|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday October 14, @03:48PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
The only problem I have with "good reads" is that they promote chivilary,which is subservience to women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree. Chivalry was designed as a means of competition amongst men for society's favors, especially the women. But society has evolved so that it no longer consistently rewards chivalry, and we are left with a system in which chivalrous men get screwed, figuratively, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday October 14, @06:00PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly. CHIVALRY= Subservience to woman. We need books promoting chivalry like we need apical tooth abscesses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday October 14, @07:03PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
We have all had this arguement before. It all depends on how you view the term chivalry, and how you view men and women's roles. If you think that chivalry is and always was dead, and that women never had a complementing role, then it is a negative.
If you believe that chivalry was a set of social values which complimented grace, the woman's equivilent, then there is hope for those qualities. Women ditched grace long ago, thanks to feminism. Do men ditch chivalry as well? I hope not. I would like to see grace be introduced back into culture, and chivalry return to it's place. Is it possible? Maybe not. Call me naive. I just think it worked for a long time, and what we have is not working. Ditching both just means no hope at all.
For now I think that chivalry just must be balanced by a cool head and common sense. It does not mean let yourself get walked over, I feel it means be true to your values and decent to people, even if they are a$$holes, as much as you can. Will you sometimes have to dig in your heels? Yes.
Honor, and self sacrifice are two things that women have fought against. They were our best qualities.
I guess I am just not ready to see the qualities which chivalry enspouses die. Women have become so petty, selfish, catty, and dishonorable, and I hate to see men go down that same path. I really think we all lose if that happens. I really think that if men stand their ground, women will come around. I don't mean NOW women, but wives, mothers, sisters. Normal women who have bought into the status quo, and who just don't know the big picture.
I see people think about the information I give out, and I can see them start looking at things differently. Jokes just aren't funny, commercials just aren't witty. Women aren't so trod upon. One person at a time can be changed, and in time things will be different. Look how far the world has changed in the last 100 years. With modern communications, what can be done in a fraction of that time.
Well, I am done with my cheerleading speach. ;-)
Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday October 14, @07:33PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
By discarding chivilary we can ditch a role that puts men into the category of being subservient to women,placing a woman's value before his own life.
Men's liberation means to disgard the old role of free bodyguard to women. Thus,when we disgard this role will we be regarded as human beings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for sharing your insights on this, Jen.
I generally think that chivalry, at least as far as any special treatment for women, is a bad idea these days. It just isn't reciprocated with any sort of special treatment for men and, as a result, it ends up being not only privileged treatment for a group of people (women) based solely on their genes and genitals, but also a sort of appeasement (the world saw where that got Chamberlain) and an enabler of radical feminism. A feminist can unjustly attack men, and men are expected to be chivalrous and protect the woman who instituted the unjust attack against them -- to prevent any man from protecting himself. (We see this in individual cases with primary aggressor laws, under which, if a woman physically attacks a man and the man physically defends himself, the man will be arrested as the primary aggressor.)
It used to be that a woman and a man enjoyed sex, and a child happened. The man and woman enjoyed sex again, and another child happened. To protect and provide for the children, not to mention society and the species, the nuclear family developed with the men for the most part going out to bring home the bacon and the women caring for the children, to whom the women were more physically tied. (Consider the need for human milk in the days before refrigeration.) The men, with their greater physical stature, were also in pre-technological times best suited for protecting the home. Now men and women can enjoy sex without the burden of unwanted children. This is, of course, especially true for women, because abortion is by law entirely a woman's choice. Also, day to day life, at least in the developed world, is generally a lot safer today than it was in earlier times. Women and children, the hearth and home don't need men's physical protection to the extent that they used to.
I think that any need for chivalry that once may have existed has passed. What we really need now is a return to civility, something that has to a large extent disappeared in our society in many interactions in addition to those between men and women. I don't however, see any reason for a man to be more expected than a woman to open a door or pay for dinner or, for that matter, for men to stand to the side and prepare to die in the icy, dark north Atlantic night, while women board the life boats. It just makes no sense anymore.
I do sincerely want to thank you again, though, for sharing your perspective and insights. Its great to have you on this board.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday October 14, @09:20PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I generally think that chivalry, at least as far as any special treatment for women, is a bad idea these days. It just isn't reciprocated with any sort of special treatment for men and, as a result, it ends up being not only privileged treatment for a group of people (women) based solely on their genes and genitals, but also a sort of appeasement (the world saw where that got Chamberlain) and an enabler of radical feminism. A feminist can unjustly attack men, and men are expected to be chivalrous and protect the woman who instituted the unjust attack against them -- to prevent any man from protecting himself. (We see this in individual cases with primary aggressor laws, under which, if a woman physically attacks a man and the man physically defends himself, the man will be arrested as the primary aggressor.)
