Is chivalry dead?

[Dr._Weird]

Same things with one of my most predominant physical features. My long, curly, and (by many accounts) beautiful hair, for which I caught much grief over in high school. Here's an actually exchange between me and a classmate:
Classmate: Why don't you cut your hair?
Me: Because I like it.
Classmate: Well I don't.
I walked away at that point because there were a number of things I would've said that probably were best left unsaid. But through all the grief, occassionally someone I didn't even know threw me a compliment. That is why I do it. Not the people who don't like/appreciate/want it, but for the occassional person who does, and, perhaps most importantly, for me.

Hey, high-five for guys with long curly hair! Mine would be about down to my chin if you straightened it out.

[ChronicLunacy]

It annoys the hell out of me when other men laud their so-called masculinity and then try to immasculate others.

If manhood is in what you eat, what sort of girls you like, and having fluids all over you, then count me out of it. I do like a bloody steak as much as the next person, but manhood is a paltry thing defined in such a way.

The whole point of my post was in the exaggeration. I doubt that what you eat has any bearing on if you are a man or not. My way of doing things may not work so well for anyone else, but I am completely and brashly unapologetic about my behavior. If you found what I said emasculating then fine, that's great. It made you think at least.

Oh, and I'm sorry you are offended by my sweaty manliness and the fluids all over it. :smallwink:

[ChronicLunacy]

So guys, be who you are. Someone'll appreciate it:smalltongue:

And that person will be your mom.

I completely disagree with the "just be yourself" mentality. It's lazy. If you don't like who you are then people will not appreciate you. It is then your responsibility to change yourself for the better, to grow into the person you want to be.

(Alright, so after rereading that you could have meant the same thing..."Like yourself and others will like you." and I'm just reiterating. If so, then I completely agree with what you're saying. :smallbiggrin: )

Wow, this whole topic just turned to what should be in the "Relationship Woes and Advice" thread. Must...stay...on...topic...! :smalleek:

[WhatIsGravity]

You realize sexism is bad, right? If so, why don't you want to avoid it?

Sexism is discrimination based on gender. Aren't the different toilets doing that? Changing rooms? Clothing?

[Death, your friend the Reaper]

Clothing?

Our brave friends in Scotland are fighting for that one.

Onward Scotland the brave!

[averagejoe]

The whole point of my post was in the exaggeration. I doubt that what you eat has any bearing on if you are a man or not. My way of doing things may not work so well for anyone else, but I am completely and brashly unapologetic about my behavior. If you found what I said emasculating then fine, that's great. It made you think at least.

Oh, and I'm sorry you are offended by my sweaty manliness and the fluids all over it. :smallwink:

And my whole point was directed more toward stuff like


It annoys the hell out of me when men neuter themselves

I didn't find it emasculating; indeed, I would come closer than many to such a definition of manhood. I'm simply tired of such attitudes, in jest or not. I misunderstood you, and for that I apologize; however, it wasn't a matter of personal offense on my part so much as it was a reaction to an ideal that is still far too prevelant today.

[Charity]

Sexism is discrimination based on gender. Aren't the different toilets doing that? Changing rooms? Clothing?

Nope. See Trogs post above which will explain where you strayed from the path.


Lastly, I find it funny that in AD&D, the only difference between men and women is that, no matter the race, women had a -2 STR.
That is not actually the case. There was no strength penalty for women, the maximum strength cap was lower (in most cases) but there was no penalty applied.
Also AD&D is in no way a useful referance to real life or indeed sexual equality.


As to the thread, the vast majority of men do not treat men and women the same. That isn't such a bad deal for women generally. Blokes are much more likely to be subjected to a physical assualt than a woman of similar age and social status.
I know plenty of you will swear blind that you do treat men and women the same, but you don't. Let me demonstrate with a scenario.
A guy comes up to you in the street and spits in your face and swings a punch at you. What is your honest response guys? I'd be willing to gamble it involves face punching along the line somewhere.
Now if a woman did the same, what happens, punch her as hard as you can in the face? Nope, you would back off or endeavour to restrain her, you'd do anything to avoid having to strike her.
We are conditioned from birth not to hit women, and there is no fighting that.
Yeah I know there are plenty tosspots do indeed hit their wives/girlfriends but even these charmers wouldn't hit some women they met in the street.

Also look at how you view blokes who hit blokes and then how about men whom hit women? Even the most radical feminists I have ever met have found that question hard to rationally defend, why it is worse for a man to hit a woman than vica versa?

*Please note there is no advocating of any form of violence, I just like asking difficult questions.

Men do get a raw deal over some of the more traditional approaches to appropriate behavour. Suck it up fellas, be a man about it eh.

[Saithis Bladewing]

Also look at how you view blokes who hit blokes and then how about men whom hit women? Even the most radical feminists I have ever met have found that question hard to rationally defend, why it is worse for a man to hit a woman than vica versa?

To be fair, you can argue the fact that the average woman can suffer serious physical damage from a single blow from an average man, while the average man might feel a bit of pain but won't be that affected if the average woman hits them.

Still, I'm in agreement and advocate nobody hitting anybody. Unless they hit me first. Then I hit back, and not lightly.

[Flakey]

A guy comes up to you in the street and spits in your face and swings a punch at you. What is your honest response guys? I'd be willing to gamble it involves face punching along the line somewhere.
Now if a woman did the same, what happens, punch her as hard as you can in the face? Nope, you would back off or endeavour to restrain her, you'd do anything to avoid having to strike her.


Niether would involve face punching, it is an easy way to bust your knuckles. :smallwink:

Seriously though I would attempt to block the punch and try to find out whats going on. If they continue to attack put them on the floor the fastest way I know how, and is apropriate for the situation. Granted the response to get them onto the floor is likely to be different, but that only because of body mass and the way they attack. Apart from the method the end result would be the same.

In this day its very bad for you to be sexist in this manner. I seen several men suddenly keel over after a girl has gone for the balls (Females seem born with the knowledge of a mans weak spot :smallbiggrin: ), because the man was not treating them seriously as a threat.

[Xuincherguixe]

The thing is, you can have a 'positive' prejudiced opinion too. And it can still be offensive.

"You're a Canadian right? You must be good at making igloos then." frankly I think I almost offended myself just there.

Just because you're trying to be nice doesn't mean you aren't being offensive. Generally the appropriate thing to do is say something like, "Uh, that was kind of offensive." and proceed to explain why.

It could probably be considered 'chivalrous' if one saw a woman crunching numbers and offer to help, because "everyone knows women are bad at math". You know, even the ones that have "somehow managed to get math degrees".


Women have the right to free themselves from dragons these days.

[nagora]

You can have chivalry or equality, not both. Most women in "the West" today have picked equality. Learn to live with it.

You can still be polite, however, if you are polite to everyone.

[Capt'n Ironbrow]

You can have chivalry or equality, not both. Most women in "the West" today have picked equality. Learn to live with it.

You can still be polite, however, if you are polite to everyone.

I totally disagree with you. Sure, both equality and Chivalry can co-exist, why shouldn't it? Example of my private life: My mother (as said before) is a feminist and has a dayjob, my dad stays at home. Now, being a feminist, would she find a (fr. exmpl) male colleague's courteous behaviour we defined as Chivalry offensive? no way, she requires it, take the coat, help with the coat, hold the door etc. she also expects her sons and husband to behave like so when they are with her/women.

It's not not-feminist to appreciate etiquette (which is what it is) nor is it sexist to uphold it.

The thing is, that men and women are different, and that is why they treat each other differently than they would one of the same gender. As long as there are some important exceptions in this I'm fine with that, any feminist I know is too (and I know quite a few). Of course, each ideology has it's moderated, extremists and orthodox...

Someone said before that men and women are different, that is a fact.
Neither is "better" than the other over all, there are just things women do better than men and vice versa (and I won't stereotype by defining what each does better than the other).

heh, I had a few feministic girlfriends too and none of them did not get upset when I didn't abide the traditional male-female ettiquette (take the coat, the chair-thing in a restaurant, hold the door etc,). I'd had some real relationship crises because of absent mindedness in a situation where an act of politeness was required by the aforementioned etiquette.

I think therefore that MOST women appreciate what is here called Chivalry and find that the ones who find it demeaning or sexist should relax a bit, for it is not the intent to demean or discriminate that fuels the action, it's the intent to be polite and friendly. humans are social animals, being friendly and helpfull is social behaviour fitting of human beings.

[Trog]

We are conditioned from birth not to hit women, and there is no fighting that.
Very true. I have never hit a woman and I can't say the same about guys.

Oh wait. Though my sister often liked starting shoulder punching contests with me. Though that is a bit different as she -wanted- me to hit her back. :smallconfused: I think at the time she wanted to work off some aggression. Only time in my life I have "hit" a girl. But truth be told she hit -much- harder than me due to the above conditioning. :smallamused: Oftentimes later we would compare bruises. It was like a little shoulder-confined fight club. My sister rocks! :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, yeah, I know... first rule and all that. :smalltongue:

[Charity]

To be fair, you can argue the fact that the average woman can suffer serious physical damage from a single blow from an average man, while the average man might feel a bit of pain but won't be that affected if the average woman hits them

This is a load of old cobblers and you know it Saith, women can hit plenty hard, just as hard as guys, harder in fact as you know you're not gonna get hit back.

^ Trog, my sister once complained at me for breaking her nail... with my scalp.

[Saithis Bladewing]

This is a load of old cobblers and you know it Saith, women can hit plenty hard, just as hard as guys, harder in fact as you know you're not gonna get hit back.

Maybe women have the POTENTIAL to hit as hard, I'm living proof of that, but that doesn't mean the average woman WILL be able to hit as hard as the average man, nor will the average woman be able to absorb the damage as easily as the larger average man. This has nothing to do with who is justified in hitting who or whether they'll hit back, it's a simple matter of potential damage caused. The average man is larger and has higher muscle density than the average woman. I'm not saying that women should be allowed to hit men or anything, just playing devil's advocate. :smalltongue:

[Yuki Akuma]

If a woman hit me, I'd hit her back. :smalltongue: But I'm a weakling, so I'm not likely to do any serious damage.

(I prefer to think of it as "don't hit people weaker than you", not "don't hit women", personally.)

Is it chivalry when you open doors for everyone, always walk on the side of the pavement next to the road (I think that's my overprotective nature speaking, there) and always offer to pay the bill? I think I'm just too polite.

A note to any woman who wants equality and special treatment just because you're a woman: Get over yourself. If you want to be equal, expecting special treatment is stupid. :smalltongue:

Of course, if you require special treatment (if you're too weak to even open the door, for example, or can't carry your shopping), by all means, you should expect it... but the same should be true for very small, weak men as well. But it isn't.

And radical feminists who want better treatment than guys because you believe you're somehow better than us... you're just as bad as we were a hundred years ago. Stop it. >.>

(Note that this isn't directed at anyone in particular, is just my philosophical viewpoint on the subject. :smalltongue: )

[Saithis Bladewing]

(I prefer to think of it as "don't hit people weaker than you", not "don't hit women", personally.)

I'll still keep sticking to 'don't hit people.'

[Indon]

Maybe women have the POTENTIAL to hit as hard, I'm living proof of that, but that doesn't mean the average woman WILL be able to hit as hard as the average man, nor will the average woman be able to absorb the damage as easily as the larger average man. This has nothing to do with who is justified in hitting who or whether they'll hit back, it's a simple matter of potential damage caused. The average man is larger and has higher muscle density than the average woman. I'm not saying that women should be allowed to hit men or anything, just playing devil's advocate. :smalltongue:

In terms of combat, many different forms of martial arts training eliminate much of the gap between men and women caused by the average strength difference.

And really, when it comes to raw lethality, you don't need strength to use a firearm.

Edit: I make this comment because I feel that the superior utility of the male in pre-firearm warfare is much of what defined gender roles in the past, and is now more or less a nonfactor.

[Saithis Bladewing]

In terms of combat, many different forms of martial arts training eliminate much of the gap between men and women caused by the average strength difference.

And really, when it comes to raw lethality, you don't need strength to use a firearm.

Edit: I make this comment because I feel that the superior utility of the male in pre-firearm warfare is much of what defined gender roles in the past, and is now more or less a nonfactor.

Does the average person know these martial arts?

I'm weaker than most people I know yet I could still probably seriously hurt any of them with my bare hands. That doesn't change anything, because I'm not a good representation of the average woman. If the average man decides to attack the average woman, despite my distate for the thought, she is very likely to lose, simply because he is larger and has more muscle mass. Martial arts, obviously, complicate the issue.

[Dispozition]

Does the average person know these martial arts?

I'm weaker than most people I know yet I could still probably seriously hurt any of them with my bare hands. That doesn't change anything.

Same here...I'm stupidly weak...Most girls I know are stronger than I am :P

I can still manage to hurt people though...Both males and females have rather weak spots...

[Charity]

As am I Saith, as am I.
However as my 9 year old son can hit hard enough to break my glasses without even trying, I'm willing to bet there isn't a girl here whom couldn't break my nose if she were... That is not an invitation ladies, regardless of how tempting I make it. My wife (whom is rubbish at punching I might add) would have no difficulty given enough provokation.. not that she's not had plenty..

[Capt'n Ironbrow]

It is also so that women have a thinner skull than men and so are knocked out by a blow to the head faster/easier than a man. Martial artistry won't help with that really...

[Lenlalron]

I'm waiting for someone named "Chivalry" to pop in and say "Nope, I'm not dead, but thanks for caring!"

I'll contribute a few cents, with just a few comments:


Men and women are different. They were made by God different, and it was good that they were different. However, I would like to make a few points.

1) Just because men and women are different, does not make either inferior to the other. People get caught up in "oh my gosh there are like 2 women engineers compared to 55555555 male engineers", and the like, and act like that is the worst thing ever. Unless the cause is direct discrimination (by employers, which means that qualified people are gettng shut up), then this isn't a bad thing.

2) There are things in general that men are more gifted in than women (on the average; some women have these gifts as well), and vice versa. Men, on the average, are stronger than women. There are women who are as strong as men, but on the average, men are stronger. This is not a bad thing.

3) Don't treat equality like it is the end-goal, that's the same as treating diversity as an end to something, and not just something you want your community to have.

With regards to chivalry, you just gotta find what works, you know. Have you style, be confident in it, respect women, respect men (don't mock them with your style). Treat girls in a way that you are trying to honor them, guys. Girls, treat guys in a way that you are trying to honor them. If that is chivalry, so be it. If that is punching each other, so be it.

[Charity]

I'm waiting for someone named "Chivalry" to pop in and say "Nope, I'm not dead, but thanks for caring!"



Is chivalry dead?

... Well he hasn't returned my calls for a few weeks, I just thought it he was sore about the whole Eggnogg fiasco...

I don't know why I bother...

[elliott20]

the bottom line, I think is that we need to understand equal opportunity does not always mean equal outcome. Be the reasoning cultural or biological, women are going to be leaning more towards a particular gender role than men.

One thing that I think people often forget is that equality does not necessarily mean complete homogeny. Ideally, our differences should not dictate our inherent worth and opportunities. This, however, does not mean that we should expect the outcome to automatically yield a complete equal outcome. i.e. now a days when it comes to applying for college, your gender generally has very little effect on your chances of acceptance. (unless you're applying for a school that has a history of being gender specific) However, this doesn't mean that we're going to necessarily have an equal numbers of attendance in school. (Such is the case where now a days more women go to college and achieve better grades than men)

This is not to say that we can JUSTIFY unequal treatment or event covert sexism, but that there are differences between men and women, whether these differences are the result of culture or biology. And to expect an institution to undo all the cultural and biological influences upon gender differences is, in my opinion, asking too much of it. Such changes, if we're looking for it, requires far more than just a single institution trying to put on patch work policies to compensate for the differences. That requires a change in the sociopolitical consciousness.

[BlackStaticWolf]

"You're a Canadian right? You must be good at making igloos then." frankly I think I almost offended myself just there.

From now on I am going to use "Inuit" and "Canadian" as interchangeable terms.

[Tom_Violence]

(my avvies's scars aren't just for show)

Congratulations! You win the Most Emo Thing I've Read Today Award! :smallamused:


I completely disagree with the "just be yourself" mentality. It's lazy. If you don't like who you are then people will not appreciate you. It is then your responsibility to change yourself for the better, to grow into the person you want to be.

Couldn't agree more.


To be fair, you can argue the fact that the average woman can suffer serious physical damage from a single blow from an average man, while the average man might feel a bit of pain but won't be that affected if the average woman hits them.

Still, I'm in agreement and advocate nobody hitting anybody. Unless they hit me first. Then I hit back, and not lightly.

I'd say that either a man or a woman can cause very serious damage to either a man or a woman. Its largely a matter of chance.

[Hell Puppi]

Yeah I'm all Emo and shiz-night =P.

I didn't mean it quite that way when I said 'just be yourself'. From what I've seen most people on this forum are kind, caring smart and sensitive so I'm assuming with those qualities you should be good. There are some other forums where I would have told them to shut up and stop whining *shrugs*

[elliott20]

that's because most forums, if lacking proper moderation, becomes the quintessential cesspool of the internet. Take, for example, 4chan. You don't go there for it's intellectual stimulation. you go there to roll in the dirt.

[averagejoe]

1) Just because men and women are different, does not make either inferior to the other. People get caught up in "oh my gosh there are like 2 women engineers compared to 55555555 male engineers", and the like, and act like that is the worst thing ever. Unless the cause is direct discrimination (by employers, which means that qualified people are gettng shut up), then this isn't a bad thing.

