Why Chivalry?

[Sir Jessy of Anti]

I don't think she answered that question in this article, and I don't think she comes off sounding like she is advocating anything but special privilege.  Civility is part of a civil world, chivalry is part of a feudal one.

April 13, 2006, 7:37 a.m.
In Search of Chivalry
Did it sink with the Titanic?

Imagine a luxury liner sinking into artic waters with too few lifeboats for its passengers. Who would get those seats?

     
When the Titanic sank on April 15, 1912, the answer was obvious: women and children had first priority. Why was this? Certainly, the male passengers could have over-powered most of the women and saved their own lives. What kept them from doing so?

Chivalry. The idea that part of being a man (and certainly part of being a gentleman) is to sacrifice willingly to protect those who are more vulnerable. Of course, all those aboard the Titanic were equally vulnerable to the near freezing water. The men who gave their seats in the lifeboats gave their lives. Out of all of the Titanic's passengers, 74 percent of women lived while 80 percent of the men died.

Christina Hoff Sommers began her review of Harvey Mansfield's new book Manliness by reminding readers of the memorial erected by women in 1931 to honor those men on the Titanic. The memorial's inscription reads: "To the brave men who perished in the wreck of the Titanic. . . . They gave their lives that women and children might be saved." As Sommers suggests, this overlooked memorial is a fitting symbol of the state of chivalry or even of manliness today:

   ...almost no one remembers those men. Women no longer bring flowers to the statue on April 15 to honor their chivalry. The idea of male gallantry makes many women nervous, suggesting (as it does) that women require special protection. It implies the sexes are objectively different. It tells us that some things are best left to men. Gallantry is a virtue that dare not speak its name.

All too often, women no longer honor chivalry, and men no longer give up their seats. I refer not to men confronted with the life-or-death decisions like those on the Titanic, but those on subway and bus systems around the globe. On a website for New York City Transit complaints, a woman tells her story:

   In the past 2 weeks, I have been practically knocked down so that a man can get a seat ahead of me. And just yesterday I was literally knocked on my butt. The man who did this didn't even say sorry - he just looked at me, closed his eyes and went to sleep. What happened to manners? I mean, not only am I a woman, but I am also pregnant. I may not be noticeably pregnant, but to knock a woman over like that for a seat?

In England, men defend their lack of chivalry as a natural consequence of women having equal rights. Paul Anderson, a married 38-year-old librarian, complained on the BBC website that women are adopting "an à la carte approach to women's rights and civil equality." On his busy daily commute a woman "harangued him" for not doing the "gentlemanly thing":

   My response: "You're joking, aren't you? What? You want my seat and the right to vote? Forget it." ...Can I be alone in finding this hypocrisy astonishing? Why should I give up my seat to someone solely on account of their gender? Have these women never heard of the suffragettes? Do the phrases "women's liberation" and "sexual equality" mean anything to these women?

The author has adopted the feminist attitude that for women to be equal with men, they must also be the same. But women who are free to vote and pursue any profession are still women, not men.

Gentlemanly conduct isn't about women at all. It's about men and their sense of themselves. Paul Anderson continues to say that he would give up his seat to someone truly in need, such as the elderly, pregnant women, and the disabled. But that's not gentlemanly, that's just humane.

A man giving up his seat to a woman who he knows is equally capable of standing on her own is different. It's a gesture that doesn't (as some feminist suggest) imply women are weak. It's a simple show of respect. Respect not just for the woman, but also for himself. It shows that this man believes himself to be a gentleman and holds himself to high standards. Those standards are more important than enjoying the comfort of a seat on his morning commute.

Resurrecting chivalry begins by remembering why it's important. Chivalry is part of a civil world. Women should welcome gentlemanly gestures, and graciously accept them with a thank you. I'll start by thanking the men of the Titanic, who 96 years ago gave up their seats so that the women could live.

http://www.nationalreview.com/lukas/lukas200604130737.asp

[bluegrass]

Actually, what she and most people are talking about when they talk about chivalry isn't really chivalry, but a tiny slice of chivalry that was aped by the middle classes in order to seem cultured and possibly get their daughters married off to someone wealthier than them or even more hopefully to a member of the aristocracy.

Chivalry was a cultural system that was used largley to distinguish aristocrats from peasants.  Aristocrats rode into battle.  Peasants walked.

