Is chivalry dead and how do we define a "Gentleman" today?

I've always considered myself to be a gentleman. I open doors for ladies, I would always help a mother with a pram down a flight of steps and I never let my date pay for herself.

But when it comes to "Chivalry", I don't think I have that quality. If I was on the Titanic, I would say forget women and children, I'm saving myself first.

I'd give up my seat on the life rafts for my parents, my wife, my children if I had any. And I counted two female friends in the world I would give up my own seat on a raft for. But certainly not for women and children I don't know.

The Titanic incident occurred about 60-70 years ago. So obviously women and children first was considered the norm back then, since none of the men challenged it.

So my question is, am I especially selfish or has society changed and I'm not alone in my thinking?

Also, I'd like to know what feminists think about Chivalry. Are they going to stay true and say equality all the way or do they want the best of both worlds. Equality in everyday life and chivalry in crisis situations.

 

I know some women who appreciate what's commonly known as "chivalry", and some who are offended by the concept of it.

As women continue to advance throughout the world, "chivalry" may undergo a sort of evolution, rather than simply "dying out".

 

I don't know how "women and children first" the Titanic incident really was. I seem to recall reading about panicky crowds rushing the lifeboats.

I'm not sure if chivalry is dead as much as debunked. You can look at that as one way women's liberation has liberated men, if you want.

 

I still hold doors open, and hold chairs for Ladies. I know this is part of being a gentleman, but some ladies have called it "chilvalry." While walking with a lady on the sidewalk, I walk on the side closest to the street as well. (Anyone else know why men used to do this?)

Most women have no problem with this, and actually feel special or more like a Lady when I do this. But some, think I have alterior motives.

I do it because my mom raised a gentleman. Being a Gentleman knows no boundry of money.

 

I would most certainly allow a child to go ahead of me in a desperate situation like the Titanic.

I don't pay for dinners, open doors or leave my seat for women though.

 

Its polite to hold doors open for anyone as far as I know. Its what I do, usually.

 

But what about the main question? Do you feel attitudes have changed a lot in the last few decades.

Or more convincingly, the men among us can tell me whether you would put your life in danger or in fact give up your life to save a damsel in distress who you didn't know. Or a kid you didn't know.

 

I don't think there's been any decline in male altruism, if that's what you're asking. However, I'm not a male, and I wasn't around when the Titanic sank, so I can't claim first-hand experience. Still, altruism seems like one of those things that would be a constant. If you're the kind of guy who'd give up your life to save someone else, I don't think your decision would be influenced by social mores very much.

For that matter, men are still polite to women, who I hope are polite to men. What seems to be gone is a kind of winking sentimentality about altruism and politenss toward women. I think John Lennon put it pretty well when he said, "We put them down by pretending that they're above us."

I don't lament the passing of Hollywood chivalry--the kind that looks nice but has all the substance of a stage prop. I like to think that altruism and respect between the sexes remains.

 

A lot of these things being identified as chivalry I think are just plain good manners. I certainly hold doors open for women to go through first, but then if I get to the door slightly before someone else, I'd hold it open for them first regardless of their sex. For me that just seems so obvious I don't even think about it. The only time I ever go through a door first is if it would cause more problems for everyone by trying to stand aside (ie if there is little room, or in a big crowd).

Something else which which springs to mind is never shaking hands with someone if you are sitting. Unless it is with a very informal group of friends, if someone comes into a room you stand up to greet them, simple as that.

We live in crowded societies, and we have to cling to politeness as a way of avoiding 'treading on each others' toes'. They may be little symbolic gestures, but they show other people that you respect them, and when reciprocated, that they respect you.

As for being on the Titanic, if I sat in a lifeboat drifting away and saw children waiting to die who could have been in my place, frankly I couldn't live with that.

As for the women, I think we now recognise that women are just as capable as men, and no longer need to be protected like fragile china dolls. That said, I hope I would do as much as I could to help anyone, just for the peace of mind if I was eventually able to save myself. I hope that is how I would behave, but I couldn't guarantee it unless it actually happened (and I'm hoping I won't ever be tested!).

 

While walking with a lady on the sidewalk, I walk on the side closest to the street as well. (Anyone else know why men used to do this?)

yes. people used to throw the contents of their chamber pots out of windows in the days before modern plumbing and sewage systems. because of the overhang, the person walking on the outside, nearest the street, was more likely to be hit with urine and feces from above, and so gentlemen would put themselves in the line of fire to prevent their ladies from being dowsed with poo-poo from on high.

