Discussion: Has Chivalry and Virtue Died?

Is there any reason to chew with your mouth closed? Not really: food DOESN'T spill out, it's energy wasted, and it's a hassle having to remember to keep your mouth closed.

Do I chew with my mouth closed anyway? Yes.

Does that make me stupid? You tell me.

 

I generally go with the Least Effort Expended Principle. That is, I try to minimize the effort for all parties involved. Usually, the toughest part of opening a door is reaching forward, grabbing the handle, and pulling back, so when I'm first I make sure the person behind me grabs the door before letting go. If the person behind me is elderly, disabled, or otherwise less physically-capable, I'll hold the door open more formally. If there are many people, I'll formally hold the door open for all of them (assuming there is an end in sight). However, I'm not going to run in front of someone just as capable as I am in order to hold the door open.

While doing nothing to ensure that the individual practitioner's genes are passed on, altruism does increase the entire species's chance of survival, so it's an evolutionarily favored behavior.

Here's a paragraph from Sanderson's The Evolution of Human Sociality which argues against this:

Most sociobiologists, then, reject the notion of group selection and see selection occurring at the level of genes of individual organisms. Indeed, it is not hard to see why selection should be occurring at this level. Genuine altruism cannot constitute what John Maynard Smith (1974, 1982) has called an evolutionarily stable strategy. A population of genuine altruists could not remain stable becaue it could always be invaded and displaced by selfish strategists. Organisms that sacrifice their genes for the good of others that do not share them will find that their genes for genuine altruism will quickly disappear from the gene pool for the simple reason that the altruists will be out-reproduced by organisms that are reproductively selfish (Low, 2000). And not only is the concept of group selection logically dubious, but there is no real empirical evidence to support it. As Bobbi Low (2000:160) has remarked, "If group good at the expense of individual fitness were relatively powerful, we should expect genetic sacrifice to be common. In fact, it is so rare as to be undetectable in populations of any organism."

 

I was going to bring that up as well, but I figured it was off-topic for this subject. It is true that group selection is pretty much rejected by evolutionary biologists. However, altruism does exist in the animal kingdom, between relatives, and is called kin selection.

 

Being chivilrious, at least for me, has absolutely nothing to do with viewing certain people differently. It is simply a way of being polite and showing good manners.

There are certain things i do for BOTH sexes. If i'm walking towards a door, and there is someone behing me, no matter who it is, i'll hold the door open for them. Just simple things like that.

Now, if i'm on a date, or if i'm interested in a girl when i'm having a night out and have the guts to talk to her, i'll offer to buy her a drink. If i were gay, i imagine i would do the exact same thing! It's about putting others before yourself. You don't show respect for someone by saying "your my equal, so i won't do any favours for you!"

Now can someone please tell me whats wrong with putting others before yourself??

 

But chivalry also outlines a place for MEN in society - as the humble servant willing to show deference to women. IF chivalry's degrading, it's degrading to both.

Oh, chauvinism outlines a place for men, too. And I don't care if you say chivalry makes men "humble servants" - if you were saying women are more worthy to handle the food, clothing, and children of a household, am I supposed to feel exalted?


Another question: let's say you are a member of a large family, three brothers and three sisters. Is it sexist and degrading for the brothers to leave the toilet seat down for their sisters?

As others have pointed out, there is a level of courtesy that can be extended equally to everyone in this situation.


Is there any reason to chew with your mouth closed? Not really: food DOESN'T spill out, it's energy wasted, and it's a hassle having to remember to keep your mouth closed.

Do I chew with my mouth closed anyway? Yes.

Yes, but you do that as a service to men and women alike - unless you only dine with women, which is your prerogative, but would probably be a bit sexist.


I'm not disputing that you were taught chivalry along with other common manners; I'm questioning the underlying reasons for having "chivalry" as part of our system of manners in the first place.

 

But chivalry also outlines a place for MEN in society - as the humble servant willing to show deference to women. IF chivalry's degrading, it's degrading to both.

Wollstonecraft answered that in Vindication of the Rights of Woman:

I lament that women are systematically degraded by receiving the trivial attentions, which men think it manly to pay to the sex, when, in fact, they are insultingly supporting their own superiority. It is not condescension to bow to an inferior.

 

I haven't the time, energy, or inclination to read all 6 pages of this, so I'm replying directly to the original post.

I don't think there's a word for people who believe their temporal placement has some inherent importance over all other history (tempocentrism, maybe? ), but people these days sure seem to exhibit it a lot. The idea that chivalry or virtue could be dead is pretty short-sighted. Calling it dead would imply that it was always present as a kind of social entity up until now, and I doubt chivalry was all that popular during the Dark Ages. If it wasn't dead then, how the heck could it be now? Certain chivalrous actions MAY be less prominent now than they were in the 50's, but that doesn't necessarily make our culture, as of 2003, any less chivalrous. Look at the 50's; Gatherer's apparent high point of chivalry. Sure, women MAY have had less doors to open and puddles to walk through back then, but they also went home to husbands who treated them like they were inferior, homes where they were expected to do little more than cook, clean, and watch after the youngun's. And as for giving up a seat on the bus? Sure, I bet lots of men did that for women back then. As long as the woman was white.

