Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
40 years ago women launched some change that can't be reversed.
No, 65 years ago men launched a change that can't be reversed.
How? They sent all the boys to war...and then told the women they should take the mens' places at factories and other places of employment "for the good of their country". Apparently, we silly simpering little females suddenly are equals...when you need us to be. And only for as long as you want us to be. Because when the war was over, the women were told to go from being proud, self-sufficient people who brought home a paycheck and were doing something active toward the world in general, back being dishwashers and ironers again for their men.
And were dissatisfied. Hmmmmmmmmm. No kidding.
Yes. Women want to be seen as equal human beings, and at the same time, be treated in special ways. So do men, as far as I know. EVERYONE wans to be treated equally but still have times they're treated in a special way. I am 100% sure that you do, too. But when we want it, we're flag-waving ERA b*tches.
Way to wiggle out of having to be a gentleman.
We women wanted the right to work. We wanted at least close to equal pay. All these years later we've crawled our way up to a whopping 79% of a man's dollar for the identical job. (Where's that rolling-eyes emoticon? I can't find it.) And all that's happened along the way is that we've been told what b*tches we are for it. By some of the very same men who constantly complain that "women are only after me for my money," "Why do I always have to pay for the date?" "I want to marry a woman who has a career, not someone who will rot at home watching Jerry Springer..." Hello. You can't have it both ways. You want to marry a woman who truly loves you...not your wallet? The only way to do that is to marry someone you know doesn't need your wallet. And so in that way, the ERA was a very positive thing...for both men and women.
But for all that, I still am "chivalrous" (or the ladylike equivalent)...I don't see the discrepancy. All I see is a want and need to control women by keeping them unemployed and simpering by damning us every five seconds for ridiculous things we probably don't even do. A few men here have said they've never encountered the same drastic scenarios of a woman screaming at them, etc. for holding a door. I never have either. Ridiculous.
PLEASE don't stand behind a 50-year-old movement as a reason not to be gentleman. I don't stand behind it as a reason not to be a lady. Give us all a break.
No, 65 years ago men launched a change that can't be reversed.
How? They sent all the boys to war...and then told the women they should take the mens' places at factories and other places of employment "for the good of their country". Apparently, we silly simpering little females suddenly are equals...when you need us to be. And only for as long as you want us to be. Because when the war was over, the women were told to go from being proud, self-sufficient people who brought home a paycheck and were doing something active toward the world in general, back being dishwashers and ironers again for their men.
And were dissatisfied. Hmmmmmmmmm. No kidding.
Yes. Women want to be seen as equal human beings, and at the same time, be treated in special ways. So do men, as far as I know. EVERYONE wans to be treated equally but still have times they're treated in a special way. I am 100% sure that you do, too. But when we want it, we're flag-waving ERA b*tches.
Way to wiggle out of having to be a gentleman.
We women wanted the right to work. We wanted at least close to equal pay. All these years later we've crawled our way up to a whopping 79% of a man's dollar for the identical job. (Where's that rolling-eyes emoticon? I can't find it.) And all that's happened along the way is that we've been told what b*tches we are for it. By some of the very same men who constantly complain that "women are only after me for my money," "Why do I always have to pay for the date?" "I want to marry a woman who has a career, not someone who will rot at home watching Jerry Springer..." Hello. You can't have it both ways. You want to marry a woman who truly loves you...not your wallet? The only way to do that is to marry someone you know doesn't need your wallet. And so in that way, the ERA was a very positive thing...for both men and women.
But for all that, I still am "chivalrous" (or the ladylike equivalent)...I don't see the discrepancy. All I see is a want and need to control women by keeping them unemployed and simpering by damning us every five seconds for ridiculous things we probably don't even do. A few men here have said they've never encountered the same drastic scenarios of a woman screaming at them, etc. for holding a door. I never have either. Ridiculous.
PLEASE don't stand behind a 50-year-old movement as a reason not to be gentleman. I don't stand behind it as a reason not to be a lady. Give us all a break.
Actually JerZ women's suffrage goes back to the 1800's and even before in some restricted ways. The first unrestricted women's suffrage in terms of voting rights was granted in New Zealand in 1893 and South Australia granted universal sufferage and the right for women to stand for state parliament in 1895 followed by the Commonwealth of Australia providing this right at Federal elections in 1902. And there are certainly even examples throughout history and in other cultures of matriarchal societies where women are equal, in some cases dominant even.
In terms of the women's movement killing chivalry well I'm not buying it either.
The women's movement is not an excuse for either sex to behave badly.
Yes in the initial days of the big push for women's rights in the 60s perhaps drastic and militant type action was required but this is usually the way of it when it comes to any issue, a fairly standard way for change to be brought about.
In terms of chivalry, well again I say, it takes nothing for people to extend common courtesy to each other and be gracious and polite. The benefits of these behaviours far outweigh the negatives in my opinion. I would only like to see, like yourself, an end to people using Women's Liberation as an excuse to behave badly.