Okay, 1) yes it is a bad thing. As an aspiring male physicist I can say that there should definitely be more women in the field. Because, damn it, there needs to be more women who think quantum tunneling is a fascinating subject for conversation. Sure, it's okay if the women are doing what they like, but have you ever thought about the rest of us? :smalltongue:

and 2) part of the reason more males get involved in science in whatnot is a societal mentality that pushes men to do these things over women. We don't necessarily need to push women into engineering, but such mentalities are what need to be gotten rid of.

[Telonius]

Maybe women have the POTENTIAL to hit as hard, I'm living proof of that, but that doesn't mean the average woman WILL be able to hit as hard as the average man, nor will the average woman be able to absorb the damage as easily as the larger average man. This has nothing to do with who is justified in hitting who or whether they'll hit back, it's a simple matter of potential damage caused. The average man is larger and has higher muscle density than the average woman. I'm not saying that women should be allowed to hit men or anything, just playing devil's advocate. :smalltongue:

Sadly, I have direct experience of something like that. At one point in the murky depths of my past, my gf and I got into a seriously bad argument. She got really mad and hit me. I told her to stop; she hit again. Told her to stop again or I'd hit back; she hit again, full force. Now none of these blows really did much to hurt me, though not for lack of trying on her part. Well, I hauled back and hit her in the stomach; it literally flung her halfway across the room. I ought to note that I'm not a particularly strong guy, though my adrenaline was definitely up. She actually apologized later, and hasn't hit anybody ever since; but thankfully I'm no longer in that particular relationship!

[Alarra]

and 2) part of the reason more males get involved in science in whatnot is a societal mentality that pushes men to do these things over women. We don't necessarily need to push women into engineering, but such mentalities are what need to be gotten rid of.
I personally don't believe that mindset is especially prevalent any more. I mean, when I was in school there were plenty of girls involved in the sciences and I didn't feel like there was any pressure one way or another regarding career choices based on our genders. I may just not have seen it, but I really think things have come a long way as far as not stifling people's interests and career choices based on any difference, be they gender, race, or socioeconomic status.....

Yes, there are some careers that are more male dominated, and some that are more female dominated.....and it may be due to societal pressures at one time, since when looking at a profession as a whole, it's harder to differentiate between 'just entering' and 'been there for years'....which is why it's harder to tell if times are changing, because the overall numbers will still be skewed by times past. (feels like she's doing a terrible job of putting her thoughts into words) But really....even if there were no societal pressures or expectations based on gender....there would likely be differences between the genders with regards to career preference. You can't generalize to the entire gender, but there are differences on a biological level between men and women that make certain traits more likely to be expressed. They're slight, but they do exist.

And it can go both ways, really. I mean, take for example, my program. There is not a single male in my class. If you look at the class that just graduated and the class entering this year as well, there are 2 guys and 32 girls. Now, this is not because females are pressured to be in this type of career, or that males are discouraged...(in fact, they go out of their way to recruit and admit guys, go figure) It's just that as a generality, guys aren't as common in the social sciences, because that isn't where their interests lie.

And really....it's not a good plan to hit anyone, regardless of your gender or theirs.

[Hell Puppi]

That's why i use sneak attacks:smallbiggrin:

It's true women usually just can't dish it out like most men. It comes down to simple body structure. Women are built to make babies and house them (blame survival!). We have a higher average fat index than guys and more of our muscle is built into our legs.
Men have more muscle in their upper-half, which makes them better at lifting things and, well, hitting things. It's simple truth.
Are there cases where a woman is stronger than a man? Surely, but I like to play the odds.

Also there's a great article on the 5 things women have to get over before entering any kind of sparring (I read it particularly because of the fencing I was doing for a while, but I opted out for a crossbow. I like my opponents far away). One of which was we have to get over our fear of actually hurting someone, and the other was our fear of getting hit. In the average sparring match you're going to get hit, but the fear of it makes it easier for you to be hit, if that makes any sense.

[Lenlalron]

Men may be stronger, but if someone hits us in our "sensitive area" *cough*, it doesn't matter what gender hits them. ;)

Or how old, either.

[averagejoe]

I personally don't believe that mindset is especially prevalent any more. I mean, when I was in school there were plenty of girls involved in the sciences and I didn't feel like there was any pressure one way or another regarding career choices based on our genders. I may just not have seen it, but I really think things have come a long way as far as not stifling people's interests and career choices based on any difference, be they gender, race, or socioeconomic status.....

Yes, there are some careers that are more male dominated, and some that are more female dominated.....and it may be due to societal pressures at one time, since when looking at a profession as a whole, it's harder to differentiate between 'just entering' and 'been there for years'....which is why it's harder to tell if times are changing, because the overall numbers will still be skewed by times past. (feels like she's doing a terrible job of putting her thoughts into words) But really....even if there were no societal pressures or expectations based on gender....there would likely be differences between the genders with regards to career preference. You can't generalize to the entire gender, but there are differences on a biological level between men and women that make certain traits more likely to be expressed. They're slight, but they do exist.

And it can go both ways, really. I mean, take for example, my program. There is not a single male in my class. If you look at the class that just graduated and the class entering this year as well, there are 2 guys and 32 girls. Now, this is not because females are pressured to be in this type of career, or that males are discouraged...(in fact, they go out of their way to recruit and admit guys, go figure) It's just that as a generality, guys aren't as common in the social sciences, because that isn't where their interests lie.

Fair enough, though the sorts of pressures I mean aren't so overt as what you're talking about. It isn't that anyone is saying, "Girls can't be scientists," it's more the way of thinking that says girls are necessarily less inclined to be scientistis is self perpetuating. People think girls are less inclined to such things, so they pass this on, so less girls do these things, so people think girls have less aptitude for these things.

It's like when I was reading a book by Feynman (a famous physicist) and he was talking about sitting in a cafeteria one day, when he heard two women discussing analytic geometry. Now, this was back when the above mentalities were even more prevelant, so he turned around, fairly impressed. As it turns out they were discussing how to knit argyle socks. So, perhaps aptitude is just a matter of perception.


And really....it's not a good plan to hit anyone, regardless of your gender or theirs.

QFT

[nagora]

I totally disagree with you. Sure, both equality and Chivalry can co-exist, why shouldn't it? Example of my private life: My mother (as said before) is a feminist and has a dayjob, my dad stays at home. Now, being a feminist, would she find a (fr. exmpl) male colleague's courteous behaviour we defined as Chivalry offensive? no way, she requires it, take the coat, help with the coat, hold the door etc. she also expects her sons and husband to behave like so when they are with her/women.

Then she's not a feminist. She can call herself what she likes but I don't have to believe her. Expecting men to hold coats, doors etc. for women on principle (as opposed to either sex just being helpful to others) is not being a feminist, quite the opposite.


It's not not-feminist to appreciate etiquette (which is what it is) nor is it sexist to uphold it.

It is if your expectation of it and prerformance of it are based on the sex of you and the person you are doing it for/expecting it from.


The thing is, that men and women are different, and that is why they treat each other differently than they would one of the same gender.

They are different, but they are equal (which you said). All the things we are talking about here are, when they are done only on a sex-basis, expressions of the old idea that women are weak and need men to carry things, hold doors etc. The average woman may be physically weaker than the average man but not to the point where they can not hold a door open, by and large.


heh, I had a few feministic girlfriends too and none of them did not get upset when I didn't abide the traditional male-female ettiquette (take the coat, the chair-thing in a restaurant, hold the door etc,).

Once again, cloaking yourself in the mantle of "feminist" while acting as a non-feminist only makes one a hypocrite. I know that there are women who want to have it both ways: be seen as a modern independant woman and also be treated as some pathetic waif who's made of glass, but that's their problem (and probably their partners' too), not mine.


I think therefore that MOST women appreciate what is here called Chivalry and find that the ones who find it demeaning or sexist should relax a bit,

Most people appreciate politeness and courteousness (look at the origins of that word and mull its relation to "chivalry"); once it is demanded on the basis of sex it becomes demeaning.


for it is not the intent to demean or discriminate that fuels the action, it's the intent to be polite and friendly. humans are social animals, being friendly and helpfull is social behaviour fitting of human beings.

Intent, eh? You know what they built the road to hell from, don't you? :smallwink:

[GusGusStrumSong]

My take on it is that wemon while on average are not as strong as men they are loads of times more smart, on average. thus needing to tame mans savage mind.
if you think about it thats true.
wemon are self controled "most of the time"
and men just wan't to blow stuff up. "most of the time"

thats not to say all men are stupid either.

however men like to control more. thats why our society is a male domminated society.

[Saithis Bladewing]

My take on it is that wemon while on average are not as strong as men they are loads of times more smart, on average. thus needing to tame mans savage mind.
if you think about it thats true.
wemon are self controled "most of the time"
and men just wan't to blow stuff up. "most of the time"

thats not to say all men are stupid either.

however men like to control more. thats why our society is a male domminated society.

Must...restrain...self...to yell about...generalisations...and...inaccuracies...

[Tom_Violence]

My take on it is that wemon while on average are not as strong as men they are loads of times more smart, on average. thus needing to tame mans savage mind.
if you think about it thats true.
wemon are self controled "most of the time"
and men just wan't to blow stuff up. "most of the time"

thats not to say all men are stupid either.

however men like to control more. thats why our society is a male domminated society.

I wike wemons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon).

[GusGusStrumSong]

Must...restrain...self...to yell about...generalisations...and...inaccuracies...

whats so inacurate. most of the wemon i've ever met are more intellegent than me at least.

i've never met a girl that enjoyed the movie 300.

so what if there generalizations. i'm just trying to give wemon a one up on men. is that so wrong...?

oh and we are a male dominated society. strip clubs wernt made for the perverted pleasures of wemon where they? maybe i'm just slightly ignorant though. however the same could be said of those who don't believe we are.
thus giving no one any leway.

[averagejoe]

I wike wemons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon).

While we're on the subject of feminism, you know what we should talk about? Mawage.

Mawage. Mawage is wot bwings us togeder tooday. Mawage, that bwessed awangment, that dweam wifin a dweam...

:smallbiggrin:

[SilverClawShift]

i've never met a girl that enjoyed the movie 300.

I did


so what if there generalizations. i'm just trying to give wemon a one up on men. is that so wrong...?

Well, it's sexist at the bare minimum. So from an 'Equality is good" standpoint, yeah.

[Saithis Bladewing]

whats so inacurate. most of the wemon i've ever met are more intellegent than me at least.

i've never met a girl that enjoyed the movie 300.

so what if there generalizations. i'm just trying to give wemon a one up on men. is that so wrong...?

Nobody is 'inherently' better than anyone else, is the point I'm trying to say. Nobody is 'inherently' smarter than anyone else because they have a different gender. Giving women a 'one up' on men isn't necessarily a good thing, and looking for ways to 'one up' other people only increases inter-gender tensions, and is possibly the basis for racism of another kind. We're supposed to be working together as part of one race, not competing for 'who is better than who'. Still, if you really want to look for one-upsmanship, why use YOUR own experiences as a method to judge some 3.25 billion people around the world? Why not, instead, look for something that has research and lots of evidence behind it? For example, there's the fact that women, on average, have been found to have a higher threshold for pain tolerance than men do.

Also, I enjoyed 300, not that I know what the hell that has to do with the intelligence of women.

[averagejoe]

whats so inacurate. most of the wemon i've ever met are more intellegent than me at least.

i've never met a girl that enjoyed the movie 300.

so what if there generalizations. i'm just trying to give wemon a one up on men. is that so wrong...?

Yeah, but those really stupid romantic films are targeted toward women. 300 at least had some value as far as computer artistry.

And no one needs to get one up on anyone. It's not a competition. It's still just as sexist.

[FdL]

I wike wemons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon).

Wemons Are Weal.

[zeratul]

While we're on the subject of feminism, you know what we should talk about? Mawage.

Mawage. Mawage is wot bwings us togeder tooday. Mawage, that bwessed awangment, that dweam wifin a dweam...

:smallbiggrin:

AJ you are awsome, someone get this man a trophy.

In any case lets just settle things up with this

Men, and women are equal, neither is better than the other. Each has their own tastes, skills, and intelligence levels. It is not a matter of gender, it is just a matter of who you are. Treat women, and men as they are, as equals.

[GusGusStrumSong]

Nobody is 'inherently' better than anyone else, is the point I'm trying to say. Nobody is 'inherently' smarter than anyone else because they have a different gender. Giving women a 'one up' on men isn't necessarily a good thing, and looking for ways to 'one up' other people only increases inter-gender tensions, and is possibly the basis for racism of another kind. We're supposed to be working together as part of one race, not competing for 'who is better than who'. Still, if you really want to look for one-upsmanship, why use YOUR own experiences as a method to judge some 3.25 billion people around the world? Why not, instead, look for something that has research and lots of evidence behind it? For example, there's the fact that women, on average, have been found to have a higher threshold for pain tolerance than men do.

Also, I enjoyed 300, not that I know what the hell that has to do with the intelligence of women.


men like random violence. thats the point i was leaning towards with mentioning 300...

anyway. isn't the point of getting ahead in our society to look at peoples better qualities and try and help humanity?
finding the strengths of people is what i'm conserned with.
and yes "one-up-manship" is not the best way to go i apoligize. however isn't that what capitalism is? sorry, getting off topic...



While we're on the subject of feminism, you know what we should talk about? Mawage.

Mawage. Mawage is wot bwings us togeder tooday. Mawage, that bwessed awangment, that dweam wifin a dweam...

and using our strengths and also our weaknesses we can progress in our human vision by "mawage." which is the binding of husband and wife. if there are any homosexual people out there, sorry.

but through my false generalizations lead one to believe that those weaknesses become null through marage. because when you have two people working as a team. to achieve the same goal thats cool. almost unstoppable.
however it is preoven that more people are getting devorced than getting married this year. sad...

just call me ignorant I guess.

[GusGusStrumSong]

AJ you are awsome, someone get this man a trophy.

In any case lets just settle things up with this

Men, and women are equal, neither is better than the other. Each has their own tastes, skills, and intelligence levels. It is not a matter of gender, it is just a matter of who you are. Treat women, and men as they are, as equals.

thank you. this is the point i was trying to get at. however i just did it wrong. sorry.

[Argent]

In any case lets just settle things up with this

Men, and women are equal, neither is better than the other. Each has their own tastes, skills, and intelligence levels. It is not a matter of gender, it is just a matter of who you are. Treat women, and men as they are, as equals.

Let's just settle things up with this: any time, during a debate, someone says something to the effect of, "let's just settle things up with this," that's never, ever going to settle things up. Never.


I personally don't believe that mindset is especially prevalent any more. I mean, when I was in school there were plenty of girls involved in the sciences and I didn't feel like there was any pressure one way or another regarding career choices based on our genders. I may just not have seen it, but I really think things have come a long way as far as not stifling people's interests and career choices based on any difference, be they gender, race, or socioeconomic status.....

Yes, there are some careers that are more male dominated, and some that are more female dominated.....and it may be due to societal pressures at one time, since when looking at a profession as a whole, it's harder to differentiate between 'just entering' and 'been there for years'....which is why it's harder to tell if times are changing, because the overall numbers will still be skewed by times past. (feels like she's doing a terrible job of putting her thoughts into words) But really....even if there were no societal pressures or expectations based on gender....there would likely be differences between the genders with regards to career preference. You can't generalize to the entire gender, but there are differences on a biological level between men and women that make certain traits more likely to be expressed. They're slight, but they do exist.

And it can go both ways, really. I mean, take for example, my program. There is not a single male in my class. If you look at the class that just graduated and the class entering this year as well, there are 2 guys and 32 girls. Now, this is not because females are pressured to be in this type of career, or that males are discouraged...(in fact, they go out of their way to recruit and admit guys, go figure) It's just that as a generality, guys aren't as common in the social sciences, because that isn't where their interests lie.

As I'm not female and therefore may have a different POV on the matter, take this with a grain of salt.

I would argue that the difference in genders in certain likes/dislikes/career paths is more 'nurture' than 'nature'. There's still a lot of gender inequality in certain professions -- less women than men in engineering, less men than women in education. It's equalizing somewhat but the difference is still there. And at least in the US, kids still receive a lot of programming that pushes them in certain directions, especially from advertising. Toys are marketed towards certain genders -- toys that are more 'technical' (toy cars, trains, construction blocks and implements) are marketed more towards boys, and toys marketed towards girls are more about hair style, makeup, dolls, et cetera. Those are the kinds of toy choices that can shape job choices later down the line. Is this kind of marketing the only factor? Obviously not. Is it a guarantee of future interest later in life? Again, obviously not. But I'd have a hard time believing it doesn't have at least a significant impact.

[DiscipleofBob]

To answer your question, nope. I'm still alive and well. :smallwink:

[Saithis Bladewing]

men like random violence. thats the point i was leaning towards with mentioning 300...

Again, a rather big generalisation. Men may inherently like violence (it's programmed into the human brain, we just tend to express it through recreational methods in today, e.g. games, sports, etc), but random violence is a different thing. Random violence implies just violence with no meaning, unpredictable. I doubt many people truly like that. How many people do you know like seeing someone just get randomly hit in the face while walking down the street?

And I don't think 300 counts as random violence, as it's scripted and depicting a war, which is not a random act.



and using our strengths and also our weaknesses we can progress in our human vision by "mawage." which is the binding of husband and wife. if there are any homosexual people out there, sorry.

*Cough.*

[zeratul]

Saithis cut him a little slack. I think he's trying to advocate for women, but is just doing it badly (no offense).

[Saithis Bladewing]

Meh...its not who he's advocating that bugs me, it's the fact that a side is being advocated whatsoever that bugs me. Maybe I came off a little harsh, and I'm sorry, but I really do think that trying to call anyone 'smarter' than anyone else at something based on their gender is really offensive, admittedly moreso if you're saying that women are not as smart as men (which has been said a number of times here).