I don't lament the passing of Hollywood chivalry--the kind that looks nice but has all the substance of a stage prop.

i agree here. overt adherence to traditional romantic gestures tends to come off as too premeditated and forced. most people i know are more responsive to spontaneity and intimate knowledge. flowers and candy are generic, whereas only someone who knows you and loves you would know to get you X, Y, or Z.

A lot of these things being identified as chivalry I think are just plain good manners. I certainly hold doors open for women to go through first, but then if I get to the door slightly before someone else, I'd hold it open for them first regardless of their sex. For me that just seems so obvious I don't even think about it. The only time I ever go through a door first is if it would cause more problems for everyone by trying to stand aside (ie if there is little room, or in a big crowd).

exactly. i hold open doors for people, not just women.

 

I think it's stupid, downright stupid, for owmen to be offended by chivalry. It's nothing more than someone being nice to you.

Now, I do open doors for women, even guys. If someone is close enough behind me, it'd be rude to just let the door shut in their face. Chivalry is dying off, but I think it';s a combination of just flat out lack of respect for women, and arrogance from the feminists. Rappers are't helping, either.

 

What like putting your coat in a puddle do she can walk over it?


**** that my coat is expensive and any lady who can't be othered to walk around a friggen puddle deserve to get her shoes wet/dirty.

If chivalry is dying it's only because it was stupid to begin with.

 

nice farraday, very nice. It's a wonder you have a girlfriend at all.

yes. people used to throw the contents of their chamber pots out of windows in the days before modern plumbing and sewage systems. because of the overhang, the person walking on the outside, nearest the street, was more likely to be hit with urine and feces from above, and so gentlemen would put themselves in the line of fire to prevent their ladies from being dowsed with poo-poo from on high.

Very good, that is one reason.

The other has to do with the days of wagons and streets made of dirt and mud. When a man and woman were walking down the sidewalk, particularly after a new rain, the man would stand closest to the side of the street preventing mud being flung from wagon wheels passing, from hitting the Ladies dress.

 

The Titanic incident occurred about 60-70 years ago. So obviously women and children first was considered the norm back then, since none of the men challenged it

1912, which was ninety-two years ago...and despite it's popular perception throughout history, the Titanic in reality was not the grand experiment of noble male self-sacrifice that a lot of people wanted to believe. Even in the days after it happened...there were quite a few men that got into boats without hesitation before women. There was one woman in first class (Edith Gorse Evans) who stepped aside to let another woman get in, because the other woman had children back home. Edith Evans never made it off the ship.

There were some men who did get the women into boats ahead of the men, and that was a rule generally enforced on the port side. On the starboard side, it was pretty much down to whoever wanted to get into a boat could, and did.

As to the topic of this thread, I would really like to see the outdated concept of "chivalry" and being a gentleman tossed out the window. Who benefits from following an archaic set of standards that reduces both sexes to one-dimensional stereotypes? It portrays women as too weak and too dumb to do anything by themselves, and it locks men into the position of being protectors and defenders of the weak. How many of you guys really want to feel like a woman is depending on you all of the time? Unless you are completely insecure and get your sense of self-worth from propping up a waify little girl type, I would like to imagine at least five of you are intelligent enough to not want that sort of responsibility.

 

Nader -

You got your butt kicked by lots of women when you were younger, didn't you? just kidding


I like to think of myself as a protector of the weak. Lord knows I stuck up for the weak against bullies in High School and grade school. I don't look at it as propping up weak woman by holding doors open for them. I just think it's good manners. Like others, I would hold it open for anyone, and I have given up my seat to elderly ladies on the bus. So Nader you think its wrong to give up a seat to an elderly lady on the bus because it would characterize her as being weak, as per PC? I can just see it now, when that bus stops suddenly, she goes flying breaking a hip. Nope, not gonna happen on my watch. I would insist she take my seat and I hold on to the bar above. I am 6'5" broud shouldered, very strong and can handle myself on a bus. God made me this big, with this temperment, and respect for a reason.

 

So Nader you think its wrong to give up a seat to an elderly lady on the bus because it would characterize her as being weak, as per PC?

It all depends...are you giving up your seat because she's old, or because she's a woman? One could be classified as a legitimate reason...the other one, nyet. At least, if you're trying to achieve some balance in the world. But no one's really trying to do that, are they? Too many people like the sex/gender inequalities. It makes life and sex so interesting...or boring, depending on your perception.