The women's movement is not an excuse for either sex to behave badly.
Yes in the initial days of the big push for women's rights in the 60s perhaps drastic and militant type action was required but this is usually the way of it when it comes to any issue, a fairly standard way for change to be brought about.
In terms of chivalry, well again I say, it takes nothing for people to extend common courtesy to each other and be gracious and polite. The benefits of these behaviours far outweigh the negatives in my opinion. I would only like to see, like yourself, an end to people using Women's Liberation as an excuse to behave badly.
We're not talking about behaving badly. We're talking about equal treatment. Big difference. If someone is directly behind me, or near enough, I'll hold the door for them regardless of gender or age. Why have it slam in their face? I think the issue here is (read the OP again) chivalry. Men treating women a certain way, because of tradition or gender roles which are perceived as desirable.
A woman would never throw her coat down on a puddle for a hot man to walk across, but this make believe scenario is at least fathomable if you picture a man doing it for a hot woman.
Certain things will never change. Men will always be stronger than women, men will always be expected to jump in front of the women and children and soak up all the lead bullets. Men will always be last on board the lifeboats. The term "Pu*sy" is reserved for men who would desire to keep their own life in exchange for women or children. But chivalry (treating women a certain way because 'that's how it should be') IS DYING. And yes, not every woman spits on a man who holds a door for her. But there are a lot of women who are quite offended when a man acts like a buffer or a stronger individual, and goes out of his way to do something like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ
We women wanted the right to work. We wanted at least close to equal pay. All these years later we've crawled our way up to a whopping 79% of a man's dollar for the identical job. (Where's that rolling-eyes emoticon? I can't find it.) And all that's happened along the way is that we've been told what b*tches we are for it. By some of the very same men who constantly complain that "women are only after me for my money," "Why do I always have to pay for the date?" "I want to marry a woman who has a career, not someone who will rot at home watching Jerry Springer..." Hello. You can't have it both ways. You want to marry a woman who truly loves you...not your wallet? The only way to do that is to marry someone you know doesn't need your wallet.
Women, however, are doomed by certain unavoidable issues. For one, a woman spends quite a bit of time LESS in the workplace, due to one or more pregnancies. The very act of being 'with child' means that a woman at some point must take time off from work. Then there is the initial stages of child-rearing, where a woman must be present a lot of the time. So, even if women earned 100% of the dollar that men earned, their total combined 'dollars' would still be less in the long run, otherwise society would cease to exist, because babies would not be born anymore.
Another factor, and you can google this if you don't believe me, is a psychological one. Women tend to not be as assertive, or appear as confident, when it comes to getting raises and promotions. Men, even if they are the most incompetent man on the face of mother earth, will always insist they are the best at what they do, and will toot their horn as loudly as possible. Women (generally) are more honest, have a certain amount of 'apologetic' attitude, and are more upfront about their true capabilities and accomplishments. An employer looking at two employees (one male, one female) as having potential to move up the ranks, might get this scenario:
Male attitude: "I am totally qualified to have this position. I am god's gift to this company. I will work 90 hours a week and sleep in my office if it means earning this company even one more dollar. My glory and radiance in the workplace will cause our customers to unload their money at will."
(exaggeration of course).
Female attitude: "Well I have done several good things for this company. I will work very hard and do my best." (again, short exaggeration).
Basically, in a lot of cases the 'cockiness' and 'know-it-all' attitude in the workplace can actually benefit men the most, regardless of skill or qualifications. Even women executives are more likely to select male candidates to fill higher positions, simply because the men often present themselves as the absolute perfect leader and taskmaster. Some women have learned to be just as aggressive as men in the workplace, but that number is still small (as evidenced by the very few female CEO's: http://www.astd.org/NR/rdonlyres/2B1...velop_free.pdf)
A woman would never throw her coat down on a puddle for a hot man to walk across, but this make believe scenario is at least fathomable if you picture a man doing it for a hot woman.
"Hot" has nothing to do with true chivalry.
Quote:
But chivalry (treating women a certain way because 'that's how it should be') IS DYING.
If that's the definition you want to go with, then perhaps it's just as well it's dying.
"If that's the definition you want to go with, then perhaps it's just as well it's dying.
But the REAL one is still alive and kicking.
Please! Sifuphil, chivalry used to mean something totally DIFFERENT from what you're thinking. If by 'real' you mean 'whatever sifuphil wants it to mean' than I guess that yeah, it's still alive and kicking. Chivalry does not necessarily encompass ALL of the realm of 'simply being a gentleman.' The OP was not: "Are all gentlemen dead?" Or better yet "Where have all the cowboys gone?" It was asking about chivalry.
Gentlemen: A hereditary elitism was bound up with the concept, and gentlemen were expected to act as moral guides to the rest of society. They were to:
cultivate themselves morally;
participate in the correct performance of ritual;
show filial piety and loyalty where these are due; and
cultivate humaneness.