[zeratul]

I agree Saithis




I completely disagree with the "just be yourself" mentality. It's lazy. If you don't like who you are then people will not appreciate you. It is then your responsibility to change yourself for the better, to grow into the person you want to be.

You think we should conform with whatever is popular just to appease the masses? Screw that. The best quote I could come up with which describes my opinion on that is

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I'm not" ~ Kurt Cobain

[mudbunny]

The facts of the matter are that men and women are different. We look at things in different ways due to different brain chemistries, different hormones and different biologies.

To expect otherwise is silly.

For every "in general, men are better at...", you can find an "in general, women are better at..."

[Alarra]

Let's just settle things up with this: any time, during a debate, someone says something to the effect of, "let's just settle things up with this," that's never, ever going to settle things up. Never.



As I'm not female and therefore may have a different POV on the matter, take this with a grain of salt.

I would argue that the difference in genders in certain likes/dislikes/career paths is more 'nurture' than 'nature'. There's still a lot of gender inequality in certain professions -- less women than men in engineering, less men than women in education. It's equalizing somewhat but the difference is still there. And at least in the US, kids still receive a lot of programming that pushes them in certain directions, especially from advertising. Toys are marketed towards certain genders -- toys that are more 'technical' (toy cars, trains, construction blocks and implements) are marketed more towards boys, and toys marketed towards girls are more about hair style, makeup, dolls, et cetera. Those are the kinds of toy choices that can shape job choices later down the line. Is this kind of marketing the only factor? Obviously not. Is it a guarantee of future interest later in life? Again, obviously not. But I'd have a hard time believing it doesn't have at least a significant impact.

Okay, yes. I can certainly see what you're saying here. And yes, there are definitely gender stereotypes perpetuated by the media and passed on generationally. It may be an individual thing, but I certainly played with legos, and had I wanted to play with race cars rather than barbie dolls, I would have been more than welcome to it. But yes, the pressures to conform to certain sterotypes does still exist, but you have to admit that things have really progressed in recent generations. I was just stating that I think society has made a lot of progress as far as equality goes and not putting that kind of pressure onto people based on gender expectations. (I say this....but then I watch the reality shows on VH1 and want to put my head through a plate glass window, but that's neither here nor there.) And really, I'm not saying that there isn't a fair way still to go, however. I was also just stating that there is likely an underlying biological difference that can account for some generalized differences as well. And that males and females are not exactly the same. That's not to say they shouldn't be treated like they are. Because really, equality is important, but that it's also important to recognize the differences, and not necessarily as things to be changed in the name of equality, but things to embrace that enhance the complexity of our society.

*worries that this has strayed a bit from the chivalry topic*

[Hades' Watchdog]

Mawage.The Sarlacc sure has a lot of mawage. I wouldn't want to experience mawage. It looks horrible.

Also, Mudbunny said what I was going to.

[Captain van der Decken]

I agree Saithis



You think we should conform with whatever is popular just to appease the masses? Screw that. The best quote I could come up with which describes my opinion on that is

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I'm not" ~ Kurt Cobain


So.. someone who's obnoxious, lazy, antisocial etc. should expect people to just like them, rather than changing?

I think not.

[averagejoe]

So.. someone who's obnoxious, lazy, antisocial etc. should expect people to just like them, rather than changing?

If it makes him happy. 'course, he may be disappointed when people don't like him, and may have to reevaluate himself, but there you go.

[Sisqui]

Fair enough, though the sorts of pressures I mean aren't so overt as what you're talking about. It isn't that anyone is saying, "Girls can't be scientists," it's more the way of thinking that says girls are necessarily less inclined to be scientistis is self perpetuating. People think girls are less inclined to such things, so they pass this on, so less girls do these things, so people think girls have less aptitude for these things.


I know you don't mean it that way overtly but saying women are so easily led by society is demeaning them in a much more profound way than just saying outright "Women are stupid." Women aren't such Myrmidons you know. The differential distribution of the sexes in some professions may indeed be due to societal influences that will disappear in time, but is it so hard to believe that women just aren't as interested in some of the things that men are, and vice versa?


The whole point of my post was in the exaggeration. I doubt that what you eat has any bearing on if you are a man or not. My way of doing things may not work so well for anyone else, but I am completely and brashly unapologetic about my behavior. If you found what I said emasculating then fine, that's great. It made you think at least.

Oh, and I'm sorry you are offended by my sweaty manliness and the fluids all over it. :smallwink:

I understood the hyperbole. :smallwink:
But I still agree with the essence of your post.

[zeratul]

So.. someone who's obnoxious, lazy, antisocial etc. should expect people to just like them, rather than changing?

I think not.

Not what I'm saying. You shouldn't expect people like you.

But with geeks like alot of us, we shouldn't have to change that.

What we do doesn't affect people negatively, they're just closed minded trendy jerks. No reason for us to change so a bunch of people who didn't like us before would.

[ChronicLunacy]

I agree Saithis



You think we should conform with whatever is popular just to appease the masses? Screw that. The best quote I could come up with which describes my opinion on that is

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I'm not" ~ Kurt Cobain

WOW, you took what I said completely wrong.

Love yourself and others will love you as well. That's what I said, right? I did not mention changing for the benefit of anyone other than YOU. I disagree with "just be yourself" since it advocates not trying to better yourself in any way. Just sit on your butt and eventually someone will knock on your door and you'll live happily ever after. No, you get out there and you work for it. You work out, you get over crippling anti-social tendencies by forcing yourself into social situations, you do well in school to succeed at life, you face your fears and overcome then and become a stronger person as a result. You can't just sit there and wait for it to come to you.

[Sisqui]

WOW, you took what I said completely wrong.

Love yourself and others will love you as well. That's what I said, right? I did not mention changing for the benefit of anyone other than YOU. I disagree with "just be yourself" since it advocates not trying to better yourself in any way. Just sit on your butt and eventually someone will knock on your door and you'll live happily ever after. No, you get out there and you work for it. You work out, you get over crippling anti-social tendencies by forcing yourself into social situations, you do well in school to succeed at life, you face your fears and overcome then and become a stronger person as a result. You can't just sit there and wait for it to come to you.

Dear Holy Gods...........you have done it now. You have invoked the dread concept of personal responsibility. This thread is doomed!

[Indon]

My take on it is that wemon while on average are not as strong as men they are loads of times more smart, on average.

To my knowledge, no study in recent years (read: with viable methodology) has demonstrated a statistically significant differerence between men and women in regards to intelligence.

I'm kinda dubious about those "women can multitask, men can model objects better" urban legends, too.

[zeratul]

WOW, you took what I said completely wrong.

Love yourself and others will love you as well. That's what I said, right? I did not mention changing for the benefit of anyone other than YOU. I disagree with "just be yourself" since it advocates not trying to better yourself in any way. Just sit on your butt and eventually someone will knock on your door and you'll live happily ever after. No, you get out there and you work for it. You work out, you get over crippling anti-social tendencies by forcing yourself into social situations, you do well in school to succeed at life, you face your fears and overcome then and become a stronger person as a result. You can't just sit there and wait for it to come to you.

Ok I did take it wrong. Self betterment = good. I agree

I geuss I came across as saying it's not. What I meant was
Acting trendy, following the masses, and doing what is popular so that people like you = bad.

[Saithis Bladewing]

Alarra is right, methinks, we have strayed a bit from the chivalry topic. :smallsigh:

Maybe it's just me, but if someone holds a door open for me, I don't take it in any kind of sexist or 'coming onto' gesture. I take it as a kindness offered by one individual to another. I would assume this person would do the same for a man as well because it's simply what I would do. Maybe I'm just abnormal (well, I am, maybe I just have abnormal opinions on this).

[Argent]

Okay, yes. I can certainly see what you're saying here. And yes, there are definitely gender stereotypes perpetuated by the media and passed on generationally. It may be an individual thing, but I certainly played with legos, and had I wanted to play with race cars rather than barbie dolls, I would have been more than welcome to it. But yes, the pressures to conform to certain sterotypes does still exist, but you have to admit that things have really progressed in recent generations. I was just stating that I think society has made a lot of progress as far as equality goes and not putting that kind of pressure onto people based on gender expectations. (I say this....but then I watch the reality shows on VH1 and want to put my head through a plate glass window, but that's neither here nor there.) And really, I'm not saying that there isn't a fair way still to go, however. I was also just stating that there is likely an underlying biological difference that can account for some generalized differences as well. And that males and females are not exactly the same. That's not to say they shouldn't be treated like they are. Because really, equality is important, but that it's also important to recognize the differences, and not necessarily as things to be changed in the name of equality, but things to embrace that enhance the complexity of our society.

*worries that this has strayed a bit from the chivalry topic*

Strayed a bit, true, but still interesting discussion nonetheless.

I'd really like to see some research on biological differences in men/women and how that might affect choice and preference. I myself tend to think most differences in life are from environment rather than from biology -- but I've been wrong before and am going to have to research this a bit more.

And I do agree with you that we, as a society, have gotten better. I'm an engineer by training and am heartened to see more women in the technical positions (heck, when I was an undergrad, the class ratios were in the depressing 10:1 neighborhood). I think we've got a ways to go, though -- it'll just take a little more time to get further away from the Beaver-Cleaver boys-play-with-trucks-and-girls-get-dollies thinking that former generations have handed down.

[Captain van der Decken]

But we agree that acting trendy, following the masses and doing what's popular isn't in itself bad? Just doing it so people'll like you is? :smalltongue:

Which do you mean is abnormal, Saith? Opening doors for everyone, or thinking that people just mean to be polite when they do so?

[zeratul]

But we agree that acting trendy, following the masses and doing what's popular isn't in itself bad? Just doing it so people'll like you is? :smalltongue:

Which do you mean is abnormal, Saith? Opening doors for everyone, or thinking that people just mean to be polite when they do so?

Well given what's popular now, yes I think at this point it is bad in of itself. What's become popular now is a society of sexist homophobic, thuggish, closed minded punks, at least that's the society here.

[Saithis Bladewing]

But we agree that acting trendy, following the masses and doing what's popular isn't in itself bad? Just doing it so people'll like you is? :smalltongue:

Which do you mean is abnormal, Saith? Opening doors for everyone, or thinking that people just mean to be polite when they do so?

Thinking that they just mean to be polite.

[Jorkens]

I especially have trouble believing that women are, for example, less apt to logical thought, which is why they supposedly dislike maths more than men.
Or, come to that, that men are biologically preprogrammed to be rubbish at talking about their emotions.

[zeratul]

Oh and to clear up let me say this.

Being popular has in the past been something which is not bad. But what is popular now is bad, as I stated before.

[Captain van der Decken]

Oh and to clear up let me say this.

Being popular has in the past been something which is not bad. But what is popular now is bad, as I stated before.


Can you define what you mean by 'what is popular now'?

Things tend to be popular because people like them. People have an interesting habit of liking things that are good more than things that are bad.

[zeratul]

Well what I said before is


What's become popular now is a society of sexist homophobic, thuggish, closed minded punks, who treat those who are different like dirt. at least that's the society here.

Basically the rap/gangster society.

[Tom_Violence]

I am honestly impressed that this 'debate' is still going. Has anyone argued anything seriously recently? :smalltongue:

Oh, and women are smarter than men. That's a scientific fact! They get ever-so-slightly better school results, and one beat me at chess once.

[Captain van der Decken]

How popular, really, is sexism, homophobia, and racism?



If an openly homophobic, racist and sexist man was running for (political leader place here) would he win?

[averagejoe]

But all most of the people in this argument who take my view are saying is that it is time to give up on this Cult of Victimology BS. Women have just as much free will as men and exercise it by making choices. Some choices are in the majority (I for one, love to breathe air. Really, I am a total sheep with that one :smallwink: ) And some are not. Not every statistical discrepancy in demographics represents some sexist or societal plot which must be undone by yet more sexist and societal plotting

Perhaps that's true, and maybe even I am guilty of this, but that isn't what I mean. I'm not saying that women are victims and have no choice but to like knitting, I'm saying that we have to excise such thoughts, because it would better society.

Of course every statistical discrepancy=sexism. If I didn't say that then I meant to. However, even you must admit that the statistics in some cases are rather overwhelming.

[zeratul]

How popular, really, is sexism, homophobia, and racism?



If an openly homophobic, racist and sexist man was running for (political leader place here) would he win?

I'm not gonna respond given that it would be breaking forum rules, and we don't want to get into polotics.

But as I said the ganagster/rapper trend is still all the rage.

[Captain van der Decken]

Gangster/Rapper doesn't automatically mean racist/sexist/homophobic etc. That's a stereotype. (Weither or not it's the one seen most often.)

Racism and so on, it isn't accepted in normal society, yes? Thus - not popular. There are misfits, who don't conform to the masses, however.


I was using the point simply as a 'popularity contest' thing. My bad, sorry.

[Lenlalron]

Baaaaaaaah.




I have nothing to contribute with this post.

[Flakey]

How popular, really, is sexism, homophobia, and racism?

If an openly homophobic, racist and sexist man was running for (political leader place here) would he win?

Hmm the simple answer is yes, you just have to look at other countries outside the USA. Not going to go further than this on this site :)

[zeratul]

Gangster/Rapper doesn't automatically mean racist/sexist/homophobic etc. That's a stereotype. (Weither or not it's the one seen most often.)

Racism and so on, it isn't accepted in normal society, yes? Thus - not popular. There are misfits, who don't conform to the masses, however.


I was using the point simply as a 'popularity contest' thing. My bad, sorry.

This is one of the rare circumstances where the stereotype is true 90% of the time.

[Alarra]

Repeats reminder to not discuss politics. Or the idea that any particular group is racist or homophobic, even if you're debunking what you believe to be a commonly held stereotype. I like this debate and want to make sure to keep it withing the bounds of the rules of posting.

[zeratul]

I wasn't saying that all people who are popular are bad or fall under that description (though most do around my area). What I'm saying is that that particular sub culture is based around principles of various bad isms. This does not neccisarilly mean people who are part of it fall under this description.

[Trog]

Repeats reminder to not discuss politics. Or the idea that any particular group is racist or homophobic, even if you're debunking what you believe to be a commonly held stereotype. I like this debate and want to make sure to keep it withing the bounds of the rules of posting.
*Hops in the Mod Squad Car*

Neat! How fast does this baby go? Must have one hell of a bandwidth under the hood. Can Trog use the lights? *flicky flicky flick* Hmm... It's not as neat in text. OOOOO! How about the loudspeaker? Here let Trog just... *flick*

*feedback*

Testing. Testing. Cool! This thing rocks! Hey! No opening doors either! You want out of the thread you use the back button like everyone else. Yeah buddy Trog's talking to yo... what?

oh.

*Feedback*

Dang.

*shuffles off*

[The Great Skenardo]

I'm not saying that advertising makes people sheep, merely that they exploit the mentality that people already possess. Which is their job, and they're good at it. I'm not saying advertising is the devil or anything, (I realize I've been completely coming off like that, when this isn't even a topic that I feel strongly about) Advertising is an important aspect of capitalism and really, the only good way for people to even learn about new products and services. I will however, blame media and advertising, for some (okay, a lot) of the general degeneration of society, due to the oversexualization of their messages, and well....for the tasteless crap that floods television today. (But this is an entirely different debate and one that I will stop getting into here)

Hmm...Here's an ad campaign I'd like to see:

SETTING: Outside a high-class restaurant at night. Light streams through the windows, and the faint sound of chatter and music can be heard in the street.
WE SEE youngish man wearing a blue suit strolling down the avenue towards the door to the restaurant
CUT TO a young woman wearing nice clothes, coming down the sidewalk the other way.
CUT TO a shot of the restaurant door. The young man, arriving first, opens the door and stands to the side, letting the lady enter. She smiles and says "Thanks."

Cut to BLACK, and IN WHITE LETTERS


Courtesy

There, that wasn't so hard, was it?

[Captain van der Decken]

Hey, that'd be nice. If unlikely.

I wouldn't go so far as defining popular as Gangsta, Zer. It's a subculture.

[zeratul]

Not everything that is popular is gangsta. However (unfortunately) gangsta is popular.

[Midnight Son]

The average woman may be physically weaker than the average man but not to the point where they can not hold a door open, by and large.Blargh! You all type too fast, but this gem a few pages back reminded me of the windstorm we had a few days back. The buildings where I work created a wind tunnel of sorts and the door to my office is right where the wind tunnel turns to the right. Even the stronger of us men(myself included) were having fun trying to open that door. And believe me, when I got it open and held it for a lady, she was appreciative of the gesture. And I had no thought whatsoever of getting into her pants(as mentioned somewhere else on this thread). That made me laugh when I read it.

"I opened the door for you...wanna do it?"

[0wca]

Or is it just being kicked while down?

Seriously, in this modern day and age it seems that being a gentleman is not only rare, but often scorned. Even other women seem to scoff at it. Either you have the feminists who seem to think it is degrading to them somehow, or you have those who just like the 'bad boys'.


To answer your question: Yes.Yes, unfortunately it is.

Sadly, the majority of people nowadays rather respond to a nice car, a fat wallet and a blunt sense of the word 'date' (gather some chicks in your convertible, take a few spins around town, get them drunk and score) than a nice walk in the park with someone capable of a constructive conversation and a sense of humour.

I don't mean to sound pessimistic but it's the truth. Of course there are always exceptions...

[zeratul]

Why is opening a door for a women sexist? As long as you do it for men too then it's fine in my book, I hold doors for everyone.

[Zeb The Troll]

Hmm...Here's an ad campaign I'd like to see:

SETTING: Outside a high-class restaurant at night. Light streams through the windows, and the faint sound of chatter and music can be heard in the street.
WE SEE youngish man wearing a blue suit strolling down the avenue towards the door to the restaurant
CUT TO a young woman wearing nice clothes, coming down the sidewalk the other way.
CUT TO a shot of the restaurant door. The young man, arriving first, opens the door and stands to the side, letting the lady enter. She smiles and says "Thanks."

