The question is: Why do we support ideas of chivalry when it is a throwback to the dark ages and works to devalue women?

At the other end of the spectrum, there is the Sensitive Male who fronts himself as respectful of women or who knows how to say all the politically correct things (like denouncing misogyny, etc).

The Sensitive Male does these things–not out of any substantive political consciousness or activist conviction–but as a way to ingratiate himself to women.

In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if some cunning PUA out there has incorporated the Sensitive Male pose as just another pick-up technique.

Basically, the Sensitive Male is the gendered equivalent of the (White) Liberal who proffers sympathy and understanding of racism–but primarily out of self-serving motivations.

There are many different forms that sexism (and racism) can take–some more obvious, others more disguised.

He seeks to buy your attention based on your face by opening a door for you. At that moment in time, you are a commodity he has decided he wants based on what you look like. And remember, this is your example, not mine. Also, you are citing an example in which you benefit but others don’t: would he think, “She’s hideous, I want her to smile at me, let me open the door?” No, you are displaying complacence to a system which–in your example–women are treated differently from men because they are women, and beautiful women are treated differently from ugly women because they can raise a few cocks.

hi flip. i think the whole point is to do something for someone else if you feel like that’s what you want to do in order to show them some decency; what other people are trying to get at (even as i’ve been arguing against it, though i see their point) is not to act out of cultural conditioning, expecting some type of social reward, or because you think that’s what’s expected of you.

i know it might seem a little assbackwards that i’d take the side of those who are acting out of social conditioning, and the fact that i’d be so passionate about it, but what i’m trying to get across is that the world is full of people who are acting from their own sets of conditioning, mores, and values that are in a constant state of evolution. i don’t think it’s helpful if we disagree with something to come to such rigid conclusions like ‘it’s ok if you’re doing this action with the sincere intent of helping me, but it’s not ok if you’re doing this action because i’m a woman and you want to either get laid or seem like a good guy.’ in the end, it’s pretty harmless in the scheme of things, and i don’t think it’s helpful to put such rigid strictures on why someone else, an able human being with their own opinions and free will, should have specific intentions in their heads in the way they act towards us—we can’t control anything except ourselves, otherwise we’d be getting mad at everything.

as for this:
“chivalry as a custom is acceptable. But chivalry as a tool to display anything about yourself is not. In other words, treating women nice because you don’t think about what your are doing is one thing, treating women nice to get them to notice you is a different category.”

i would say that chivalry as a tool to display something about yourself, and even to get women to notice you is absolutely fine. men can display themselves in any way they feel comfortable with in order to get a date, and like an earlier poster said, they will just attract the women who adore that type of thing. to each his own.

God forbid a greasy looking dude in a hoodie standing in front of a black van offers any of y’all some candy or a new puppy with a bright smile or we’d have an influx of adult kidnappings.

There is no point in argueing what Chivalry means - being English as a living language - it will continue to carry connotations as people choose to give them. Think of the word odor for example. Quite literally, an odor could be a pleasant smell, but who thinks of that?

I do think it is important to hold a words meaning to the context of the user - In this case it seems that to one it is a common courtesy of culture, and the other it seems to be an tool used to create a perception of ones-self to a woman or simply a flirt.

I think the biggest problem with this is that there appears to be a common code in the culture where a man must be the one who approaches the woman in order to actually start the relationship. [I'm not saying this is always the case] I think that it continues to lead the reason why guys still do put themselves out there.

After reading through the many passionate postings about this, which I believe to be a common courtesy, I have come to the conclusion that I have no need to show anyone that I am nice through such methods. No more holding doors. No more putting the toilet seat down.
or would I be taking chivalry out of context?

a man can look at me, think “i see woman, i open door for woman. she pretty, me want her to think i nice.” he can open the door for me specifically because i’m a woman; it doesn’t mean that i needed the attention or was looking for it, it doesn’t make him somehow oppressive to my womanhood, it in no way disempowers who i am or reduces my value as a woman or a human being. in fact, if both people are attracted to each other then it might be the start of something; if not, they can go on their merry ways. it is merely a brief communication in time; his worldview colliding with mine for a brief second. if he’s still in the worldview that men should treat women a certain way to show her that he respects her as a woman, and i’m in a newer generation that knows that we don’t need that to feel respected, the world isn’t any worse off than it was to begin with. he’s evolving on his own path just like anyone else.

In any case, I open doors for women, and it fits the American Heritage def of the word, but I don’t know if I’m pro-chivalry or anti-chivalry just yet; I’d like to explore the question further.

But as I said, that’s probably a whole new can of worms…