|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I may not make the chat tonite, so I'll offer these thoughts ahead of time.
I have not checked with Webster to see the proper definition of chivalry, but I do not regard the notion of chivalry as placing a woman, or all women, on pedestals. The basis for my notion of chivalry is simple: I will take on risk or burden before I expect my wife to do so, I expect my wife to take on risk or burden before she allows my children to do so. In exchange for this, I expect a certain level of respect for that consideration, both in public and in private, from both my wife and my children.
I'm on my way to being an old fart, almost 48, and I still think there is value to chivalry. Men reject it right now because there is no respect for it. It's not valued right now in society. But in the millenia since the dawn of our species, a hierarchy and a custom has emerged that's being rejected by the feminists. These things were useful in seeing to the survival of our children and contrary to what the feminists may say, they were not borne of the oppression of women. Excesses have emerged and women are correct in identifying them and pressing for their elimination, but now the deconstruction of those models, including chivalry, stands to put at risk a set of cultures that have enabled the survival of the species all over the planet.
We're doing fine right now because technology enables a less demanding life. Even with these technologies, life in places like Afghanistan and Siberia is demanding. However, these technologies have only been around a short time, in light of the big picture. It is entirely reasonable to expect that sometime in the future, a catastrophe will occur whether made by people or by nature, that will set technology back significantly. Once again, men and women will need to show the respect for one another that is reflective of the era of chivalry.
Finally, I believe chivalry, whatever it's worth, is not something that can or should be legislated. It's something that fathers know and carry out and teach their sons. It cannot and should not be taken for granted.
I think Peter Pan said it best when he said "You have to take care of everyone that's smaller than you."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank, thank you. That was a cogent and well-written post; it said pretty much everything I feel on the subject as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm afraid that due to increasing academic pressures for the next two weeks, I will not be able to make it to the chats on Dec. 5 and 12. I'd like to thank Nightmist for being moderator during this time.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since Wednesday night is the only time each week that I can count on for working out, I might miss tonight's chat. It's an important one, though. All the best, and thanks to Nightmist!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, for those of you folks who didn't make it to the chat, you missed a rockin' good time. ;) We *did* managed to discuss chivalry a bit, but then two people who CLAIMED to be representatives of Montauk Sofas showed up. The chat suddenly switched from chivalry to having some fun at Montauk's expense. They left pretty quickly when I confirmed I was logging the chat. Not sure why. In any case, the rest of the chat was interesting and enlightening, with the topic switching casually from chivalry to circumcision to male bashing. Join us next week if you can.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