Cut to BLACK, and IN WHITE LETTERS


Courtesy

There, that wasn't so hard, was it?That was great, TGS.

*ponders sigging it somehow*

[Captain van der Decken]

Not everything that is popular is gangsta.

Exactly. Not everything that's popular nowadays is bad, either.



However (unfortunately) gangsta is popular.

Hey, it's not all that bad. Rap is getting a bit of a bad rap, here.

[zeratul]

Most of it is all that bad though, and focuses on all those negative traites I mentioned previously.

There is some good rap, I don't personally enjoy it, but there is some rap which does not encapsulate this, most of it on the other hand does.

[Jorkens]

Most of it is all that bad though, and focuses on all those negative traites I mentioned previously.

There is some good rap, I don't personally enjoy it, but there is some rap which does not encapsulate this, most of it on the other hand does.
I think a lot of time, it's slightly dim fans who are failing to notice the "warning: not to be taken entirely literally" stickers who are the problem... I mean, do Wu Tang Clan fans all go around learning to be masters of the shaolin sword?

[Orzel]

Hold up. hold up. What going on here?

*knife falls out pocket*

Gangsta ain't what's poppin'. Gangsta is just gangsta. It's just one of the semi-popular options.


Because a certian someone said something in this topic, I made it a point to have a certian convo yesterday and today with a woman.

I went holding doors until someone stopped me.

Chivalrous Orzel: *opens door*
Female Human: Thanks but I can handle a door.
Chivalrous Orzel: I'm only doing this so I can see you from behind.
Female Human: What?
Chivalrous Orzel: You have a beautiful face. I was hoping the back matches. I open the door. You pass by. I get a glimpse.
Female Human: What?
Chivalrous Orzel: And if I get you name and number, maybe I can see if your mind is also beautiful. My name's... ____
Female Human: ____, that's the craziest thing I've heard in a while.
Chivalrous Orzel: Chivalry ain't dead, I'm just tweaking it to my advantage. Come let's look for a chair so I can pull it out for ya.

[0wca]

Hold up. hold up. What going on here?

*knife falls out pocket*

Gangsta ain't what's poppin'. Gangsta is just gangsta. It's just one of the semi-popular options.


Because a certian someone said something in this topic, I made it a point to have a certian convo yesterday and today with a woman.

I went holding doors until someone stopped me.

Chivalrous Orzel: *opens door*
Female Human: Thanks but I can handle a door.
Chivalrous Orzel: I'm only doing this so I can see you from behind.
Female Human: What?
Chivalrous Orzel: You have a beautiful face. I was hoping the back matches. I open the door. You pass by. I get a glimpse.
Female Human: What?
Chivalrous Orzel: And if I get you name and number, maybe I can see if your mind is also beautiful. My name's... ____
Female Human: ____, that's the craziest thing I've heard in a while.
Chivalrous Orzel: Chivalry ain't dead, I'm just tweaking it to my advantage. Come let's look for a chair so I can pull it out for ya.

HAHAHA :smallbiggrin:

That was great!! :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:

[Zeb The Troll]

<snip for brevity>

I only argue this because, frankly, I get paid to make people act like sheep. And it is much easier to live with myself knowing that the reader/viewer/listener in the end is the decider of whether or not an ad works. Which I am going to continue to espouse until someone can prove it to me otherwise. :smallsmile:

Look! An Ad! V *futhers demonic ethos. Gets loads of XP* :smalltongue:Which is cut in half and redistributed as per your signed agreement. :smallcool:

Anyway. I think the point was not that "advertising is bad" so much as "some advertisers are bad". In fact, I'm certain she even alluded to it being a necessity. How will the masses learn of the wonder that is the MegaThing 9000 without it? It's the people who came up with Joe Camel and scantily clads dancing around a car for an insurance commercial with the only words uttered being "Go Brandname, Go Brandname". (Yes, that's a real commercial, sadly.)

Sorry, back to your regularly scheduled debate.

I stand by my stance that being nice is not a bad thing, it's just that the motives are often misconstrued.

For those who feel demeaned by door holding, let me offer this scenario.

A man and a woman are walking towards a door, hand in hand. The man opens the door for his lady and lets her pass (presumably less offensive because they are a couple and special favors are expected then), then continues to hold the door open for another lady that is close behind and lets her pass as well.

Is this different than merely holding it open for the lady in general because now that I've got a girl it's okay to be nice to other girls? Forget the question of "would you have done it for a guy too". If you are the girl following me, you have no way of knowing whether I would or not so making an assumption would be inappropriate with the given information. I'm just curious.

[Alarra]

Right....so we've really moved both feet into the off-topic realm now. *nudges it back* I apologize for making a passing reference to Flavor of Love. Now, back to discussion of chivalrous behavior.

[Sisqui]

:smalleek: :smalleek: :smalleek:
*looks over recent posts on topic to reply to*

Found one:

And believe me, when I got it open and held it for a lady, she was appreciative of the gesture. And I had no thought whatsoever of getting into her pants(as mentioned somewhere else on this thread). That made me laugh when I read it.



You're welcome. And your story is an excellent example of what I was talking about :smallsmile:

[Mattarias, King.]

Personally, I like to think of myself as a gentleman. I don't think chivalry is dead so much as doing the whole "hiding in the shadows while it plots its next uprising" thing. I have to say, I've even got some of my friends getting groovy with the whole gentleman shtick, so chivalry's supposed death is laughable.

Also, the ad campaign mentioned earlier in this thread made me smile. I say we launch it! first, the playground, and then.. THE WORLD!

Uh... I mean...

What's up with the fruits and chocolate thing? :smallconfused: I never really got that.

[FdL]

Chivalrous Orzel: *opens door*
Female Human: Thanks but I can handle a door.
Chivalrous Orzel: I'm only doing this so I can see you from behind.
Female Human: What?
Chivalrous Orzel: You have a beautiful face. I was hoping the back matches. I open the door. You pass by. I get a glimpse.
Female Human: What?
Chivalrous Orzel: And if I get you name and number, maybe I can see if your mind is also beautiful. My name's... ____
Female Human: ____, that's the craziest thing I've heard in a while.
Chivalrous Orzel: Chivalry ain't dead, I'm just tweaking it to my advantage. Come let's look for a chair so I can pull it out for ya.

ROTFL! :D Classic, really :)

Oh, why can't one be this honest IRL without getting slapped in the face or kicked in the groin? (kidding)
I tell you, the day they invent telepathy it's going to get quite funny out there.



As to flavor of love, I have no idea what you are talking about. Sounds like some kind of hippie sex festival to me......:smallconfused:

Dear Sisqui, you're better off not knowing. Trust me.
The other night I stumbled upon that and really couldn't trust my eyes. I'd say TV has reached a new low...but that would be underestimating its potential.

Oh, and also Ads = evil or something.

Edit: Sorry for the off-topic. But I think I haven't laughed for weeks like I have with the latest posts :D Beavis cracked me up too. :)

[SurlySeraph]

^ Oh, you think Flavor of Love is bad? You haven't seen it's spin-off (Charm School)! I'd advise you to blind yourself before watching it, but that way you'd still hear the people talking. I literally cannot think of a metaphor for how bad it is, and I've spent a minute sitting here trying to (being ordered to appreciate a still life painted by a blind toddler? no... squirrel-demons gnawing your ears off? closer, but not quite...).

Anyhoo. Back to the topic. I'm still pretty chivalrous, and a lot of my friends are, but overall not many people are anymore. I blame pop culture, including not only inane TV, music, and movies, but also most everything on the Internet. Ever heard of Tucker Max? If you haven't don't look him up; if you are chivalrous, his site will probably just enrage you. I myself have put him on my short list of "People who will be burned when I am in charge of the American Inquistition," for 3,000 counts of immorality. I also blame ads, especially Axe ads. The CEO of the companies that produce Axe and Tag Bodyspray are also on my inquisitorial-burning short list. Wait, I think I had a point somewhere. Yes, anyway, my point is that chivalry still survives in certain enclaves, but is under siege there and absolutely gone in popular culture.

[Cyrano]

I believe chivalry will always exist because men enjoy the feeling of being liked. And they also enjoy the feeling of sex. Depends on the person, really.
Now, the REAL question is, "Does chivalry exist in women"? I find it hard to believe the basis of chivalry does not exist in a bunch of nobles saying "Yo, dudes, them maidens love the sight of a handsome guy on a powerful equestarian animal and a large phallic object in hand. Let's create a system whereupon we can do that, and call ourselves noble because of it! Also, how do you pronounce equestarian?" But do women, who either want to be liked, get sex, or simply feel better about themselves, actively go and hold the door open for people? Or rather, would they. Far more interesting, just for me.

(Oh yes, my off topic remarks? Subtle. Wait. DAMNIT.)

[Sisqui]

But do women, who either want to be liked, get sex, or simply feel better about themselves, actively go and hold the door open for people? Or rather, would they. Far more interesting, just for me.

(Oh yes, my off topic remarks? Subtle. Wait. DAMNIT.)

I hold the door open for just about anybody myself. A lot of other female posters in the thread have said the same.

[Cyrano]

Yeah, but is that CHIVALRY, or a mere act of social convention? Different things.
Sorry, rereading the post, I didn't make that clear at all. In fact, it's still vaguely unclear. Let me explain a bit. In my opinion, a social convention is something done because people do it. Chivalry is a concious act to be kind, give someone happiness, blabedy blah. It's been explained better. But do you hold the door open because it's rude not to, or because it makes the door openee happy?

[zeratul]

(Hi Dann'a long time no see)

I do it for two reasons

1. makes the person happy ( I like making people happy)
2. force of habit

[Sisqui]

Yeah, but is that CHIVALRY, or a mere act of social convention? Different things.
Sorry, rereading the post, I didn't make that clear at all. In fact, it's still vaguely unclear. Let me explain a bit. In my opinion, a social convention is something done because people do it. Chivalry is a concious act to be kind, give someone happiness, blabedy blah. It's been explained better. But do you hold the door open because it's rude not to, or because it makes the door openee happy?

Personally, I do it to be helpful. However, I think you are making it an either/or decision when it is probably usually a case of someone doing both. Or rather, that inherent in the concept of politeness is the idea that you are attempting to accommodate other people. Not being rude is what makes them happy.

[Alarra]

I do not hold open doors for people because it's socially expected of me. In fact, I wouldn't say that holding open doors is socially expected. There certainly are a lot of people that don't even consider doing it. I hold open doors for people because it is a nice thing to do.

[averagejoe]

My dear averagejoe, you wouldn't be advocating social engineering by the "enlightened elite" would you? Vision of the Annointed, anyone?

Surely you know that won't fly with me, of all people! :smallamused:

Edit: What is the new avvie? And what is he holding in his right hand?

Only if by "enlightened elite" you mean me :smallbiggrin:

Seriously, though, in general you take the things I say too seriously/far. In almost all things I tend to be moderate, if nothing else. I'm suggesting ideals, not action. Even if I wanted to change the way everybody else thought I'd have no idea how to go about it.

If I wanted something to not "fly" (as you put it) with you I'd just say that all men should only date/marry women who can match them in combat. :smallamused:

What is with the new avie is that I figured out/learned from the fantastic tutorial on these boards how to create them myself. My first attempt turned out so awsome that I decided to use it. (Awsome, at least, by my own standards.) There's nothing in his right hand just some random spell thingy. Probably what killed that ghoul. The spell effect was the hardest part for me, and that's what I managed.

[Sisqui]

If I wanted something to not "fly" (as you put it) with you I'd just say that all men should only date/marry women who can match them in combat. :smallamused:



Well, that would be one way of weeding all you tall/big guys out.......:smallwink:


Even if I wanted to change the way everybody else thought I'd have no idea how to go about it.

Well, that's good to know.


In almost all things I tend to be moderate, if nothing else. I'm suggesting ideals, not action.

Not me!!!!!!!!!!

[averagejoe]

Well, that would be one way of weeding all you tall/big guys out.......:smallwink:

You'd think so, but truth is we'd get all the most "quality" women. :smallwink:


Not me!!!!!!!!!!

What? :smallconfused:

[Cyrano]

Personally, I do it to be helpful. However, I think you are making it an either/or decision when it is probably usually a case of someone doing both. Or rather, that inherent in the concept of politeness is the idea that you are attempting to accommodate other people. Not being rude is what makes them happy.

Not necessarily. It's a matter of all X is Y, but not all Y is X. You have the "purely" chivalrous, who do it to make someone happy. You have the person you describe, not being rude as a way to making someone happy. But the standard, non chivalrous dude is the guy who opens the door not to make someone happy, even indirectly, but to avoid being seen as an unpleasant person. In my opinion politeness, like chivalry, was probably designed to make other's happy, to accommodate them, but plenty do it merely to be seen as not impolite.

Alarra, I live in Canada. Maybe that makes a diff? It's always the norm here, pretty much.

Nevertheless, being a relative young 'un I'm not sure I'm qualified to respond here, so I think I'm out. Feel free to bash my argument while I'm gone.

[Hell Puppi]

*cough*

On a side note, I enjoyed 300, and I enjoy strip clubs.

[SilverClawShift]

I enjoy strip clubs.

:smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:

[Cyrano]

I'm sorry, was there a point there? Besides, ya'know, the complete lack of content, and the example of what not to post?

[Hell Puppi]

Well it got into a sexism fight and someone pointed out something about strip clubs and girls not liking 300, so I thought i'd put in my 2 cents.

Geez man keep up.:smalltongue:

[Cyrano]

I'm talking to the guy who posted nothing but a selection of smiley faces. If it contains no actual letters, to me, that's spam. I'm relatively sure that goes here too.

[Trog]

You know, Trog and the others. I think this subject of advertising and marketing is far too interesting to be an off-topic aside to the present thread. Let's make it a new thread. I have a couple of things to contribute to that discussion.

Ask and ye shall receive, o consumer! :smallbiggrin:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51075

[Holy_Knight]

Well, this thread exploded a bit since I was on last, so I'll probably miss some things I would/should otherwise have responded to. But anyway, here goes.


Nobody said every polite guy is a chauvinist or a pushover.



I didn't say they're automatically a weaselly act-like-her-friend-because-she's-hot type (see Mike from Something Positive). In my experience--and in the experience of girls experiencing it from *their* side, not from the mouths of the guys engaging in the behavior set.

No, you said "generally", rather than "automatically". Meaning, "maybe not all, but the majority". Your view seems to imply:

--If a guy is nice to a particular woman, it's probably just an act because his intention is to get into her pants.

--If a guy is nice to women in general (in a way specific to women), he's engaging in behavior which actually demeans women because it hearkens back to a time which objectified them, whether he intends it as such or not.

So, intentions do matter in the first case, because they're negative. But they don't matter in the second case, because the behavior has to be seen as negative in spite of the intentions to the contrary. That's what (part of) what you've said seems to be implying, and it's at best unfair, if not contradictory.

My own view is that intentions matter a great deal, in both (or more accurately, all) cases. They reveal the first guy to be not really nice, but a jerk, and the second guy to not really view women as objects, but as persons. But in any case, you cannot consistently tout them as relevant when it suits your view, and unimportant when it doesn't.

This goes back to my question of how you would have guys act toward women that they like, which you didn't really answer. You said "I would have him ask her out", but that avoided the context, which regarded being nice toward her and in general.



It's perfectly OK to be polite. I'm not sure why people are assuming that opening a door for me means I will kick them in the throat.

And I'm not sure why "holding doors" became the prime example here, but whatever. This does raise an important question though--how would you react to that? What I mean is, would you ask the person not to do so, because you find it demeaning? Would you quietly fume about it? Would you consider that his intention was probably good, and not bother about it? I ask because there may be a difference between a man holding a door for a woman--yes, even because she's a woman--because he thinks it's respectful to do so, versus continuing to do so for you if he knows that it bothers you.



But it's sexist to go out of your way to be extra polite to women as a group. Do it because they're PEOPLE, not because they've got freakin' ovaries.
Again, I think this is more complicated than you would like it to be. You want to say that everybody should be treated the same, because no one is inferior to anyone else. However, the truth of the latter statement doesn't necessarily get you the truth of the former. To take differences into account in interacting with people is, in itself, neither good nor bad. It depends on whether those differences are real or only perceived, viewed positively, negatively, or neutrally, and so forth. I understand you want to say that there are no relevant differences between men and women in this regard, but it's not clear that that's so. I'll hold doors open for men and women, but I make more of a point to do so for women, because I think it demonstrates respect for them--and, additionally, that it does so in a way that the same behavior exhibited toward men would not do.



Chivalry isn't complete honesty and kindness. It's an attitude and a set of behaviors... both of which are gender-biased.
Again, Chivalry is about much more than just a relation of men toward women, and none of its other aspects are gender-biased.



That's funny--I've known plenty who didn't want to step into a ring with me. There are some of both, and the mindset exists.
Well, maybe you just frightened them. Like I said, lots of guys that I've known have no problem sparring with women. And hey, for what it's worth, I'd be glad to step into the ring with you. :smallamused:



...mm-hmm. And blackface is just another kind of make-up, right?
Let's not pretend that things are separate from their history and roots.

Okay, now you're just straw-manning, and rather offensively. This isn't "Birth of a Gender" here. The two aren't things aren't similar.



Really? And your sample size is... what?
Certainly, very, very few of the females I interact with on a regular basis have that problem.
I don't know that I can give you a specific sample size, other than to say that the vast majority of my female friends had or continue to have that problem. The fact that most of the ones you interact with don't could be explained by any number of things--possibly even maturity level, as (dear God, I hope) that's the kind of thing that people tend to grow out of, having learned from their past mistakes.