I appreciate Jen's input also, but believe that it is misguided and based upon false assumptions of fairness and equality. That is because we have seen the conservatives (who promote chivalry) eagerly pass the primary aggressor laws, based in liberal ideology, that exploit the chivalry of misinformed males. Make no mistake. Women have chosen to abandon chivalry when they voted in females that promoted corrupt anti-male laws.
For example, the laws have removed any possibility of a male's right to self-defense when a woman chooses to pick-up a weapon and attack her domestic partner. If the male defends himself then he becomes a primary aggressor and subject to an unjust arrest.
Other examples include the demand of most women to have the right to commit paternity fraud, the ability of women to make false allegations of rape and sexual harrassment, and the power of women to exclude most any male from being a father to a natural child.
This of course is only the tip of the iceberg. If chivalry is to return then the laws that turn males into an inhuman animal sperm donor will need to be repealed. That of course will not happen any time soon because of the right of a female to vote and their desire for special rights.
For now, chivalry is a dangerous practice that oppresses males, keeps them in ignorance, damages their self-esteem, criminalizes their actions, and promotes anti-male laws.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Civility seems to me to be such a cold, sterile way for people to act toward each other. I think a better word for what is needed is Respect.
I understand what you are saying, Dittohd, and perhaps our disagreement here (a minor one, I think) is based on semantics. The way I prefer to treat people is with civility as a default attitude with respect and contempt being attitudes that are earned by individuals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that any need for chivalry that once may have existed has passed. What we really need now is a return to civility, something that has to a large extent disappeared in our society in many interactions in addition to those between men and women. I don't however, see any reason for a man to be more expected than a woman to open a door or pay for dinner or, for that matter, for men to stand to the side and prepare to die in the icy, dark north Atlantic night, while women board the life boats. It just makes no sense anymore.
Even modern "liberated" women think it is their right to rescued first, protected, and in general treated as though their lives are worth more simply because they are women. If someone asks the question "why?" and they do not respond by simply attacking the questioner, they turn to atavistic justifications such as "women are needed to reproduce the species" or "children need their mothers", "woman are more vulnerable" etc.
Yet it is obvious that the human race is in no danger of extinction through failure to reproduce, it is debatable that woman do a better job of child-rearing than men, and, in any case, female privilege extends to all women, not just mothers. As to being more vulnerable, there might be a few circumstances where women are more vulnerable than men, and some contrariwise, but in most extreme situations (such as shot by the enemy or immersed in sub-zero water) both sexes will end up equally dead if unprotected.
Indeed the vulnerability argument is an argument for concentrating on saving the least vulnerable in circumstances where everyone's chances are slim. That's why fire wardens are told to put the guy in the wheelchair through the fire escape last. Hysterical women who are likely to fall over or flail about should also be left to the last.
Lastly I think Thomas is right to focus on civility rather than respect. Respect is too much to ask for whereas civility can be maintained in circumstances where respect cannot.
cheers,
--sd.
--sd.
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 15, @08:03AM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, first of all, great discussion guys.
"Lastly I think Thomas is right to focus on civility rather than respect. Respect is too much to ask for whereas civility can be maintained in circumstances where respect cannot. "
This is too true. I think short term civility is a good place to be. It is very difficult to respect many people out there today, but stooping down to their level is not the way to go, so being civil is a good middle ground.
Long term I think mutual respect is where we all would like to be. I think chivalry as special treatment for women is and should be dead, but those same qualities across the board would be admirable in both sexes.
I was on the feminist board arguing and one woman said to me, that as long as there was a man out there that thought women should stay home, feminism had a place. That says to me that there is no room for men to have a differing opinion than feminists, and that is a lack of respect. People who are respectful accept other's opinion for what it is-their opinion. I think that what we are fighting for here is as much for general respect as for rights. With respect, the rights would be there.
Anyways, another 4 cents ;-) Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 15, @08:16AM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
E-mail me about t-shirts-I couldn't find where you were on that web site.
dogcrazyjen@yahoo.com
Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is my summary of Chivalry in the modern age:
1. Chivalry is a concept from a past era that no longer applies in this era. In our modern world, society ITSELF has advanced beyond the need for strictly "survival" roles and humans are seeking individually and equality. Males USED to be the protectors and providers of society and females the nurturing gender that produced offspring, that needed protecting. In our current age, society is focusing on humans as "people" with rights, prileges and freedoms. However, social rules only allow females the rights of "freedom" and try to force men to retain their old roles. Chivalry is a concept from an age that no longer exists.
2. Chivalry is itself, discrimitive. Requirin a person to act/react or cater to another person based *solely* on the gender they were born with is discriminatng against them *as* a person.
3. The idea of chivalry is something that should be applied to *everyone*. Everyone (men or women) should be courteous, helpful and civil to anyone else (male or female).
R
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