 

hmmmmmmm interesting analogy there Derth. If it was an old man barely able to walk, yes, I would give up my seat. If it was a young child, yes, I would give up my seat. If it was a young Lady, yes I would give up my seat. If it was a mother with a baby, yes, I would give up my seat. If it was a man holding a young baby, yes I would give up my seat. If it was a man noooooooooo.

Just about covers it all, don't ya think?

I don't look at women being weak. I look at it as I am a gentleman. If the ladies can't understand it is not stereotyping, and thinking she is weaker, that it is just a gesture of respect for a Lady, than she is disrespecting me, and should really check her pants or under her dress for male plumbing, because she has taken feminism to the extreme.

 

Just about covers it all, don't ya think?

Well, if you say so.

If the ladies can't understand it is not stereotyping, and thinking she is weaker, that it is just a gesture of respect for a Lady, than she is disrespecting me, and should really check her pants or under her dress for male plumbing, because she has taken feminism to the extreme

Don't you think the last half of your statement is a bit disrespectful in itself? The woman can think whatever she wants about chivalric gestures. It doesn't make your life turn bruised if they let you know they don't like it. It has nothing to do with "male plumbing" or extremist feminism in every single case, y'know? As long as they don't start an actual confrontation with you in public about the matter, you keep to your side of the fence, they keep to theirs, and you just go out of your way to avoid them. How hard is that?

*Not a he, not a she, not an it, but an "AUGHGGGGGGGGGG"*

 

Don't you think the last half of your statement is a bit disrespectful in itself? The woman can think whatever she wants about chivalric gestures. It doesn't make your life turn bruised if they let you know they don't like it. It has nothing to do with "male plumbing" or extremist feminism in every single case, y'know? As long as they don't start an actual confrontation with you in public about the matter, you keep to your side of the fence, they keep to theirs, and you just go out of your way to avoid them. How hard is that?

My dearest DerthNader, do you really hate men, that much? For as your comments express in an undertone of what can only be stated as a love for impediment between the population of men and women. It may be said your behavior constitutes a love for instigation among the human opposites. You are determnined not to let anyone in life help you in physical ways, particulary the stronger of the sex - man. You seem to be a loner I imagine, and not one for wanting any help from anyone. It would be considered a sign of weakness to you if you were to accept the gesture of help, physically. This may extend from something in your past. Bruised no, men should not be offended, and the term of physical tendencies of violence is humorous at best. Wouldn't you agree my dear?

**PooF**

 

"Not a he, not a she, not an it, but an "AUGHGGGGGGGGGG"

Wow, someone needs a nap REAL bad. Or a hit from a bong


And if you hung around here enough Nader, you would find I am a jokester and that comment about the plumbing was a joke/sarcasm.

 

My dearest DerthNader, do you really hate men, that much?

No, I actually hate PEOPLE. You know, men, women, their little rat kids. But that's another story.

You are determnined not to let anyone in life help you in physical ways, particulary the stronger of the sex - man

What would I get for letting them do anything for me? Is there money involved?

You seem to be a loner I imagine, and not one for wanting any help from anyone. It would be considered a sign of weakness to you if you were to accept the gesture of help, physically

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! This is the first time I've heard of this!!! Oh, mon dieu!!!! *mock faint*

Wouldn't you agree my dear?

I'm not a deer, I'm a moose. You have me confused with something else, obviously.

 

"Wow, someone needs a nap REAL bad. Or a hit from a bong"


More like sex toy and a huge Orgasm. Obviously, she has never had one.


And I was right about the physical attirbutes. I hope you can solve your problems someday Mr/Mrs/Miss/Sir DerthNader

 

Obviously, she has never had one

Have you?

And if an orgasm is the best experience a human can have...thank God I'm not a good human like the rest of you. I guess being a poor imitation has its advantages.

Can't any of you ever step outside of the boundaries, and see something else as legitimate and valid? Why do so many of you have to make it so hard for each other, and for others who inhabit the outer fringes of your society? What's so freakin' wrong with wanting BALANCE between men and women?

What are you people afraid of, exactly? Do you even know?

 

4 edits? For just that? tsk tsk tsk

Was hoping for more.


Good night everyone ... and yes, including you too DerthNader



EDIT: 6 edits now and for not much more except for repeated statements.

I stand on what I said earlier about the big "O"

 

I stand on what I said earlier about the big "O"

And I stand on my question as well.

Hopefully, this can get back on topic, in a reasonably rational fashion.