Then there's the fact that "that particular form of poor judgement" isn't really seen as a problem for men, a lot of the time. If a man sleeps with a woman who isn't very good for him, there's backslapping and jokes about how he's gettin' some of that action, breaking off a piece of that tail, tappin' that ass, et cetera. It's seen as a plenty good enough reason to date someone who's not very good to/for you.
If a straight girl does it, holy crap, it's "chicks hate nice guys!" city.
Well, I never actually said "sleeping with", just "dating", but fine. I think what you've said here confirms part of what I've been saying. Genuinely nice guys do see that as a problem, and frankly, any wise, mature person would see that as a problem, regardless of gender. Yeah, among guys who are shallow and only care about sex--you know, the jerks--of course they're going to be high-fiving each other over it. (Which makes the nice guys really pissed off, because not only can everyone see that those other guys are jerks, it seems to be getting rewarded.) Part of the reason why the nice guys seem to complain so loudly is that women say they don't like guys who act like that, but then sleep with them anyway, whilst ignoring the guys who don't high-five each other over "conquests" because--since they don't high-five each other over conquests--they are seen as "too nice"/"not masculine enough"/"not interested romantically" or what have you. Okay, that digressed into the other topic a little bit, but the main point is: Yes, it's more common for guys to not see that as a problem in their own case, but that's just a sign of immaturity and foolishness. There is one difference worth mentioning, though: In the cases I was talking about, the women in question generally recognized that the situation was bad for them, but not in the sense you were attributing to males above, i.e. "but the hot action makes up for it". Instead, it was a pattern of continuing to date the same kinds of jerks, and wondering why their relationships always made them unhappy--only realizing that any particular situation was bad after the fact. That's an important difference.


I know the next few things weren't directed at me specifically, but I'd like to respond to some of them.


If you're finding women to be respectable significantly more often than men, what can I say except that your standards have got to be biased--since if they weren't, you'd find them respectable in equal numbers?
This is only true given an assumption that respectability will be more or less equally distributed among males and females. Now, granted, that's not a crazy starting point, but neither is it necessarily true, and it is possible that women, in his experience or in general, exemplify the relevant qualities more frequently than men do. This may be especially plausible given certain age brackets, since females tend to mature more quickly than males do. So the fact that he finds women in general more worthy of repsect than men doesn't necessarily mean his standards are gender-biased.



It's an assumption that... emotionally sensitive people are... emotionally sensitive? Yeah, nice people are easier to hurt than jackasses who don't care about people (or their opinions).
I think what Vonriel was getting at here was that sometimes women, in an attempt to "let a guy down easy" will actually be making things worse, rather than better. In his example, he felt like the girl wouldn't tell him why she really wasn't interested, which made him feel worse than he would have if she had just given him a straight reason.



Okay, great. I wouldn't hit someone just because they offended me, regardless of their gender. I'm not sure why "I wouldn't hit someone except to defend myself" translates into "I would never hit a girl/woman/lady", and I think it's kind of funny that people try to claim "I would never hit a girl" isn't a sexist statement by saying that it *really* means that they wouldn't hit *anyone* weaker than them/undeserving of it/etc, without stopping to think about why they phrase it the way they do.

For my part, I don't make that claim. I'll go ahead and admit that it's based on gender. What I dispute is that that necessarily makes it negative.



I don't treat men and women differently except when their gender is somehow relevant. Gender is absolutely NOT relevant to whether or not you should respect someone, open doors for them, et cetera. Neither should other people. Good motivation for doing so doesn't mean it's a good thing.
No, but it might be relevant to the way in which you demonstrate respect to them. As I said before, taking people's differences into account in how you interact with them is not inherently bad, and is often a good thing.



I correctly follow escalation of use of force procedures in a hostile environment (what? Chivalry is a warrior's code).
Amen, brother.

--HK


I see what you're saying here, but every single person out there interprets signals of chivalry/politeness/respect differently -- so are we supposed to anticipate everyone's potential interpretation of our actions before we take them? I don't see that as possible. Frankly, I believe that if an action is taken with the best of intentions, if the target takes that action badly, then that's their problem, not mine. If I hold a door open for a woman because I respect her (not because I see her as weak or incapable of opening a door for herself) and that woman becomes offended, that's not my problem; that's hers. I can't anticipate every possible reaction; all I can do is act in accordance with my view of acceptable social behavior, and let other people react as they will.
Yes. Which, incidentally, is also why we should strive to give people the benefit of the doubt in general. I know I've had my own behavior misinterpreted before (and here I'm speaking in general, not just about chivalry), so I try not to judge people too hastily for theirs.


Indeed. The only people who I expect to know what bugs me, and therefore the ones I have a right to be upset at, are the people who know me. While whether or not it actually demeans women is a moot point, women shouldn't get upset about it; at the most they should politely say why they don't like it being done, not get confrontational about it.
Yes, unless of course they have reason to think that the guy is doing it because he thinks women are inferior. But that's by far the minority.


Rachel what I see you not getting is that men and women are different. Physically AND mentally. Men are overall stronger than women, most people should realize that. Equality is the same chance to run a mile in five minutes, not for one person to run it in five and another in six and a half because of innate differences. If you put a man and woman in a room with a bunch of junk then take them aside and ask what they saw the women will generally be able to tell you the majority of the items, placement, and color. The men will generally say they, "think they saw some junk over here and a bit of stuff over there." If you blindfold a man and woman and take them through a maze then take the blindfold off the men are going to be able to give much better directions back, while the women are going to generally be a lost. Women are better at verbally communicating and have much more communication and brain matter connecting the two hemispheres of the brain. Men are better at internal 3D mapping and are generally better at math and architecture, it even carries over to video games. These are not just "on average" they are more than 80-90% true. Men and women are DIFFERENT, and these differences carry over into every aspect of their respective lives. Therefore you are going to see different patterns that stay true to the respective genders and sexes. Males are going to have certain behaviors that will reoccur in the gender, and so will females. To disregard these differences and say that they are the same doesn't make any sense. It is like trying the same thing over and over expecting different results. It isn't discriminatory to treat males and females different, it is logical. There are no known psychological differences in different races of people, which is why making comparisons like the treating whites and blacks a different way, and treating men and women differently are both not the same, but one is obviously offensive.
Yes. And while that's somewhat tangential to chivalry specifically, it's extremely relevant to the idea that it's wrong to treat men and women differently based on their sex.


I was just reading through the 6 pages of posts since I logged off yesterday :smalleek: and I just had to respond to this one. All I can say is that I totally agree with you. I wonder how many feminists realize that THEY are the sexist ones? If a man holds a door for a woman, they say "He's just doing that to butter her up and get in her pants." Now, I ask you, can a man not have multiple (and sometimes even conflicting) reasons for his actions? Are only women allowed to have multiple factors considered in their decision making? To say that a man cannot simultaneously want to be polite, want to be helpful, and want to increase his chances with a particular woman is thouroughly demeaning to the mental faculties of MEN!
Why, thank you, Sisqui. I guess the problem comes in interpretation. Too often, such behavior is interpreted as secretly sinister when it's genuine--and vice versa.



And as for treating a woman like a sex object.........that's what women are!! What should men be sexually interested in?? Toaster ovens?? Are women afraid to admit that men are objects of sexual interest to them? That purely physical, mostly visual aspect of one person's interest in another is exactly that- only one! And, because humans receive most of their sensory input visually, it is usually the initial one. The others come in later, and, quite frankly, have greater weight with both sexes.
While I see what you mean here, the term "sex object" in the context of this discussion meant something like "one who is valued only as a tool for sexual pleasure, and not viewed as a person". So yes, sexual attraction is not inherently bad, but viewing someone as a sex object in that sense is.


I'm in London for a few days, so I'm going out to take a walk by the Thames
--sweet Thames, run softly 'til I end my song;
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long--
Just out of curiosity, is this from something? [/quote]



Edit: sisqui, NO ONE HERE HAS SAID THAT. And there is a HUGE difference between wanting someone, and treating them as a sex object. You can lust after, look at, and court someone without objectifying them.
I'd dispute the "lust after" part, due to how I would use that word, but other than that we're in agreement.


All the things we are talking about here are, when they are done only on a sex-basis, expressions of the old idea that women are weak and need men to carry things, hold doors etc. The average woman may be physically weaker than the average man but not to the point where they can not hold a door open, by and large.
No. An action's intent comes from the agent, and if it is done out of respect, then that is what it expresses.



Intent, eh? You know what they built the road to hell from, don't you? :smallwink:
*sigh* I'll say it again: That is a foolish cliche.


While we're on the subject of feminism, you know what we should talk about? Mawage.

Mawage. Mawage is wot bwings us togeder tooday. Mawage, that bwessed awangment, that dweam wifin a dweam...

:smallbiggrin:
Nice. :smallsmile:

--All right, I may have missed some things, and there may have been more posts while I was typing, but this post is long enough already. Onward and upward.

--HK

[Nerzi]

Holding doors open and stuff is just politeness, not chivalry. I hold the door open for people behind me (or in front of me if they're going the other way through the same door) regardless of gender. It's just common courtesy not to let a door slam in someones face. So I can't say I get offended by people opening doors for me as I assume they'd do the same for anyone.

As for the subject of 'nice guys', I have nothing polite to say about the insecure men who blame their relationship faliures on them 'being too nice' and women 'only liking jerks'. A guy who is genuinely nice and doesn't whinge about being so has no problem getting a girl most of the time.

[Charity]

As for the subject of 'nice guys', I have nothing polite to say about the insecure men who blame their relationship faliures on them 'being too nice' and women 'only liking jerks'. A guy who is genuinely nice and doesn't whinge about being so has no problem getting a girl most of the time.

Although I appluade the anti emo winging sentiment, what source are you drawing this data from?
You are not a 'nice guy' nor do you know the majority of them, you are guilty of the same gender based generalisations that you are railing against I fear.

[Nerzi]

I'm not classing all men as 'nice guys'. I don't think it an really be argued with that there are some "insecure men who blame their relationship faliures on them 'being too nice' and women 'only liking jerks'" in existance these are who I'm classing as 'nice guys'. Of course these guys are thankfully a minority, but I have met a few of them
It's the same way I class girls who do the same thing and constantly whinge about their lack of love lives and moan that 'all men are evil' as ' stupid whiny bitches'.
It's not really a gender based generalisation it's classing a group of people together based on them showing similar (unpleasant) characteristics.

[Charity]

A guy who is genuinely nice and doesn't whinge about being so has no problem getting a girl most of the time.

It really was this part that I took issue with. (I don't like to cut down posts too heavily when quoting as context is often lost.)
Yes there are plenty of socially inept guys whom like to blame womens desire for 'bad boy' steriotypes for their failures.
That doesn't make the above statement true, or justified as it is entirely unquantifiable, it also sort of implies that if you do have trouble finding a girlfriend then you are indeed not a genuinly nice guy. I'm pretty sure you are not really trying to suggest this.

[Nerzi]

Ah I see. Bad wording on my part there. Sorry about that.
Definitely wasn't trying to suggest that.
It's certainly not always easy to get the girl or boy, or whatever your sexual preference may be. But not moaning about it being difficult definitely does improve your chances quite a lot.

[Charity]

*shakes hand in agreement*

True enough, nobody loves a whinger. Not that I give a damn *brandishes wedding ring with pride* I have everything I want.

[Ossian]

Hello everybody, Damsels and Knights, Valkyries and Scholars. Sorry to sound a bit OT. I just noticed this thread and saw it was already at page 13. That alone should make me think that there has to be some chivalry going on, at least in these pages, to fill 13 of them. :smallwink:

Just to throw in my 2 silver coins, I`d start off by saying that the term is in itself a bit misleading. We spaek about chivalry, referring to the code of behaviour of a gentle and gallant knight of the late middle ages/early reneissance. The Courtly environment demanded for some manners, at the time, and new literature was backing this trend up. It was then that the chivalric novel developed, and was set in a timeless middle age full of erring steel clad paladins and damsels in distress. Women were seen as fragile, delicate beings to be worshipped but not quite often to be considered au pair with men in daily engagements, and quite a gap divided the Lady Guinever of Cameliard that was getting all the selfless attentions of a host of paladins from Ms. Mary White, the "anyone" wife of mr. John Someone.

So, chivalry was referred to men, at least at the beginning, since a woman needed to be the focus of such attitude, and not to adopt it herself. She was supposed to be helpless, or otherwise how was the knight suppose to help her? She was supposed not to know too much, or how should the knight display his seasoned traveller's experience? She was supposed to be nice and a bit naive, cultivated in poetry and singing, because there you could indulge in 'soft' and not so laddish' emotion, such as pure spiritual love etc...

Well, enough of an introduction, I say.

Today I`d love to refer the term to both sexes. What was a knight or chevalier supposed to be? Altruisitic, selfless, generous, true to his word. How can this be only a manly set of qualities? I`d say that whenever we see someone giving his or her seat on the bus to an elderly or a PERSON who`s tired or loaded with stuff, when we put the other before ourselves, when we pick for last at the table and give the bigger portion to our next, when we give our attention to a person in need, when we accept unfair odds to protect what we deem is rioght for someone else, someone who lacks the means to defend it, when we are gentle towards another person expecting no thanks in return, when we take care of others despite the cost, despite the fact it would be better to let go or look the other way, men or women, we are being chivalric and living up to the code of Camelot and the Order of the Round Table, by far the gold standard of chivalry. That sort of chivalry is a product of centuries of literature, cultural transformations, poetry, histroical events. It is, partially, one of our units to measure what are the good manners and what they are not. Sure, there are some things that go just one-way. A gentlemen will stand when a lady approaches or leaves the table. He will help and be courteous to a lady in every possible circumstance, he will be appreciative and sincere, devout and trusted. That is a bit out of fashon, by my standard. It`s nice if it comes spontaneous, but it can definitely be re written to go both ways. The first one that gets to the door will be so nice as to lead the way to the other, and will honor and aknowledge his or her entering or leaving the room by standing up and greeting. It does not take that much effort ;)

Besides, complaining that "there are no more gentlemen" (no offense meant to anyone) and that "people frown upon those who show good chivalric manners" is a bit anti-chivalric.
A brave knight would not want to know what other people think of his behaviour, so long as they keep the scold to themselves. He or she does not expect to be commended for what he does, because 'nobody does it anymore'. It would be just another , nice and polite, way of showing off. No harm can come of it, but it`s less true to the code. Code which, from a movie I loved, I quote before taking leave:


A knight is sworn to valor,
his heart knows only virtue,
his blade defends the helpless,
his might upholds the weak,
his word speaks only truth,
his wrath undoes the wicked.

Sorry if that was long. I`m a loquacious person, as it appears, bear with me on that, if you will please.

Ossian


PS
The quote from page 1 (a knight speaks only courteous words or hard knocks) should be from the "Chronicle of Narnia", right?

[nagora]

Okay, now you're just straw-manning, and rather offensively. This isn't "Birth of a Gender" here. The two aren't things aren't similar.



Strawman n.: any counter-example on a web-based discussion which clearly and comprehensively destroys the writer's argument and thus needs must be swiftly dismissed in order to not draw any further attention to the damage it has done to his or her position. c.f. cliche - anything so obviously true or universally agreed upon that the writer can not marshal any argument whatsoever against it.

[LCR]

Are you still discussing wether chivalry is dead or not and if holding the door is sexist ...?
Because I somewhat got lost on, like, page eight ...

Still, I would like to add that so far no girl I've met was offended by politeness (which so far includes holding the door, lending them your jacket if it's cold ...), but then I've never met someone in the face with a dueling glove, just because they smiled at my bird ...


So, ah, a Strawman's a good thing ...?

[Charity]

nagora is attempting irony (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony) to make their point
strawman (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/straw%20man)

[LCR]

Ah, Irony ... so hard to understand ...

[Lissou]

I didn't bother to read the 13 pages, but holding doors for people is just polite. Holding doors only for women is, in my opinion, sexist towards men, and the attitude of a jerk/bitch. Everyone has the right not to get doors slammed in their faces.

Also, I get annoyed with women who want to "be treated as equalq" but want to keep all the advantages they'd have if they were not treated as equal. For instance, if men are paid more than women, I find it normal that men pay for women (be it in the restaurant, or buying them clothes, or whatever). If they're paid the same, it's nice from the guy, but shouldn't be expected. And if in a couple the woman is paid more, she should be the one paying for more stuff.

Also, nice guys are hard to find, not because they're rare, but because they're more shy, and because jerk are confident enough and have enough nerve to pretend to be nice guys until we fall for them.
And whining might not be nice for the people around, but I think it can be justified, as long as the person whining is able to stop doing so when someone does take interest in them, instead of saying "oh, she'll probably dump me anyway".

Also, I don't think chilvarly should be something specific to men.

[LCR]

Thinking about chivalry ... I can't help but think about knights and duels and swords and not backstabbing people ... so yeah, chivalry died with all this. What's left is called politeness, I'm fine with that.

Lissou: Yes, men and women should be earning the same and then everybody could buy everybody dinner. That would be perfect.

[Warshrike]

Originally Posted by Warshrike
Chivalry will be dead for as long as people let it be dead, but I'm yet to meet a girl willing to take Chivalry for what it is- Complete honesty and kindness.

Ah, so Chivalry Is Dead And It's All Women's Fault.
Chivalry isn't complete honesty and kindness. It's an attitude and a set of behaviors... both of which are gender-biased.

Just wanted to say, that no, I don't think it's all the Wimminz fault. It's the Minz fault too. I was merely stating that, in my case, I am yet to meet a girl willing to accept any kindness as not being an advance, and few girls who are actually decent enough human-beanies to be 'Chivalrous' to.