Chivalry is a cultural belief system spawned by a society obsessed with war and brutal social hierarchy (I say brutal to distinguish it from plain old social hierarchy which isn't innately bad).

[Sir Jessy of Anti]

Indeed, it's all the more reason why I don't see any reason for her to advocate surfdom.  Why Chivalry?  What is the reciprocal female action to chivalry, and why should men respect women _as a class_ when the reverse (women respecting men as a class) is almost universally denigrated and spat upon?

[johnnyp]

The author has adopted the feminist attitude that for women to be equal with men, they must also be the same. But women who are free to vote and pursue any profession are still women, not men.

Gentlemanly conduct isn't about women at all. It's about men and their sense of themselves.

Isn't that sweet... I realy enjoy pondering who will open a door, or who gets the seat...

If we have any spare time after thinking about the above, lets talk about the following:

Are males disposable?

Here is the latest on military deaths in Iraq (10/01 to 4/06):
Male 97.8% or 2,274
Female 2.2% or 51

Wounded
Male 97.9% or 17,095
Female 2.1% or 372

Grand total KIA body count from WWII to 5/04 (if this were bowling, we would be kicking the girls butts!)
Male 503,040
Female 448

Bureau of labor statistices - workplace fatalities:
93% male
7% female

[Galt]

Isn't that sweet... I realy enjoy pondering who will open a door, or who gets the seat...

That's about it.  I follow the minor chivalry rules, because it's easier than getting crap when you don't.

As for bigger cases ... the certain breed of woman who thinks that business is easy, you just have to smile at men and they give you lots of money, may have a harder time with me.  Personally.

But to answer Sir Jessy's question: No, there isn't really a reason why men should do that today.  It's just that a lot of women grow up expecting it, some grow up as entitled princesses, and it will take a while for that to change.  It isn't that big of a deal, because entitled princesses really are handicapped in business and the real world, so they will always be dependent on some man anyway.  That's a fate I would never personally want to experience, on either side.

[John Sobeski]

Isn't ala Carte Feminism wonderful? You get to pick and choose what you want? You can go from we don't want to be treated as Sex Objects to "The Vagina Monologues". You can say "all sex is rape if its with a Man" or you can embrace "Slut Feminism". And where were all the Conservative Women who spoke up for Men when we were being bashed two decades ago? AWOL.
Where were Women when 4 million boys were being drugged with Ritalin permanently damaging their brains? Absent again.

Yet again thundering silence from Women over the false rape accusations, or the .76 on a dollar earnings that continues to be promoted dispite all the facts to the contrary. All those Women's Groups showed up to stop the rampant Paternity Fraud of Men. Oh that never happened either. Sorry Carrie you got what your Sisters really wanted. That is they wanted to be Men only without the genitalia. That is what they really wanted. If you are pregnant your'e a Breeder and a sell out anyway.

[Sir Percy]

A man giving up his seat to a woman who he knows is equally capable of standing on her own is different. It's a gesture that doesn't (as some feminist suggest) imply women are weak. It's a simple show of respect.

Change the genders in this snippet.  I would not advocate holding breath waiting for a woman to 'show some respect' and offer her seat to a man.

Gentlemanly conduct isn't about women at all. It's about men and their sense of themselves

True. It is about men valuing themselves, upholding good conduct, and expecting such from others. What on earth has defering to women and offering a seat to them to do with it? It is the women's demand, that's what. So let them demand away and get short shrift as a response. A gentleman does not measure his worth against a female yardstick.

It's a simple show of respect. Respect not just for the woman, but also for himself. It shows that this man believes himself to be a gentleman and holds himself to high standards.

When women show the same high gentlemanly standards, then they may sit. Until then they can stand or walk behind along with the men of low standard.

The author has adopted the feminist attitude that for women to be equal with men, they must also be the same

There is no such 'feminist' attitude shown. Women do not have to be the same as men, just show the same standard of decent self-sufficient and considerate behaviour.

The writer just doesn't get it, either from ignorance, sheer bloody mindedness or entitlement, take your pick.

[The Gonzman]

Wome pissed away "chivalry" towards them as a birthright; if not those who scorned it directly, those who stood by in mute complicity while it was mocked, or protested far too feebly.

