# Chivalry: Do you agree with it?



## sacrosanctsun (May 20, 2014)

No, I don't care much for chivalry. People should treat people like people. Egalitarianism is supreme.


----------



## Das Brechen (Nov 26, 2011)

I'll quote Obi-Wan on this one:

 "Chivalry is the practice of a Gentleman. Not as clumsy or as random as the "hook up" culture, but an elegant practice for a more civilized age."


----------



## Amacey (Mar 1, 2014)

I like to be treated fairly but not like some huge bitch


----------



## letmeatom (Feb 16, 2014)

Chivalry only makes sense for certain cultures from which it arose. The reason for chivalry is not just preferential treatment for return of sex - it's an honouring of women as the 'givers of life'. Pretty much every culture celebrates women in it's own way. Chivalry happens to be a custom of Northerners. 

I like it, although it is not necessary for me. But the less a society appreciates chivalry the more you know there's something afoul.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@KokuroNya

It occurs to me that people up in here do not know what chivalry actually is and we are only looking at it in a one sided way aka how its supposed to be applied towards women, which is only partially the truth.

*The Code of Chivalry* was a moral system which went beyond rules of combat and introduced the concept of Chivalrous conduct - qualities idealized by the Medieval knights such as bravery, courtesy, honor and great gallantry toward women. The Codes of chivalry also incorporated the notion of courtly love. The Code of Chivalry was the honor code of the knight. The Code of Chivalry was an important part of the society and lives of people who lived during the Medieval times and was understood by all.

*Knights Codes of Chivalry are as follows:*

To fear God and maintain His Church
To serve the liege lord in valour and faith
To protect the weak and defenceless
To give succour to widows and orphans
To refrain from the wanton giving of offence
To live by honour and for glory
To despise pecuniary reward
To fight for the welfare of all
To obey those placed in authority
To guard the honour of fellow knights
To eschew unfairness, meanness and deceit
To keep faith
At all times to speak the truth
To persevere to the end in any enterprise begun
To respect the honour of women
Never to refuse a challenge from an equal
Never to turn the back upon a foe

*o.o it is much more then opening doors and allowing old ladies to sit down...more info can be found here:*

Code of Chivalry

*In modern times chivalry is dead.*

*In Game of Thrones for example Brienne of Tarth would be the most chivalrous character:*









*
Chivalry implies much more then being nice to women, it also implies honor, respect and all the other stuff most people today do not have or can not afford to have.*


----------



## TootsieBear267 (May 30, 2014)

Yes, and no. Personally I think both men and women should be respectful to themselves and each other. However, men shouldn't be nice to people who'll disrespect them. Granted I don't much about chivalry, but what Wikipedia says is very interesting: 


> Believe the Church's teachings and observe all the Church's directions.
> Defend the Church.
> Respect and defend all weaknesses.
> Love your country.
> ...


I just cannot agree with this. Because I'm a skeptical person and all authority should be question. I just feel there's a better code of conduct out there today. 
Chivalry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Chivalry like every expected action is fake and insincere.
Once you are expected to hold open that door, pull out that chair or whatever else,
then the action isn't anymore something that says, I'm doing this because I think you are special.
It just says, I'm doing this cause otherwise people would be angry with me.
Ritual is the death of spontaneity and free expression, whatever that expression may be.

Chivalry assumes an uniformity of expression.
That every guy feelings for any girl is adequately expressed trough a standardized formula.
BS! Every relationship has it's own flavour, and more often than not in this day and age,
everything that chivalry communicates creates serious awkward situations.
Possibly ending a very nice thing.

Now some people still like chivalry, well then it is their responsibility to be up front about that.
Not for some poor guy to second guess himself over outdated rituals from a long dead era.


----------



## Sevenblade (May 26, 2014)

FreeBeer said:


> *Knights Codes of Chivalry are as follows:*
> 
> To fear God and maintain His Church
> To serve the liege lord in valour and faith
> ...


It occurs to me that some of these are very stereotypical SJ values. They discourage questioning, independence, and being true to oneself vs. others. Not to mention, critical thought and careful reasoning.


----------



## bellisaurius (Jan 18, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> It occurs to me that people up in here do not know what chivalry actually is and we are only looking at it in a one sided way aka how its supposed to be applied towards women, which is only partially the truth.*.*


Bingo. Moralizers of the time gave up on trying to condemn the fighting instinct and all it's agressiveness, and instead condone it so they could have some say about how it was expressed, and therefore control it, and possibly even get some positive externalities out of it. 