[Indon]

I was merely stating that, in my case, I am yet to meet a girl willing to accept any kindness as not being an advance...

I know plenty.

They're just all married. :smallfrown:

[TreesOfDeath]

Chilvary was never alive. It was some bs made by bards to make people thing Knights were something other than murderous thugs who had riduclous fights amonst themselves and treated peasants like crap

[LCR]

Would you stop being so cynical?
Knights rock. Just look at Jedi Knights. They rock, too.

[Death, your friend the Reaper]

Knights rock. Just look at Jedi Knights. They rock, too.

He is right you know.


http://www.unc.edu/~jmspille/images/awesome3.jpg

[LCR]

I love that picture.

[Captain van der Decken]

Did.. did a knight murder all your family?


That picture is great.

[North]

Wow thats a lot of pages.

I dont even know how 300 was dragged into this but I know at least 8 girls I know who saw it. 7 of them liked it. I also know several girls who like going to the strip club< guys and girls> and a bunch of guys who dont.

I dont think chivalry is dead but it has been browbeaten. I dont typically hold doors open. Ill usually walk thru and hold it open for that extra couple seconds with my hand while I make my way forwards. A huge pet peeve of mine is if someone holds the door open and Im still far away. Then I feel the need to rush towards the door just to say thanks. Im lazy I dont like rushing. So Ill give them that extra couple sec then give the door a pop open again as its about to go out of my reach.

However

Sometimes the mood does strike me and Ill hold it open for friends male and female. Usually on dates I try and do this. Is it sexist if its for your date? I also hold it open for pregnant women, I guess that could be sexist, I mean sure their walking for two but thats no excuse. I should let the door close on them to try and not be sexist?

[Sisqui]

While I see what you mean here, the term "sex object" in the context of this discussion meant something like "one who is valued only as a tool for sexual pleasure, and not viewed as a person". So yes, sexual attraction is not inherently bad, but viewing someone as a sex object in that sense is.




Actually, I think what I meant there wasn't exactly clear. What I meant was, before a man and woman meet each other, they are essentially Generic Female X and Generic Male Y. They have individual identities, but they have no knowledge of what the other's identity consists of. They simply do not know each other as people. When they make initial contact, they may upgrade each other to Attractive/Unattractive Female X or Y because there is now at least some relevant information present about the individual in question. However, at this point, they are really still generic to each other, interchangeable with the vast numbers of other males and females. In this stage, where attraction from a distance is possible, they essentially are sex objects to each other. Part of the "mating rituals" that a lot of people criticize as being silly or sexist were created for the specific purpose of moving the relationship forward from this stage. But this stage must come first (well, unless you write/email/phone each other first, but in that case you aren't really in the generic category anymore.) My point was, when men try to be polite to a woman, or do things to court her, it is their specific intention to move beyond the generic sex object stage to getting to know the person as an individual. And let me tell you, a woman blowing up in a man's face when he is trying to do so usually tells him all he needs to know about her to make a decision as to whether or not she is worth pursuing. Sorry if the earlier post was unclear. :smallsmile:

[Sisqui]

If you're saying "one who wouldn't explode isn't worth it" I pretty mutch agree (unless they're really shy)

Actually, I was saying that one who DID explode wouldn't be worth it :smallwink:



Originally Posted by averagejoe
If I wanted something to not "fly" (as you put it) with you I'd just say that all men should only date/marry women who can match them in combat.

Hmmm..........I am intrigued by this proposition. Did I mention I cheat? Fair fights are for suckers:smallamused:


You'd think so, but truth is we'd get all the most "quality" women. :smallwink:

Not really. I think the men might take the first blow and do one of those "stage dives" - the ones where the actor really hams it up- and then say "Alright Baby, you win. Now drag me to your cave and show me what it REALLY means to be hurt by a girl." :smallbiggrin:

[Sisqui]

But if they didn't explode, wouldn't it kind of imply that they were sort of a skank?

Ummmmm........no. If a man is trying to get to know a woman better and attempts to do so by, say, holding a door open, and she blows up at him for it, then she is probably a card carrying member of the Cult of Victimology (You're oppressing me you lust driven bastard!)- or just a bitch.

EDIT: This example was of a scenario in which the man was interested in a potential mate, not holding the door out of good manners.

[North]

Ummmmm........no. If a man is trying to get to know a woman better and attempts to do so by, say, holding a door open, and she blows up at him for it, then she is probably a card carrying member of the Cult of Victimology (You're oppressing me you lust driven bastard!)- or just a bitch.

Quoted for agreement

dont hurt me

Well unless your drag me to a cave after. :smallbiggrin:

But yeah anyone who explodes at anyone else for helping them out is a huge ass

[zeratul]

Ummmmm........no. If a man is trying to get to know a woman better and attempts to do so by, say, holding a door open, and she blows up at him for it, then she is probably a card carrying member of the Cult of Victimology (You're oppressing me you lust driven bastard!)- or just a bitch.

EDIT: This example was of a scenario in which the man was interested in a potential mate, not holding the door out of good manners.

Oops, I was reading the wrong part.

We tend to have misunderstandings don't we?

[Sisqui]

Oops, I was reading the wrong part.

We tend to have misunderstandings don't we?

It has been mentioned before that my sentence structure tends to be needlessly complex :smallwink:

EDIT: I just tend to type things out as I am thinking. And hey, it's your fault if you can't keep up with the difference between what I was thinking and what I actually posted, right? :smallredface:

[averagejoe]

Hmmm..........I am intrigued by this proposition. Did I mention I cheat? Fair fights are for suckers:smallamused:

Not really. I think the men might take the first blow and do one of those "stage dives" - the ones where the actor really hams it up- and then say "Alright Baby, drag me to your cave and show me what it REALLY means to be hurt by a girl." :smallbiggrin:

Hey, if you aren't doing what you can to win, then you don't really want to, do you? :smallwink:

I meant that it should be a pretty good match both ways, not just that the woman simply needs to win. The goal is equality, after all. :smallbiggrin:

[Sisqui]

Hey, if you aren't doing what you can to win, then you don't really want to, do you? :smallwink:

I meant that it should be a pretty good match both ways, not just that the woman simply needs to win. The goal is equality, after all. :smallbiggrin:

*wonders if laughing maniacally while swinging you around as you dangle from my mantrap would be evil or just poetic justice* :smallamused:

Meh, who am I kidding. I am cool with being evil.


Quoted for agreement

dont hurt me

Well unless your drag me to a cave after. :smallbiggrin:

But yeah anyone who explodes at anyone else for helping them out is a huge ass

I am going to start my own tribe of conquered men.....

I have no qualms about being sexist :smallbiggrin:

[zeratul]

Ummmmm........no. If a man is trying to get to know a woman better and attempts to do so by, say, holding a door open, and she blows up at him for it, then she is probably a card carrying member of the Cult of Victimology (You're oppressing me you lust driven bastard!)- or just a bitch.

EDIT: This example was of a scenario in which the man was interested in a potential mate, not holding the door out of good manners.

Thanks for clearing that up for people. I actually agree with her above statement from before. I thought she meant if they didn't blow up at the dude trying to find a mate.

[averagejoe]

*wonders if laughing maniacally while swinging you around as you dangle from my mantrap would be evil or just poetic justice* :smallamused:

Meh, who am I kidding. I am cool with being evil.

Ah! Mantraps! My one weakness! How did you know? :smalleek:

[Sisqui]

Ah! Mantraps! My one weakness! How did you know? :smalleek:

I study my prey...........:smallbiggrin:

[The Great Skenardo]

The chivalrous man opens the door to the pit trap so that the lady may enter first. :smallcool:

[North]

I am going to start my own tribe of conquered men.....

I have no qualms about being sexist :smallbiggrin:

Theres a very appropriate quote from Harold and Kumar that would fit very well here.

[averagejoe]

Here's a question for you chivilrous dudes out there; does anyone acually lay their coats down in the mud so that the lady doesn't get her shoes dirty anymore?

[Sisqui]

Here's a question for you chivilrous dudes out there; does anyone acually lay their coats down in the mud so that the lady doesn't get her shoes dirty anymore?

You know, I always wondered how that could be considered chivalrous. I mean, really, it was the woman who was going to have to clean it. My shoes, his coat........what's the difference? :smalleek:

[The Great Skenardo]

I shouldn't think so. Science has since discovered that shoes may be cleaned.

[Death, your friend the Reaper]

Here's a question for you chivilrous dudes out there; does anyone acually lay their coats down in the mud so that the lady doesn't get her shoes dirty anymore?

You could carry her over it?

Then again, or walk around it? If it can be covered such a way that when the lady steps on the coat it doesn't sink and her feet don't get wet, it can hardly be that large...

You will be amazed how many girls worry about getting wet crossing the River Styx...

[The Great Skenardo]

You could carry her over it?

Then again, or walk around it? If it can be covered such a way that when the lady steps on the coat it doesn't sink and her feet don't get wet, it can hardly be that large...

You will be amazed how many girls worry about getting wet crossing the River Styx...

You'd also be amazed how many didn't want to cross it in the first place. :smallamused:

[North]

Here's a question for you chivilrous dudes out there; does anyone acually lay their coats down in the mud so that the lady doesn't get her shoes dirty anymore?

Noooooo. No. Nononono.

That one never made any sense to me at all.

Why get an entire jacket dirty rather then the bottom of some shoes? And do you wear this mud covered jacket on afterwards? Bizarre?

[zeratul]

Here's a question for you chivilrous dudes out there; does anyone acually lay their coats down in the mud so that the lady doesn't get her shoes dirty anymore?

No way I'd let my black trench get dirty.

[averagejoe]

Noooooo. No. Nononono.

That one never made any sense to me at all.

Why get an entire jacket dirty rather then the bottom of some shoes? And do you wear this mud covered jacket on afterwards? Bizarre?

Well, I don't, it's just a movie cleche.

I steal some poor shmuck's jacket and use that. :smallamused:

[destroyes]

Forgive me if someone has already said something to this effect, because I want to contribute to the conversation, but I haven't the patience to read all fourteen pages. I've always thought of chivalry as the more pleasant side of previous generations of (greater) inequality between the sexes. As the product of the mentality that females are the more delicate sex, chivalry is innately linked to women being kept in the home and away from most professions, etc. So while it may not be right for this day and age, there's still plenty of room for its more egalitarian cousin, courtesy.

[Mirin]

Well, I'm a girl, and I do open up doors for boys and girls if I just happen to stand here, and I do invite boys and girls to pay their ice-cream of beer etc.

What I don't like about chivalry is that it's always the man who is chivalrous towards the woman. Some males even are mortified if a woman opens the door for them and say things like "that was my job".

Well, I like to be nice to people, too, but I don't like to be nice by simling gently and accepting help from everybody for stuff I could do myself very well, just because it's polite to accept chivalrous help.
I like being nice by just doing nice things, doing "chivalrous" things myself.

The second thing I don't like about chivalry is that I perfer rude but honest and funny people making crude jokes, but still having a good heart, to glib, ever-smiling, always-polite but hypocrite people. And unfortunatly, while the fist type is almost never chivalrous, the second type almost always is. This casts a dark light over such a nice thing as chivalry.

[Sisqui]

Well, I'm a girl, and I do open up doors for boys and girls if I just happen to stand here, and I do invite boys and girls to pay their ice-cream of beer etc.

Er..what??:smallconfused:

[Khantalas]

Er..what??:smallconfused:

Don't say that wouldn't totally rock, though. :smalltongue:

[Cyrano]

Well, I'm a girl, and I do open up doors for boys and girls if I just happen to stand here, and I do invite boys and girls to pay their ice-cream of beer etc.

Here, let you buy that beer for you? I hafta nitpick about that grammar.

[Sisqui]

Don't say that wouldn't totally rock, though. :smalltongue:

Beer flavored anything is blech! :yuk:

[Orzel]

Beer flavored anything is blech! :yuk:

I was just about to ask you for a DNA sample so I could have my own Sisqui clone. You just ruined the fantasy with that remark.

[Khantalas]

Beer flavored anything is blech! :yuk:

Well, anything with alcohol is blech for me, and that post wasn't very serious anyway.

Oh, yeah, chivalry... Did I mention how I'm very inconsiderate of others?

[Sisqui]

Well, anything with alcohol is blech for me, and that post wasn't very serious anyway.

I knew you were joking.


Oh, yeah, chivalry... Did I mention how I'm very inconsiderate of others?

Why?


I was just about to ask you for a DNA sample so I could have my own Sisqui clone. You just ruined the fantasy with that remark.
How 'bout if we cut a deal and I say my clone will let you drink all of her beer? Unlike Khantalas, I am very considerate of others :smallwink:

[Khayankh]

To preface all this, I'm a teenage girl in New England.

Chivalry by gender is kind of dumb. Meaning, if a guy opens a door for me because clearly I'm a girl (and thus less able to open doors) and that's his entire motivation, I'll be polite and say thanks, but I'm not impressed. Chivalry by ideals - helping those who are weaker than you (even at cost to yourself) is a nice thing. (examples include opening doors for people carrying stuff, helping people carry stuff, giving up your seat on a bus or train for someone who is injured, elderly, or towing small children).

As for the examples mentioned here:
Boy putting his coat over the mud so a girl doesn't have to step in it: this is silly, yes. But if you're walking in heels, moving across something squishy (mud or wet grass) without breaking your ankle can be a tricky thing. I've let female friends cling to me in order to cross muddy fields in impractical shoes. (I'm not a heels person myself.) I don't think putting your coat in the mud would make it easier to cross (heel-wearing girl can then slip on the coat and fall in the mud, along with your muddy coat?) but I like the idea of a guy putting his arms around a girl and half-carrying her through the mud. :smallwink:

Door opening: Again, I don't oppose people opening doors for me, but I think it's a bit pointless to open a door for someone just as capable of opening it as you. (example a = perfectly healthy boy opens door for perfectly healthy girl isn't quite as chivalrous, in my view as example b = perfectly healthy person opens door for person in wheelchair / person carrying lots of junk / person carrying small child(ren))

Chivalrous boys unable to get dates: There's a word for people who behave the way you describe yourselves. Boys who are reserved, respectful, don't swear, don't insult women, rarely flirt, and don't invade women's personal space. You're all dorks. A lot of people find this annoying (seeing as it is not in keeping with the current perception of what masculinity is), but that's them. I wouldn't date any guy who wasn't a dork, frankly. It doesn't mean you're a bad person, it just means you aren't loud and forthright. There are other girls who like dorks too, I promise, you just have to look around. :smallbiggrin: If any of you dorky boys are between the ages of 21 and 16, living near me, and not dating anyone I know, should I meet you and should you connect me with this post I promise to flirt with you. :smalltongue:

[BourgeoisReader]

Interesting. I do similar things for my significant other, but not because I think its helpful or even polite (that is, it doesn't really make things easier for her if I close the passenger door, nor would she consider it rude if I didn't push her chair in). Rather, I do these things because I know that sometimes she likes to have them done as it makes her feel special and loved. Moreover, I'm sure that if I did it all the time it would probably become tedious and silly.

I volunteer to carry heavy things for anyone that looks like they could use a hand with it, even if they have a penis (provided they're not too intent on proving the fact). For me, as I'm sure it is for many others here, see chivalry as another way of saying 'being decent and virtuous to people'. And that's 'people', not 'women'.
.

Maybe she just wants you to carry things cos she likes it when you pull your weight in the relationship. Has equality ever crossed your mind? I bet you're furry. In the facial way. grr!

[North]

Beer flavored anything is blech! :yuk:

Blasphemy!

Beer is goodness in liquid form.

@Khayankh

You made a lot of good points there. I didnt even think about the shoes/twisted ankle thing unitl you pointed it out. Although Id rather stand in the mud and give a hand then throw my jacket down. Seriously do you wear your muddy jacket after this or do you throw it away???

[Sisqui]

Anyone who thinks walking on mud and fabric is any easier than walking on mud alone- just try it. I think a little common sense would serve better than a jacket. Either walk around the puddle/quagmire, put down some planking or let the man carry her across. These all seem to be more intelligent solutions to the problem.

[averagejoe]

Anyone who thinks walking on mud and fabric is any easier than walking on mud alone- just try it. I think a little common sense would serve better than a jacket. Either walk around the puddle/quagmire, put down some planking or let the man carry her across. These all seem to be more intelligent solutions to the problem.

The whole thing is more of a cleche from older television shows, really.

Although, to be fair, I think if common sense were involved more ladies would wear sneakers in lieu of heels, and the whole thing wouldn't be an issue. Don't get me wrong, I like heels on ladies; it makes them easier to dance with, 'specially the shorter ones. However, at every dance I've ever attended, all the heel wearers tend to end up dancing in their stockings after the first half hour. If it's uncomfortable, then common sense would dictate not to wear them.

[Sisqui]

The whole thing is more of a cleche from older television shows, really.

Although, to be fair, I think if common sense were involved more ladies would wear sneakers in lieu of heels, and the whole thing wouldn't be an issue. Don't get me wrong, I like heels on ladies; it makes them easier to dance with, 'specially the shorter ones. However, at every dance I've ever attended, all the heel wearers tend to end up dancing in their stockings after the first half hour. If it's uncomfortable, then common sense would dictate not to wear them.

Er......I was referring to a time before sneakers. I am pretty sure no one had them in say, 1400 AD. :smallamused: By the time sneakers came around this particular mode of chivalry was long gone (if it ever really existed to begin with).

EDIT: WOOT!! My son crawled for the first time today!! Being a Momma is one gender role I like! :smallsmile:

[Orzel]

How 'bout if we cut a deal and I say my clone will let you drink all of her beer? Unlike Khantalas, I am very considerate of others :smallwink:

Okay. I can deal with that.