Gentleman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This would be a gentleman, what you are describing. Chivalry is actually in some cases rather negative towards women. I think either the OP and yourself didn't quite understand the definition of the word chivalry, or you believe that it no longer means what it used to mean. Either way, google some history of the subject first, then tell me the 'real one' is 'alive and kicking.'
We're not talking about behaving badly. We're talking about equal treatment. Big difference. If someone is directly behind me, or near enough, I'll hold the door for them regardless of gender or age. Why have it slam in their face? I think the issue here is (read the OP again) chivalry. Men treating women a certain way, because of tradition or gender roles which are perceived as desirable.
A woman would never throw her coat down on a puddle for a hot man to walk across, but this make believe scenario is at least fathomable if you picture a man doing it for a hot woman.
Certain things will never change. Men will always be stronger than women, men will always be expected to jump in front of the women and children and soak up all the lead bullets. Men will always be last on board the lifeboats. The term "Pu*sy" is reserved for men who would desire to keep their own life in exchange for women or children. But chivalry (treating women a certain way because 'that's how it should be') IS DYING. And yes, not every woman spits on a man who holds a door for her. But there are a lot of women who are quite offended when a man acts like a buffer or a stronger individual, and goes out of his way to do something like that.
All of which is covered by common courtesy and I have already mentioned earlier in the thread that I'm not a fan so much of chivalry as common courtesy.
As to the rest of what you've said here, you know I'm never going to agree with you about men being stronger or that women don't ever physically defend those they love or are incable of personal sacrifice in order to "save" men or defend them. I open doors for everyone, I pick things up if people drop them, I help people if they are having trouble and I always go to the aid of others male or female if they seem to need it. I've even jumped into some rather nasty fights between men on occasion and attempted to stop them. It's not the sole bastion of men.
I love the qualification you place on the throwing down of the coat by HOT men on puddles for HOT women though. If it was necessary I doubt I'd make that distinction and historically there are certainly instances where the hotness or lack there of was not a requirement for men to perform this act of chivalry.
That being the case I see no reason to make the distinction between men and women. The reason it doesn't happen anymore is because mostly roads are sealed now so it's not really an issue for either men or women. It was a product of its era and no longer relevent.
Now I can agree that there are women that don't respond well when men are courteous or chivalrous even and that's a shame but then there are men in this world that are far from chivalrous or courteous or even humane but I don't base my opinions of all men or the behaviour of men on the bad eggs. Just because I've come across more than my fair share of really bad men is no reason for me to be discurteous to anyone male or female. So my "chivalry" or views on "chivalry" will always be colored by my own actions and beliefs which at their most basic level are always to treat people as I would wish to be treated.
All of which is covered by common courtesy and I have already mentioned earlier in the thread that I'm not a fan so much of chivalry as common courtesy.
Ok. Well, this thread was about chivalry. Let's start a thread on 'Why no more common courtesy??" When you're talking about chivalry, it's a very male-oriented trait.
As to the rest of what you've said here, you know I'm never going to agree with you about men being stronger or that women don't ever physically defend those they love or are incable of personal sacrifice in order to "save" men or defend them.
Women do, but men ARE stronger. Physically. Across every part of the physical spectrum. There are exceptions (there always are, in a world of 6 billion people), but generally men develop larger more powerful muscles than women. Even the strongest woman in the world would get beaten to a pulp if she were to try to play in the NFL.
That being said, men have a certain larger responsibility to use their added bulk or strength to help those that might be weaker, even if the weaker party could do it themselves. HOWEVER (and this is what us guys are trying to say), a lot of women get offended by this. Sure, a woman could lift up a 50lb flowerpot and move it to another location. But if a guy was there, he would probably offer to do it. Now, if this were 100 years ago, obviously nobody would have a problem with it. But nowadays, some women would snap and go 'No! I can do it myself!" Not all women, but still, some very militant feminists are, I think, ruining it for everyone.
Ok. Well, this thread was about chivalry. Let's start a thread on 'Why no more common courtesy??" When you're talking about chivalry, it's a very male-oriented trait.
There are already threads on common courtesy and frankly I find that the principles of the two go hand in hand, that's how the discussion, like societal norms and expectations, evolved.
I agree chivalry is/was directly levelled at men and expected of men but as I've said I don't see it being relevant in today's society so much and the onus is on the individual to respond graciously when they encounter it from either males or females, in other words courtesy should be expected of both men and women and the specifics of chivalry as directly pertaining to men are not really relevent in today's society.
If one goes through the code of conduct relating to chivalry and the expectations placed on men there are elements that are no longer relevent in today's society and there are also elements that should be considered as desirable behaviour by all people. That's evolution.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If it was necessary I doubt I'd make that distinction and historically there are certainly instances where the hotness or lack there of was not a requirement for men to perform this act of chivalry. 