Having a somewhat defined code of behavior as it concerns aggressiveness and treatment of those that are more vulnerable to agression isn't a bad thing even now adays. It's not like aggression has gone away. It's just changed form. I'd imagine the modern code would have to include internet behavior and proper behavior in flame wars, and on sites where children are present.


----------



## bellisaurius (Jan 18, 2012)

Sevenblade said:


> It occurs to me that some of these are very stereotypical SJ values. They discourage questioning, independence, and being true to oneself vs. others. Not to mention, critical thought and careful reasoning.


Heh, I look at it the opposite way. It's about ideas, and living your life around said ideas. It brings me back to a comment I've heard once or twice "You're not in love as much as your in love with the idea of love". Both NTs, NFs, etc..are probably pretty indistinguishable from the SJs when they're in the "living life by ideas/rules" mode.


----------



## Mender (Apr 23, 2014)

I look upon many of the replies here and see a lack of honor, on both sides. Chivalry is not the same as holding doors open; it is the lifestyle of a gentleman, and it is to be commended.

Me, I'm more of a modern chivalrist - I agree with the aspects of 'the code' with the exception of the issue of authority; I value the autonomy, free will, and independence of all people above blind conformity and obedience. My regard for honor and glory is the same.


----------



## RandomRubiks (Sep 13, 2013)

In my own personal experience you'll only get hurt if you expect people to hold doors open for you...

Jokes aside, I don't think men should be expected to open doors, pull out chairs or pay for food. It's a nice thing to do regardless of your gender or sex, but it's a pretty silly social code.


----------



## kittenmogu (Jun 19, 2014)

If I hold open a door for a woman, or a man, what is it called? Just doing a nice thing for someone? Yeah okay. So why is it chivalry when a man does it, is it special? Why can't we just call it being nice? Do we need a special word for men in order for them to do nice things for people? Why unnecessarily gender it?


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Sevenblade said:


> It occurs to me that some of these are very stereotypical SJ values. They discourage questioning, independence, and being true to oneself vs. others. Not to mention, critical thought and careful reasoning.


Its the middle ages. The knight's code is designed with serving the church, society and the monarchy in mind. Individualism wasn't there till the 19xxs. In fact individualism was a rather radical idea in response to Freud's ideas that the subconscious determines who you are.

This makes such ideas a more post WWII thing. *You could get killed for critical thinking in the middle ages you know.*


----------



## kayaycee. (Jun 20, 2014)

I believe in people being polite to eachother, and if holding the door open or treating others is how you express your respect/care for another person, then go for it. If it isn't, then don't. Chivalry overall is sexual discrimination, but being a decent human being isn't.


----------



## sassysquid (Jul 16, 2014)

I initially answered no, but I realized that I do believe in chivalry, but not exclusively to men. I think BOTH men and women have to be equally chivalrous. It's one way to you show someone you care about them and love them.

I don't like society's view of "real men should be chivalrous!" Yea, well so should women.


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Kindness is the act of putting one above yourself, regardless of their own walk in their life. 

This whole blowhard excuse about "equality" is just that, an excuse. A modernist coloring. 

Please expect me to be chivalrous, that way I'm allow to expect the same of you; don't let yourself off the hook by not expecting it from me. Humans meet expectations--don't lower them.


----------



## sassysquid (Jul 16, 2014)

I'd like to see responses from the 46% that voted YES, please :/ ; it'd be interesting to know your perspectives.

I think us NO voters have a general consensus here.


----------



## night_owl (Mar 10, 2014)

I'm a girl and I think it should not be automatically expected just because you're a woman. If a man is chivalrous, cool, but if not then he's not. And yes I agree, if you like men who are, you will have to find one who is. This reminds me of those times when I'm watching a TV show episode and a girl/woman is having an altercation or disagreement with someone and her boyfriend doesn't take her side because he doesn't agree with her and the girl is like in total disbelief. The girl thinks that just because she's his girlfriend, he's obligated to always take her side..... huh?


----------



## cremefraiche (Jul 9, 2014)

I don't need someone to pull my chair out for me, carry my bags, open the car door, whatever. But if they're going to do it and they like doing it, I'm going to let them. I'm not going to get onto them for doing it and go on some rant saying they don't think I can do it for myself. That's often not the case and is just rude.

That being said, everyone should be respectful but "expect" is the wrong word. If someone expected me to open their car door for them, pull out their chair or carry all their stuff I'd think they were stuck up. If someone expressed they liked those things being done for them, but that they're certainly not necessary, then yes, I have no issue.


----------

