woah, woah, woah. Cool your jets, dude. We’re talking about chivalry here. The core concept of chivalry, as it pertains to how men should treat women, is that women are lesser creatures. That, because of their inferiority, they should be treated in special ways.
I’m not gonna dive into how you’re using “sexism”.
I will say, briefly, that I think procreation is morally reprehensible. So, saying that “such a union created you so it is not inherently bad is it” doesn’t work on me, I’m afraid.
Dude we simply have two different perspectives on this. Like I said before ill agree to disagree. I simply dont have the narrow and ridged view of chivalry. I can only promise to you that I have in the past and will continue to be actively nice to everyone cuz that is who I am. Have a goodnight my friend.
Peace
@snuggleme123, if your definition of "chivalry" is "being polite to everyone (exactly the same amount of polite in exactly the same ways) no matter what their sex or gender is," then I am down with it.
In fact, I'm all for that idea no matter what word you use as shorthand for it! You can say "chivalry" or "courtesy" or "blarglesnarf" for all I care—so long as that, up there, is what you mean by it: 👍🏽👍🏽
How many hairs could a hair splitter split if a hair splitter could split hairs
On a side note I held the door open for a gentleman at the bar tonight and he accepted the gesture with gratitude
Darren, i rarely think chivalry, i see a need and if I can i fill the need. Often I will do something for someone that does not need it just to encourage them. Sometimes I do things for people that never know It was me cuz it encourages me as well as helps them.
Im an enigma dude
Enjoy singing to the Carpenters.
@pmvines lol
@pmvines hahaha
@hogboblin "The core concept of chivalry, as it pertains to how men should treat women, is that women are lesser creatures. That, because of their inferiority, they should be treated in special ways."
Whether this specifically applies to the history of the word "chivalry" or not, a lot of the times that I have experienced a man treat me in special ways because of his recognition of my female body (outside of a begrudging duty to because of his conditioning), it felt like it was more from awe, respect and/or devotion than a reflection of my inferiority. I can understand a perspective that sees procreation as morally reprehensible. I can also understand one that sees the ability to bring a child into the world and sustain its life through one's body as miraculous and worthy of awe.
@pmvines and @snuggleme123: That. That kind of thing is what I like. Never mind all this "I was taught to do nice things for women" stuff—more "I was taught to do nice things for others" stuff.
I want more "I respect people" and less "I respect this specific category of people." I like it when people in any social category do nice things for people in any social category (including their own), without thinking about social categories. People respecting, honoring, and helping out other people because they're all people? 👍🏻👍🏼👍🏽👍🏾👍🏿
@littermate: ...That's the pedestal problem.
"Oooh, you just so happen to have been born into a body that can incubate a new body! Because of the coincidence of your birth, you are deserving of my awe, respect, and devotion!"
The body's pretty cool, I grant you that. The person wearing it? Eheheh. Who knows.
Edit: Point is—if you're going to be all worshipful of a person, do it because you worship the person they are. Not because they happen to have a specific body type which you're in awe of.
I don't really overthink things like this. I am polite and courteous to everybody and treat them as I would like to be treated. However there is always going to be a part of me that will make more of an effort due to respect for a woman. I don't call it chivalry. But it is the same reason that I will not allow a man to harm a woman or treat her badly in my presence. An example. Three nights ago a close friend had a man she had been involved with harassing her, banging on her door, shining a flashlight in the window and throwing rocks at her house. I did a 180 in my car when I heard about this and sped down the freeway to her home. I ran up to the man and told him he needed to either leave, or call the police and pray that they get there before I get my hands on him because they would be the only thing to protect him from me. I would have not necessarily done the same if it had been a male friend being accosted by a woman or another man. Most men are conditioned this way. Some would call it chivalry. I don't know if that is the proper term. However by todays definition I can see why it would be called that.
And cant the poor OP just watch his film without all the bickering lol
After an event the other night, a fellow asked if I wanted him to walk me to my car. It was dark, the neighborhood was sketchy, and I sensed he asked me because I have a female body. I liked it. When I was younger I would have wanted to kick his hiney - what, are you saying I'm weaker than you? I could drive your nose up into your brain with one move! Now, it's nice. Maybe because I'm longer trying to prove I'm "equal." I feel "equal" no matter how anyone treats me. And often I see this thing we call "chivalry" as fellows attempting to express their hearts through whatever channels they can find. Sometimes they are a bit wonky, but I see the heart behind them.
_"Oooh, you just so happen to have been born into a body that can incubate a new body!..." _
I find sometimes your way of seeing strips things of the deeper, numinous qualities that I experience.
And yes, agreed. Being polite to people because they are people, two thumbs up.
@sillysassy If I weren't such an atheist scrooge with seasonal affective disorder who despises the commercialism of the holidays I would happily watch Christmas films and cuddle but I am just not really all that festive! Rain check?
@pmvines this is FUN! What bickering?
@sillysassy Ooh wait I do actually like Scrooged so its a date!
@pmvines Yep i said we should probably start a new thread but we ended up hijacking it anyway. My apologies OP