[woof]

Isn't ala Carte Feminism wonderful? You get to pick and choose what you want? You can go from we don't want to be treated as Sex Objects to "The Vagina Monologues". You can say "all sex is rape if its with a Man" or you can embrace "Slut Feminism". And where were all the Conservative Women who spoke up for Men when we were being bashed two decades ago? AWOL.
Where were Women when 4 million boys were being drugged with Ritalin permanently damaging their brains? Absent again.

Yet again thundering silence from Women over the false rape accusations, or the .76 on a dollar earnings that continues to be promoted dispite all the facts to the contrary. All those Women's Groups showed up to stop the rampant Paternity Fraud of Men. Oh that never happened either. Sorry Carrie you got what your Sisters really wanted. That is they wanted to be Men only without the genitalia. That is what they really wanted. If you are pregnant your'e a Breeder and a sell out anyway.

amen!

[Gabriel]

Cake or eat it.

Either way shut up.

[whome112]

It is the male who is at fault.

That is the demand of a goodly majority of first world females. The male is at fault, period, end of sentence.

When women start, even start, taking their responsibilities to men seriously, I may be willing to listen to women. Maybe.

That sounds fairly harsh and I suppose it is. Yet, I am FAR more than tired of listening to women bitch, whine, moan and complain about those evil and disgusting men.

whome

[Stallywood]

Isn't ala Carte Feminism wonderful? You get to pick and choose what you want? You can go from we don't want to be treated as Sex Objects to "The Vagina Monologues". You can say "all sex is rape if its with a Man" or you can embrace "Slut Feminism". And where were all the Conservative Women who spoke up for Men when we were being bashed two decades ago? AWOL.
Where were Women when 4 million boys were being drugged with Ritalin permanently damaging their brains? Absent again.

Yet again thundering silence from Women over the false rape accusations, or the .76 on a dollar earnings that continues to be promoted dispite all the facts to the contrary. All those Women's Groups showed up to stop the rampant Paternity Fraud of Men. Oh that never happened either. Sorry Carrie you got what your Sisters really wanted. That is they wanted to be Men only without the genitalia. That is what they really wanted. If you are pregnant your'e a Breeder and a sell out anyway.

amen!

Make that a double Amen. If women are supposed to be equal, than there is no reason for chilvary. Why should I kiss someones ass simply because they have a vagina??
Stally

[Gerard Velthuis]

My response: "You're joking, aren't you? What? You want my seat and the right to vote? Forget it.

Good reaction

[Davie_boy]

I practive chivalry in a very similar fashion as women practice equality: I practice it when I feel like it and if I see that it might benefit me (though, generally speaking, it depends on my mood).

Sometimes I'm polite and courteous, at other times I'm not. Sometimes I hold doors open, and sometimes I don't. Depends on the day.

There is one exception: little old ladies. I love holding the door open for little old ladies. 90% of the time (or more) the gesture is reciprocated in a way that makes me feel like my courtesy/chivalry is honored and respected and not just expected.

[woof]

To be fair here....... Carrie did write this book......for me, this puts what she said in a different light. But I don't think she gets the damage to men that the feminsits movement has caused. She hasn't looked at it through a mans eye.
link

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex and Feminism (Paperback)
by Carrie L. Lukas

Book Description
The latest in the New York Times bestselling series! The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex and Feminism is the perfect antidote to the lies told in boardrooms, locker rooms, and universities that are brainwashing young women every day.

From the Back Cover
We've been duped.

We were raised to think we could have it all. In college we were told that men weren't necessary. Pop culture told us that career--not family--came first. The idea of being a stay-at-home mom was for losers. And yet are we happier than our mothers or grandmothers, who grew up before women were "liberated" by the sexual revolution? For many women, the answer is no. In The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Women, Sex, and Feminism, Carrie Lukas, a young career woman and new mother, sets the record straight: correcting the lies women have been told and slamming the door on the screaming harpies of NOW, feminist professors, and the rest of the bra-burners who have done so much to wreck women's lives.

Bet your feminist teacher never told you:

* Women's lib has "liberated" men from having to commit, "freed" women from marriage, and often "unshackled" women from having a family. * More than ever, women in their twenties and thirties live alone, are discarded by boyfriends after "living together," and are watching their biological clocks tick past the point of no return. * Women still prefer men who are breadwinners and can protect them physically.