And no, I'm not inferring that those conditions existed for everyone. They were, however, more prominent. I bet it was easy for the average white male in the 50's to hold doors for women; that kind of thing was pretty much the only respect women were designated by society to receive.

Are things really all that different now? I personally don't think so. The 50's were only an age of chivalry in the sense that it was celebrated more. I think something like the tendency to hold a door for a woman (or a man, too, for that matter) is an trait that, by the time you reach adulthood, either you have or you don't, regardless of society. As such, I don't see it being any more or less common now than it was then. You just don't hear about it anymore. People these days find it much more interesting to talk about the people on Jerry Springer than the nice gentleman who helped you carry your groceries. Unless he mugged you afterwards.

 

Wollstonecraft answered that in Vindication of the Rights of Woman:

I lament that women are systematically degraded by receiving the trivial attentions, which men think it manly to pay to the sex, when, in fact, they are insultingly supporting their own superiority. It is not condescension to bow to an inferior.

That isn't much of an answer: it asserts that it really is about male superiority without explaining why we should believe that assertion.

 

I quoted that in answer to the assertion that chivalry can't be degrading to women without being degrading to men as well. The point was if chivalry is indeed a social acknowledgement of superiority, then it is not degrading to men, the same way a polite bow to an inferior does not degrade the superior person. The rest of the book details reasons to believe the initial assumption, which can't be used in the present argument since they focus mainly on educational disadvantages of women, which don't really exist any more.

Edit: Spelling

 

Not sure if Chivalry, however one defines it, is dead, but it does seem that in the modern society we lack certain traditions to know who we are and how to live.
Indiginenous cultures (those 'savages' of the past), for example, have ceremonies to acknowledge when a teen becomes a man or a woman (an adult) that both honor them and instruct them in how to live in their culture (respect = chivalry).
I only guess that I was a man (in modern America) when I could drive a car, vote, or drink -- but it would have been nice to have it acknowledged in those other, ancient ways.

I open doors for either sex -- its just being considerate. The same reason I talk to starngers in line at the store (either sex) is to acknowledge our shared presence on the planet (and is not always an attempt to 'pick you up', ladies).

 

Anyone read my post? How does the chivilry I use degrade women and make my "superiority" clear? C'mon, all i'm doing is being polite, there's nothing else to it for me. If you guys think i have some sort of hidden agenda, thats BS.

 

I'm still not sure how chivalry is degrading at all!

If this is how it is viewed, then I must concure with The Gatherer's opening post: Political Correctness is a prime factor.

Is opening a door for another person suggesting they are inferior--perhaps unable to open it themselves?

Or is it a way of showing respect, allowing that person access to a structure before you, subtly showing them that you see them as equally important as to offer them first entry?

The truth of it lies both in the intention and the perception. I believe many who think chivalry is degarding have lost the latter of these truths.

I like to think the essence of chivalry is not dead. I also like to think it is not harmful to the spirit of courtesy and civility.

 

That isn't much of an answer: it asserts that it really is about male superiority without explaining why we should believe that assertion.

I think we've been over some of the underlying reasons for chivalry.

Most chivalry implies women are delicate, fragile creatures to be protected.

You've said it's actually showing how women are more worthy of special attention from men, but again - if chivalry dictates that women are more "worthy" to stay at home while a man earns the salary, are we supposed to feel exalted?

 

Most chivalry implies women are delicate, fragile creatures to be protected.

Is it an implication, or an inference based on premise, not necessarily evidence?

Do you feel delicate or fragile when someone opens a door for you? Why? Or do you perceive that the individual opening the door for you sees you as fragile? Why?

 

Is it an implication, or an inference based on premise, not necessarily evidence?

An inference, perhaps, but what would you infer as the underlying reasoning?

It's the same motivation for making sure a woman never has to step into a puddle, and for helping her into a vehicle. If it doesn't imply inability, or fragility, what does it imply?


Do you feel delicate or fragile when someone opens a door for you? Why? Or do you perceive that the individual opening the door for you sees you as fragile? Why?

No; I don't think everyone who engages in an act of chivalry is doing so because they view women as fragile. However, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing if we rid our society of this chivalry that teaches women must be given special treatment, for any reason.

 

It's the same motivation for making sure a woman never has to step into a puddle, and for helping her into a vehicle. If it doesn't imply inability, or fragility, what does it imply?

No; I don't think everyone who engages in an act of chivalry is doing so because they view women as fragile. However, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing if we rid our society of this chivalry that teaches women must be given special treatment, for any reason.

My response to both these statements is: it is a combination of many things, two of which (likely the greatest of the many) are conditioning and sexual posturing.

Taking only the case of men being "chivalrous" toward women (eliminating for a moment the notion that men often hold doors open for anyone, as do women), my reasoning says that men (who do this) have been conditioned to treat women with respect. If the reason behind it is because of a woman's implied or infered frailty, that meaning has long since been lost. From my life, I can say I was taught to do things such as open doors out of respect. Implied or inferred inability had nothing to do with it.