I carry my women over puddles in my arms. Or I knock off some guy and she walks on his spine.

He's crawling now. Soon he'll be punching guys who insult his woman.

[Sisqui]

He's crawling now. Soon he'll be punching guys who insult his woman.

He'd damn well better! If he doesn't, his Mamma will be punching him. In public. Where girls can see. DON'T MESS WITH MAMMA!

[Orzel]

With your genes, I'm sure he'll bust many a lip.

Just don't teach him any coat to ground crap.

[Sisqui]

With your genes, I'm sure he'll bust many a lip.

Just don't teach him any coat to ground crap.

I have a strict no-coat-on-mud policy. Especially if I have to clean it!

[averagejoe]

Er......I was referring to a time before sneakers. I am pretty sure no one had them in say, 1400 AD. :smallamused: By the time sneakers came around this particular mode of chivalry was long gone (if it ever really existed to begin with).

EDIT: WOOT!! My son crawled for the first time today!! Being a Momma is one gender role I like! :smallsmile:

Yeah, just sayin. Congrats on the son thing, though I wouldn't underestimate the benifits of fatherhood either. :smalltongue:


He'd damn well better! If he doesn't, his Mamma will be punching him. In public. Where girls can see. DON'T MESS WITH MAMMA!

Remember kids, Mr. T says you can't trust a man who don't love his momma.

http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~dberneyn/mr%20t.jpg

Seriously, though, why the violence? I find such people to be beneath my attention. (The insulters, I mean.)

[Sisqui]

Yeah, just sayin. Congrats on the son thing, though I wouldn't underestimate the benifits of fatherhood either.

As my son seems to be an exact replica of his father, that would be very hard to do. Boy got nuthin from me. Nada. Zip. Zee-ro. :smallannoyed:



Seriously, though, why the violence? I find such people to be beneath my attention. (The insulters, I mean.)

It would depend on the severity of the insult. And, really, that type of behavior is more about showing her how you feel, and that you will not allow her to be verbally abused, than it is about whatever yahoo is doing the insulting. But, just for you, I will make the concession that violence is a last resort. (There, you twisted my arm, happy now?:smallwink: ) But it is still an option :smallbiggrin:

[Orzel]

You can't jump on any insult. And like Mamma Sisqui said, it's more of "I care about you too much that I can't let people disrespect you like that" than "That guy can't say that to you. I'm gonna kick his butt for that, babe."

It's the same as counterdissing a sibling of your girl after they tease her.

[Sisqui]

It's like letting someone say "Your Momma wears combat boots and dresses you funny." Or however that went....

[Vuzzmop]

Sexism is discrimination based on gender. Aren't the different toilets doing that? Changing rooms? Clothing?

I believe that one gender toilets and changing rooms are meant to stop people perving on the other sex when they are naked. It isn't meant to simply discriminate, but to make those who are in a vulnerable situation feel more comfortable.

[Rachel Lorelei]

Oh, geez. It's not your job to protect someone from disrespect, and violence is NOT an acceptable response to insults.

[Sisqui]

Oh, geez. It's not your job to protect someone from disrespect, and violence is NOT an acceptable response to insults.

Never underestimate the therapeutic value of a good beat down. :smallwink:

EDIT:And I mean that literally, too. If someone is going around insulting women, sooner or later his mouth is going to write a check his butt is going to have to cash. Better for him to get a fist in the face than a bullet to the head. It might teach him a thing or two. (Although I suppose fistfighting is best left to the formative teenage years when you are less likely to get hauled off to jail. But what a man like that really needs is a Momma to fire his butt up!) And yes, it is my place to prevent a loved one from being spoken to like that. That's why I call them LOVED ones. But I would step in if a stranger were being insulted or harrassed in public too.

However, I would also like to say to some people who have evidently taken some posts far more seriously than they were meant: lighten up people!

[Cyrano]

Really? Cuz, yaknow, Prison always seemed an untherapuetic place to me. Never been there, of course. Maybe you could test your theory and tell us, Sis?

[Orzel]

Oh, geez. It's not your job to protect someone from disrespect,


It's not a job. It's a willingness to perform the task. "One of us is going to stop the disrespect and if it's me, I might hit him. Because I love you, and I can't let this thing fly."



and violence is NOT an acceptable response to insults.

What kind of crazy are you talking?!!! Violence and yelling is a way of life here.

[North]

Pain - Natures way of saying "dont do that!"

[Orzel]

Really? Cuz, yaknow, Prison always seemed an untherapuetic place to me. Never been there, of course. Maybe you could test your theory and tell us, Sis?

If you go to prison, you're doing it wrong.

[Sisqui]

Pain - Natures way of saying "dont do that!"

I wholeheartedly agree! That saying is right up there with "Terminal stupidity is self-correcting." :smallbiggrin:

[averagejoe]

Never underestimate the therapeutic value of a good beat down. :smallwink:

EDIT:And I mean that literally, too. If someone is going around insulting women, sooner or later his mouth is going to write a check his butt is going to have to cash. Better for him to get a fist in the face than a bullet to the head. It might teach him a thing or too. (Although I suppose fistfighting is best left to the formative teenage years when you are less likely to get hauled off to jail. But what a man like that really needs is a Momma to fire his butt up!) And yes, it is my place to prevent a loved one from being spoken to like that. That's why I call them LOVED ones. But I would step in if a stranger were being insulted or harrassed in public too.

However, I would also like to say to some people who have evidently taken some posts far more seriously than they were meant: lighten up people!

Perhaps it's meant to be lighthearted, but this is something I take very seriously, as a man who could probably take on a good portion of the male population (not at once, though :smallbiggrin: ) I can take a joke, but the idea that violence isn't okay, except when you decide it is, is one that really genuinely bothers me. The victim of your violence is more likely to either be mad at you or think, "Okay, it's only not alright to disrespect women with a boyfriend who can beat me up," than suddenly start respecting women. It's been my experience that violence merely begets violence.

See, my mother had always told me to ignore people who insult either me or her; that such violence is merely me playing their game instead of rising above it. I just think there are better ways of showing someone you care than beating the crap out of someone else. Sure, if I thought he might become violent then my fists might have something to say, but that's more of an issue of personal safety. The need to beat people up is just pride screwing with you, in more the deadly sin sense than the being proud of your child sense.

[Vuzzmop]

Oh, geez. It's not your job to protect someone from disrespect, and violence is NOT an acceptable response to insults.

It's true, in such trivial matters, violence cannot solve anything, but neither you or I would allow a girlfriend to be insulted without some form of defense. If a loved one is actually insulted or feels disrespected, it should be your responsibility to help in some way, should they need it. The whole jealous boyfriend "you talk'n to my girl?" thing is a little bit neanderthal though, and I understand where you're coming from.

Giving in to a person's insults is merely a way of allowing them to suck you down to their level. I face bullies like this all the time, and the only real way to protect you, or your less resilient friends from them is to ignore them for the most part, then burn them in a verbal way, not going so far as to be sucked in, but to knock them down a peg. Allow your loved ones to defend themselves, but help out if help is needed, instead of simply ignoring it. They're your loved ones for a reason.

[Sisqui]

It's true, in such trivial matters, violence cannot solve anything, but neither you or I would allow a girlfriend to be insulted without some form of defense. If a loved one is actually insulted or feels disrespected, it should be your responsibility to help in some way, should they need it. The whole jealous boyfriend "you talk'n to my girl?" thing is a little bit neanderthal though, and I understand where you're coming from.


I agree with that. I wasn't referring to situations where someone is just jealous of another man being interested in his significant other. (Actually, I would think that is flattering. It means I probably have good taste :smallwink: )


Perhaps it's meant to be lighthearted, but this is something I take very seriously, as a man who could probably take on a good portion of the male population (not at once, though)

What? Wimp!! No wonder I captured you so easily. *releases averagejoe from male harem as he has just shown that he is obviously an inferior male* :smalltongue:


See, my mother had always told me to ignore people who insult either me or her; that such violence is merely me playing their game instead of rising above it. I just think there are better ways of showing someone you care than beating the crap out of someone else. Sure, if I thought he might become violent then my fists might have something to say, but that's more of an issue of personal safety. The need to beat people up is just pride screwing with you, in more the deadly sin sense than the being proud of your child sense.

This part responded to in PM.
EDIT: @V That meant private message, not post meridian:smallbiggrin:

[Cyrano]

No, Sisqui don't do it! I can't STAND the extra wait for your glorious replies!
No, most of that WASN'T sarcasm. Except the glorious. And I'm sitting down.

Giving in to a person's insults is merely a way of allowing them to suck you down to their level. I face bullies like this all the time, and the only real way to protect you, or your less resilient friends from them is to ignore them for the most part, then burn them in a verbal way, not going so far as to be sucked in, but to knock them down a peg. Allow your loved ones to defend themselves, but help out if help is needed, instead of simply ignoring it. They're your loved ones for a reason.
Now, this is what I'm really responding too.
Giving in to a person's insults is merely a way of COMPLETELY AVOIDING THEIR LEVEL.

To examplify (not a real word)

Dude 1: Yo momma eees FAT!
Dude 2: Yo momma eees UGLY!

Hence, we have an ever reccuring cycle of stupidity.

Dude 1: To momma eees FAT!
Dude 2: *walks away*
Dude 1: AND UGLY!
Dude 2: *Not there anymore*
Dude 1: I'm lonely.

Hence, we remove the cycle.
Physical violence? I'm not going to pretend to be in a position to make judgement calls here. But allowing something to pass for yourself? Sure. Go ahead.
Now, loved ones? Trickier. Now, PLEASE don't call me sexist because I would stand up for my girlfriend and not my brother. But in fact, I would stand up for a girlfriend, a boyfriend, a father, a mother, whatever. However, common sense takes hold. If some says your mother is a, er, lady of ill repute, than who the hell cares? That gets thrown around all the time, it doesn't matter. Just leave. But some more serious things, they may require a little defense. HOWEVER, I would suggest a simple "Honey, do you want me to do something about this?" A lot of people I know would say "No, let's not ruin the evening" and leave. Simple. Infinitely more pleasant.

Ultimately, you agree with me in the first bit, but we diverge in the last. Don't bother knocking them down a peg. They're rock bottom. Just please, use common sense. It ain't that hard.

[0wca]

I would just like to say on this subject. I think that if you see two people insulting each other that it's their buisness, unless one of them is your sibling/mate/friend or someone that you would stand up for.. although before we do anything it's still best to ask if it's ok for you to intervene. Unless it gets ugly - then it's almost always good to step in.

But I agree with the fact, that if someone comes up to someone I care about and starts bitching at him/her and it's going to get ugly, then you should break his damn arm!

It's always good to avoid violence if possible, but as a wise man once said: "Sometimes we must cut off a finger to save a hand." :smallsmile:

[Holy_Knight]

Strawman n.: any counter-example on a web-based discussion which clearly and comprehensively destroys the writer's argument and thus needs must be swiftly dismissed in order to not draw any further attention to the damage it has done to his or her position. c.f. cliche - anything so obviously true or universally agreed upon that the writer can not marshal any argument whatsoever against it.
Cute, nagora, but it really was a strawman argument. She was comparing blackface--something used for the explicit purpose of demeaning African Americans--with chivalry toward women, which is intended to demonstrate respect. Even if one thinks that such behavior is actually bad underneath due to its origins or what have you, the two things are not analogous.

Furthermore, the phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" is a cliche, but--as I insinuated before--not even a true one. People like to throw it around whenever anyone brings up intentions in a discussion, and act like it actually proves something, when it doesn't. Yes, Good intentions sometimes lead to bad results--so what? It doesn't change the fact that most often, good intentions and good results go hand in hand, as do bad intentions with bad results. Good intentions are a sign of a desire to bring about people's well-being. To have the force you seem to want it to, your pet phrase would need to mean something like "good intentions usually lead to bad ends", which is false. So it's either true, but trivial, or meaningful but false, and in neither case does it add anything of value to a discussion.

So there you go. I didn't type all this out before in the interest of brevity, but hopefully now you feel better. You'll notice that I haven't been just calling things cliches and strawmen, most of what has been posted by Rachel and others have been legitimate points, even if I disagreed with them. Of course, if you have a response to what I've said here that's in that same vein, and not just a rather baseless sarcasm, I'd be happy to respond to that too.


Actually, I think what I meant there wasn't exactly clear. What I meant was, before a man and woman meet each other, they are essentially Generic Female X and Generic Male Y. They have individual identities, but they have no knowledge of what the other's identity consists of. They simply do not know each other as people. When they make initial contact, they may upgrade each other to Attractive/Unattractive Female X or Y because there is now at least some relevant information present about the individual in question. However, at this point, they are really still generic to each other, interchangeable with the vast numbers of other males and females. In this stage, where attraction from a distance is possible, they essentially are sex objects to each other. Part of the "mating rituals" that a lot of people criticize as being silly or sexist were created for the specific purpose of moving the relationship forward from this stage. But this stage must come first (well, unless you write/email/phone each other first, but in that case you aren't really in the generic category anymore.) My point was, when men try to be polite to a woman, or do things to court her, it is their specific intention to move beyond the generic sex object stage to getting to know the person as an individual. And let me tell you, a woman blowing up in a man's face when he is trying to do so usually tells him all he needs to know about her to make a decision as to whether or not she is worth pursuing. Sorry if the earlier post was unclear. :smallsmile:
No, that sounds right. I had just thought you misunderstood what other people meant when they said "sex object", but I pretty much agree with what you wrote here.


Here's a question for you chivilrous dudes out there; does anyone acually lay their coats down in the mud so that the lady doesn't get her shoes dirty anymore?
No, that always seemed like it would accomplish nothing but getting a jacket dirty. (Plus what if it gets cold later? Then you can't offer the lady your jacket, because it's all dirty now!) I did one time put my jacket on a dirty floor so a female friend could sit on it, although she didn't accept the gesture. The same friend did take my hand so she could walk across a patch of ice though--with the result that she did get across safely, but I was pulled down and fell. It was actually kind of funny.


Beer flavored anything is blech! :yuk:
gotta agree with you there. I've never liked beer--it's kind of like if you liquefied a bad-tasting muffin or something. :smallannoyed:



Remember kids, Mr. T says you can't trust a man who don't love his momma.

http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~dberneyn/mr%20t.jpg


How true this is. One time I was channel surfing, and I came across Mr. T giving a sermon, and it was basically on how Mother's Day was bad, because it was shameful to only set aside one day to honor our mothers because they deserve so much more than that. It was actually pretty touching. He talked about his own mother and all the sacrifices she made so that he and his siblings could have a better life.


Oh, geez. It's not your job to protect someone from disrespect, and violence is NOT an acceptable response to insults.
Honestly, I think it would depend on just what was said. In general I agree with you, and violence is certainly a last resort. But if someone said something seriously threatening, or particularly foul-natured, a physical response might be justified in certain cases.

[Thrawn183]

It's true, in such trivial matters, violence cannot solve anything, but neither you or I would allow a girlfriend to be insulted without some form of defense. .

What!? Violence can solve anything. You just have to realize that the solution might not always be pretty.

----------------------

I've never understood the whole, aggressive defense of your significant other. I mean, I would understand if somebody slandered them on the news or something and actually caused them harm, but getting pissy over a simple insult? That said, I think a lot of people would make sure to not be so annoying if they got their asses handed to them every once in a while.

[Thrawn183]

I think chivalry kind of falls into line with societal expectations. Here's a funny example. I have heard a lot of women talk about to resorting to striking in the nuts. Whenever they say that around guys... the whole conversation comes to a halt. Why? Because most guys don't hit other guys in the nards without serious provocation, its just not done. I usually step in and say something along the lines of, "Uh, no actually you really, really shouldn't do that unless you were already willing to just stab the guy." That's usually met with a blank stare. I then follow with, "The only time you should resort to that, is if you are desperate, and at that point you should be willing to do a lot worse." Generally the girl in question realizes that I am, of course, right and renegs on the position.

I understand that generally they are just joking, but people don't realize that if you say something enough it just kind of becomes ingrained. It breaks down the barrier of being totally unacceptable.


The following may really make people mad, it may make people laugh, discretion is advised (heck, I feel like a newscaster now, maybe I'm distantly related to Trog)

I bring this up because I had an encounter many years ago at school that proceed as follows:
Girl: *Kicks Thrawn in nuts*
Girl: "Haha, you can't hit me back because I'm a girl."
Thrawn: *Socks evil girl in the kisser*
Girl: *Runs off crying*
Thrawn: "Well, I'm glad somebody benefited from that." (In a sarcastic tone)
Thrawn: *Goes and sits down for a few minutes.*

Now what is the problem here? The problem is that someone thought that I would be bound to a system of behavior, even if they broke the one to which they themselves were beholden to. So they got themselves way over their head in a situation they didn't expect.
Seriously though, who decided its a good idea to teach girls to defend themselves by aiming below the belt? I know I can certainly keep going after one or two shots there. Go for the eyes.


Personal Opinion: Chivalry isn't dead, its just taking a beating due to men being held to standards that are unreasonable in comparison to the ones women are being held to. They aren't unreasonable in and of themselves. Just when considered relative to eachother.

I like Chivalry. I like people having goals to strive for. Measuring posts to judge how far they have gone and managed to achieve. It would sadden me greatly to see it disappear. It would sadden me even more to know that it disappeared because its practicers were looked down upon by the very people they wished to impress.

[FdL]

To sum up your post: Chivalry isn't dead but it's getting severely kicked in the nuts.

[Thrawn183]

To sum up your post: Chivalry isn't dead but it's getting severely kicked in the nuts.

That's actually... exactly what I was trying to say. Elegent and direct.
*rassfarassin kids stealin' the words out of my mouth*

Edit:
It's been at least 10 minutes, and I'm still astounded by how perfect a response you gave. Man. Maybe I just need sleep.