And of course I cannot overlook the fact that the male human is always looking for favor in the human female. It's nature. It's primal. Men know deep down somewhere (perhaps because of the conditioning?) that if men treat women with respect, they will gain said woman's favor, even for that instant of a fleeting interaction. Of course, this is just a model, not true of men as a whole (some aren't nice at all!).

And remember, this is my truth. It may not be yours.

 

men (who do this) have been conditioned to treat women with respect.

But is there really any reason to continue this conditioning?


If the reason behind it is because of a woman's implied or infered frailty, that meaning has long since been lost.

But it still teaches that women should be treated differently from men, and I'm still not convinced that's such a good thing.


Men know deep down somewhere (perhaps because of the conditioning?) that if men treat women with respect, they will gain said woman's favor, even for that instant of a fleeting interaction.

And women know deep down that if they flash a big smile and act helpless, they can get men to do things for them.

Doesn't mean that's the way it should be.

 

But is there really any reason to continue this conditioning?

What do you propose we teach future generations? Can we guarantee that any learned kindness toward the other gender won't be misconstrued as being condescending?

But it still teaches that women should be treated differently from men, and I'm still not convinced that's such a good thing.

Do you prefer men ignore you? Or worse, act disrespectfully toward you? What is the alternative?

And women know deep down that if they flash a big smile and act helpless, they can get men to do things for them.
Doesn't mean that's the way it should be.

True enough. It does not mean that this is the way it should be. But then, how should it be?

And are men offended when other men open and hold the door for them? Is this also to be considered condecending behavior? How does this case differ from the case of a man holding a door open for a woman?

 

You know what, screw it. In today's politically correct age, it's too dangerous to do anything lest you offend someone. Thus, I will no longer do anything for anyone, that's the only way to not offend some people. I'm paralyzed with fear that I will open the door for someone and that they will think I am putting them down. Well no more, for I will only be concerned with myself, unless that offends someone as well.

 

No - it's just more polite to hold a door for anyone who happens to be a couple of steps behind you, regardless of their gender, and not to bother if the person is further behind you than that. It's gender-specific chivalry that's outdated, not politeness to other humans as a whole.

 

The problem is this: if I open the door for a woman who does not know me, she has NO IDEA how I treat members of the opposite sex.

 

Is there any reason to chew with your mouth closed? Not really: food DOESN'T spill out, it's energy wasted, and it's a hassle having to remember to keep your mouth closed.

Do I chew with my mouth closed anyway? Yes.

There is a perfectly good reason to chew with your mouth closed. Chewing with your mouth open can make those who see you feel nauseous.

So now we have a rule where there is a good reason, you can't work out the reason, so you think there is no reason .... and yet you follow the rule anyway.

Does that make me stupid? You tell me.

Must .... not ..... answer ..... question ....

 

I've opened doors for men, women, disabled, pretty much as a courtesy, i.e. it was the right/polite thing to do. If you take offense to someone performing an act of kindness merely because you are a woman, I think it depends on the circumstance first of all. Basically from the last couple of pages I've read it seems a couple of posters think it is degrading because men are showing their superiority if they open a door for woman. This is ridiculous, I can't speak for all men but If I do something nice for a woman it is out of RESPECT. I know one of the arguments is that if you do it [open doors] for women then you should do it for everybody not just women.

I agree you should treat all people with the respect they deserve, like the saying respect your elders, people need to stop taking things so literally that's what is wrong with this country now, to much PC crap. I've also heard some women say about men that you can tell what kind of man he is by how he treats his mother. That to me falls under the same category. I know this is pretty much a waste of a post because it's hard to change people's minds, but come on give me a break. People are whining about being treated differently because of everything from age, race, religion. Now when someone gets upset over a door being opened that's going a bit to far.

 

I will no longer do anything for anyone, that's the only way to not offend some people. I'm paralyzed with fear that I will open the door for someone and that they will think I am putting them down.

This solves one problem in favor of a larger one. How is this a solution?

Basically from the last couple of pages I've read it seems a couple of posters think it is degrading because men are showing their superiority if they open a door for woman. This is ridiculous, I can't speak for all men but If I do something nice for a woman it is out of RESPECT.

It may seem ridiculous to you, but it doesn't to them. They see acts of chivalry to be degrading. Perhaps we should look more into "Why they view it as this" and not "Why they view it as this."

I understand womberty's concerns. What I would like to see is more discussion on why it's viewed as degrading (where the degradation comes in) and how this viewpoint may be prevented without losing courtesy, as Jansons_Funny_Twin decided.

 

We're not saying we don't want you to open doors for us, we're saying we don't want you to go out of your way becausew e are women. It's not the act of kindness that bothers us, it's the gender-specificity that does.

If I am right behind you, please hold the door so that it doesn't slam in my face. I will do the same for you.

If I am burdened with bags of groceries, a small child, or something else, please hold the door for me so that I don't drop everything. I will do the same for you.

If I am several paces behind you and unburdened, don't bother. You look like someone who has nothing better to do than just stand there holding the door open for me to come through just because I am a woman. You are a person with a place to go, not a doorman.

Can you all see the difference????