[Indon]

I have heard a lot of women talk about to resorting to striking in the nuts.


Well, a groinal strike carries less risk of permanent injury, compared to, say, an eye gouge, or breaking a small joint. It shouldn't be discounted in combat, against either men or women, particularly if you aren't facing a threat to your life.

There's another point of Chivalry-as-combat-code: Attack only when a threat is presented, using appropriate levels of force to neutralize the threat.

[SDF]

No, groin trauma can result in several serious medical problems.

[Trog]

(heck, I feel like a newscaster now, maybe I'm distantly related to Trog)
*You flip to the Chivalry Channel and see Trog sitting behind a desk wearing glasses*

In other news tonight there has been a recent outbreak of nut kicking. Sources close to the victims state that they are recovering slowly, and their voices have, indeed, gotten higher. In response to this groups of males have been holding doors for women only to slam them on their breasts as they try to pass through.

Trog hasn't seen this much swelling since he watched Leave it to Beaver.

*Talks to someone off camera* NO! Not like that! It was a show! Sheesh! Get your head out of the gutter. What? No Trog can't read the teleprompter thank you very much thanks to these ridiculous glasses you wanted Trog to wear so Trog's just making this up you bunch of stupid f- *TEST PATTERN and OOOOOOO-ing noise*

[Indon]

No, groin trauma can result in several serious medical problems.

I didn't say no risk, but I guess that breaking a finger or something is probably lower-risk.

[magicwalker]

If chivalry is dead, then it's because all the chivalrous died performing their chilvarous deeds! (I have scars from a recent chivalry attempt)

I don't really understand what the big deal is, as long as you aren't doing it simply to get attention.. the idea is to perform some task that, while someone else is fully capable of doing, you do out of service to them.

EDIT:

To all people who think physical violence is an acceptable means of dispute resolution:

No one wins in a fight. Period. What are you going to achieve by roughing someone up? Make them think twice about saying that again? Maybe you roughing them is 'writing the check that you can't cash' when the next time they one-up you. Let me give you an example.

Guy 1: [says something jokingly threatening]
Guy 2: Is that so?
Guy 2 punches Guy 1 in the face, breaking 4 bones which _will_ require surgery and thousands of dollars of medical bills.
Guy 2 gets in car and drives off.

Guy 1 is going to think twice about using appropriate words in the context of strangers, but if ever see's Guy 2 again he'll probably call Guy 3. And Guy 3, well he'll set your house on fire and shoot anyone that comes out the doors...

Yup, lots of crazy people out there. They also happen to be the ones that say inappropriate things.

[averagejoe]

If chivalry is dead, then it's because all the chivalrous died performing their chilvarous deeds! (I have scars from a recent chivalry attempt)

You got scars from killing people of a different religion from you? :smalleek:

[magicwalker]

Slipped and fell trying to help a girl who had slipped and fallen (ice on a hill). Three gashes in my palm and half a dozen other lacerations on my finger tips. Not exactly my finest hour.

[Sisqui]

EDIT:

To all people who think physical violence is an acceptable means of dispute resolution:

Many war historians will disagree with that. Violence is not always, nor even often, an acceptable means. However, it is sometimes.


Guy 1: [says something jokingly threatening]

A joking or half hearted threat would not be one of those times. I think most people are referring to outright verbal abuse. And I don't think anyone said responding to it with violence would be their first resort. But, the reality is, defending yourself or someone else from it at all may escalate the confrontation into a violent one and walking away may actually do the same. You can either look weak and invite predatory behavior or defend yourself and hope the situation doesn't escalate. One or the other. My choice is mine, yours is yours.

[magicwalker]

@Sisqui:

Well if any war historians give me any lip service, I guess I have free reign to rough them up a little bit to change their views. They enjoy irony, right?

Just remember, the difference between inviting the first punch and throwing the first punch is whether or not your defense is court is legally justified. Self defense gets a slap on the wrist, assault gets you a free vacation to Orange Jumpsuit Land.

I would argue that: getting worked over verbally beats getting worked over physically any day and the division of humans into predator/prey ignores an entire spectrum of human behavior, the bigger man does walk away.

Of course if you walk away and he pursues you and starts gettin' shovey, then you do have to "represent" and "learn" him something.

[Sisqui]

@Sisqui:


Of course if you walk away and he pursues you and starts gettin' shovey, then you do have to "represent" and "learn" him something.

Ummm.........that was the scenario I was talking about. That was what I meant by doing something the aggressor sees as weak. Also, in a situation like that, I think I'll go with the saying, "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six." I'm not going to worry about legal defenses when it is much more important to worry about self defense. The main point I am trying to make, though, is that while it may be better for all concerned to just walk away from a fight, you can't be blind to human nature. The kind of people who engage in that type of behavior- insulting a woman in front of her significant other- are already looking for a fight. If you choose to walk away, don't assume that the other person is going to say "Oh, well" and let it go. That may be the last assumption you ever make. People that blatantly aggressive are generally bullies looking to gain status or dominance through that type of behavior. Standing up to them and not allowing them to see you as weak or as an easy target is vital. I am not talking about what goes on in some internet chat where we can all say "I'll take the moral high ground, therefore I win." I am talking about real life where looking like an easy victim can make you exactly that.

But, this is a chivalry thread, not an "appropriate use of violence" thread, so I'll take the high ground and drop the argument. :smallwink:

[Pyrian]

I'm not sure WHAT you're trying to say, here, Sisqui. Are you actually advocating pre-emptively slugging someone for insulting your girlfriend? And defending it by claiming that's a life-or-death situation?

Just walk away. Keep an eye out, mind, and a stern, unfriendly one at that. But don't pick a fight and don't escalate. That's just stupid; you don't know if you can win, you don't know what support or weaponry they might have access to. Reserve the use of force for actual self-defense.

[Death, your friend the Reaper]

you don't know what support or weaponry they might have access to.


http://us.ent3.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/columbia_pictures/men_in_black_ii/wormguns.jpg

Therefore make sure you carry one of these "negotiators".

[Cyrano]

http://us.ent3.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/columbia_pictures/men_in_black_ii/wormguns.jpg

Therefore make sure you carry one of these "negotiators".

This is a "Is chivalry dead" subject.he IS the authority.

[Sisqui]

I'm not sure WHAT you're trying to say, here, Sisqui. Are you actually advocating pre-emptively slugging someone for insulting your girlfriend? And defending it by claiming that's a life-or-death situation?

Just walk away. Keep an eye out, mind, and a stern, unfriendly one at that. But don't pick a fight and don't escalate. That's just stupid; you don't know if you can win, you don't know what support or weaponry they might have access to. Reserve the use of force for actual self-defense.

That is essentially what I was saying. If the person doing the insulting is just mouthing off or rude in general, then just walk away, the person is probably just an airbag. But, the person may pose a more serious threat than that. What threat they actually pose would have to be something you assessed in that particular situation (essentially what you said). Whether or not you strike preemptively would depend on the conclusion you reached in a given situation. And I am definitely supporting the use of self defense if he strikes first. Or, to put it another way, walk away if you think you can, but do not assume you can. The aggressor may not give you that option. Don't look for the violence, but don't pretend it will never occur either. And if it does, be aggressive enough quickly enough to respond to the threat.

I would also like to say (again) that the original posts that started this discussion were jokes. And (again) that this is a chivalry thread not a random violence thread. If anyone wants a further clarification of what I think, just PM me. I don't want the thread to get locked because we are so far off topic.

[Thrawn183]

How Thrawn interprets Sisqui:
You don't throw the first punch but you don't make yourself vulnerable to one either. You hold your ground. There is a difference between being assertive and aggressive/defensive. Some things are important and should therefore be protected. (ie. standing up fo' yo woman)

If I am incorrect please enlighten me.

[Sisqui]

How Thrawn interprets Sisqui:
You don't throw the first punch but you don't make yourself vulnerable to one either. You hold your ground. There is a difference between being assertive and aggressive/defensive. Some things are important and should therefore be protected. (ie. standing up fo' yo woman)

If I am incorrect please enlighten me.

You are thoroughly correct :smallsmile:

[Pyrian]

That is essentially what I was saying.Except that you're going to go on to say this:


Whether or not you strike preemptively would depend on the conclusion you reached in a given situation.So, you are advocating pre-emptive violence. When? Why? It's an extreme (and in most places blatantly illegal) position and I think you should defend it. The only thing I can think of is if someone went for a weapon or blocked retreat - such acts can be treated as acts of violence, and a prejudiced response as self-defense.


Or, to put it another way, walk away if you think you can, but do not assume you can.Every act is an assumption that you can; right here it looks like you're advocating assuming you cannot walk away. Short of someone drawing or pointing a weapon at you (concepts of "escalation" are over at that point), I disagree with this. You need to first assume you can walk away, rather than assuming that you can't and escalating the problem unnecessarily.

Hell, I've backed off and walked away from at least one situation where someone had already swung at me.


The aggressor may not give you that option.Of course, that's what an aggressor is, but I don't see that possibility as justifying becoming the aggressor, which is what you're advocating when you recommend pre-emptive violence under as-yet undefined conditions. BTW, trying to "act tough" will frequently reduce the other person's option of backing down - especially if they're in the presence of friends.


And (again) that this is a chivalry thread not a random violence thread.Well, the situation is still based around someone insulting your significant other, so I think it still qualifies.


How Thrawn interprets Sisqui:
You don't throw the first punch...Well, what he's posted repeatedly is that under some circumstances you DO initiate violence.

[averagejoe]

But, this is a chivalry thread, not an "appropriate use of violence" thread, so I'll take the high ground and drop the argument. :smallwink:

I thought chivalry dictated appropriate uses of violence. :smallconfused:

[BlackStaticWolf]

I'm going to respond because I think I understand what Sisqui is saying, and I agree.


So, you are advocating pre-emptive violence. When?

As Sisqui has said, every situation is different and has to be assessed within its own context. It really boils down to two simple and broad questions:

1) Do I feel physically threatened?
2) Do I think, based upon my experience, that he'll let me walk away?

If the answer to the first is yes, and the answer to the second is no... then I will strike first. And I'll strike in a way that's most likely to end the fight as quickly as possible with minimal injury to both of us.


Why?

To prevent harm to oneself or another by never giving the person threatening you a chance to strike. Ideally, you make that first strike good enough that he doesn't have the chance to strike back.


It's an extreme (and in most places blatantly illegal)

Actually, the legality is EXTREMELY varied and dependant on the country and in the US even the state. In most states in the US you ARE allowed to strike first if you are faced with a credible physical threat to either yourself or another. What constitutes a credible physical threat varies from state to state, but generally once the agressor commits an assault (legally defined as placing someone in fear for their physical safety), the victim is allowed to act to prevent the feared battery (legally defined as the actual physical striking with fist or object). So it's really not blatantly illegal at all.

On a related note, prosecutors (in the US) have very broad discretion in what they choose to prosecute, and VERY few will even seek an indictment in a clear cut case of self defense. In fact, I personally know two prosecutors who have chosen not press charges in a case of self defense where the defender struck first (one was a home invasion, and I hesitate to include it as anecdotal evidence because the invasion itself could actually be considered a "first strike").

But, and this is speaking as a future prosecutor, you should worry about your physical safety before any other concerns. The fact that you didn't commit a crime is a rather pitiful consolation prize if you're grievously injured or killed.


Every act is an assumption that you can; right here it looks like you're advocating assuming you cannot walk away.

No, I think you're wrong about what Sisqui is advocating. It seems to me that what she's saying is that you shouldn't assume either way in advance, but should instead make that determination on the spot based upon the context of the situation.


Short of someone drawing or pointing a weapon at you (concepts of "escalation" are over at that point), I disagree with this. You need to first assume you can walk away, rather than assuming that you can't and escalating the problem unnecessarily.

No... you need to assume NOTHING.


Hell, I've backed off and walked away from at least one situation where someone had already swung at me.

You're lucky. I tried that once. He proceeded to hit me while my back was turned. If your agressor wants a fight and he's not just posturing, then he's not going to let you walk away, and if you leave yourself open, you're just asking to be sucker punched (or worse).

I'll attempt to diffuse a volatile situation with my words, but I will not do anything that makes me appear weak or open to attack.


Well, the situation is still based around someone insulting your significant other, so I think it still qualifies.

I agree. What could be more chivalrous than defending a damsel in distress? :smallwink:


Well, what he's posted repeatedly is that under some circumstances you DO initiate violence.

But not the actual conflict. There's a very important difference.

[magicwalker]

If you consider initiating violence, whether or not you started the conflict, because someone is verbally harassing you as being chivalrous.. then I think that very much proves my point.

Chivalry is dead, because everyone being chivalrous gets killed trying to be chivalrous.

Seriously, folks, if someone is picking a fight with you and you don't want to fight. Walk away. Hell, RUN away.

If you allow or facilitate a conflict to escalate to violence.. what positive outcome can result? I don't know what your experience is, but in my experience no one wins.

[Thrawn183]

I think you're missing the point. The point is that it is assumed violence will occur and is therefore already unavoidable. In such a situation you have three options: fight, flee or pretend you're Ghandi (which I really, really advise against).

I'm certainly not advocating turning to violence because somebody's a jerk and is being verbally abusive. The problem is two different situations are being discussed: one where somebody reacts to an insult, another where somebody reacts to something that they believe will escalate despite their best efforts to the contrary.

And as for nobody winning when it comes to violence? I'd rather neither of us win than just me lose.

[magicwalker]

@Thrawn183

Assuming that violence is inevitable, I would still prescribe the better part of valor. Seriously, what are you going to do? You throw the first punch. Congratulations, now you're in a fight. This is the part where you get punched, kicked, stabbed, and/or stabbed. Someone is out to pick a fight, do you think they're going to unprepared?

Squaring off with them is not going to have positive results. Are you going to intimidate them, back them down or something? Or now that you actually pose a challenge, maybe it will only encourage them. Maybe even make it more fun for them. You stick around and find out.

I'll take my chances making a strategic withdrawal, at which point I will have expended my "best efforts", and be left with no alternative. "Throwing the first punch" and "pre-emptive" violence is not your best effort.

[Sisqui]

I'm going to respond because I think I understand what Sisqui is saying, and I agree.



As Sisqui has said, every situation is different and has to be assessed within its own context. It really boils down to two simple and broad questions:
But not the actual conflict. There's a very important difference.

This entire post contains the essence of the argument I was making. To add to it would really be superfluous.


Originally Posted by Sisqui
And (again) that this is a chivalry thread not a random violence thread.


Well, the situation is still based around someone insulting your significant other, so I think it still qualifies.


I thought chivalry dictated appropriate uses of violence. :smallconfused:


I have reconsidered that point. Yes, I think this does belong in this thread but not for the reason you gave. Chivalry was about standing up for what you believed to be right (leaving all questions about actually being right aside) even if it came to violence or the threat of harm or death. I think this scenario qualifies. See, averagejoe, I can admit it when I'm wrong :smalltongue:




Well, what she's posted repeatedly is that under some circumstances you DO initiate violence.

Fixed that for you :smallbiggrin:


.

I'll take my chances making a strategic withdrawal, at which point I will have expended my "best efforts", and be left with no alternative. "Throwing the first punch" and "pre-emptive" violence is not your best effort.

Forgive me, but who said I was trying to force you to adopt my tactics? I said before, your choice is a valid one. If that is how you choose to react and you believe it to be justified, then by all means do so. However, my point, and the point of some of the others, I think, is this: the fight begins with the onset of the conflict, not with the launching of the first blow. The first punch does not start the fight even though it may end it. Anyone who is familiar with such things will tell you that most face to face fights are won through the interaction of the two sides beforehand. Psychological advantage and all that. A person who decides to be aggressive has already made his choice. Realizing too late that you are in a fight can be lethal.

But, I think thrawn is right, there are at least two different scenarios being discussed here. One in which there is an insult (I suppose just out of bad manners or some such) and another in which there is more blatant aggressive behavior on the part of the person doing the insulting. My original reaction to the scenario was to step back and ask myself, "What is this guy's motivation? What is he really after?" The answer to that, in my mind, was that the guy probably is far more aggressive than just being insulting. Looking past the insult itself you get to the thought process behind it. This guy is insulting a woman in front of her significant other. That implies that he knows there are two of you and is willing to pursue aggressive behavior anyway. In fact, I would say that his real target is the man and he is using the woman as a way to initiate the conflict. To me, this makes his behavior far more dangerous than the "Your girlfriend is fat" scenario that seems to be the other one floating around. Perhaps separating the two and addressing the response you would give each individually might help. Or not, if your response to them would be the same.




If you allow or facilitate a conflict to escalate to violence.. what positive outcome can result? I don't know what your experience is, but in my experience no one wins.

I grant you the value of your own experiences in deciding what to do for yourself. I have no real problem with you advocating that tactic to others. I have my own experiences to draw from and the conclusions I reached are different. And again, you seem to be assuming that this is the one response I would have to every conflict regardless of its severity or significance. But my position is, and has consistently been, that you have to constantly reassess the situation and respond as you see fit at each moment in time.

[Thrawn183]

I'll give you a real life example.

My sister and I were walking home to her apartment in Portland. We'd just had a very nice evening in the downtown and had taken public transportation home (hence the walking at the end of the trip). I heard a slight disturbance. It turned out to be someone who I assume was a druggie who had gone far too long since his last fix. He was riding a bike up the sidewalk harassing everyone walking by for money (who'd of guessed?). The man was visibly disturbed (ie. cursing at people as he rode by and just in general when no one was near).

We tried to avoid him via the path we walked but were unsuccessful as he came to us. I had about 4 seconds to decide on a course of action. Now, to finish setting the scene, I was 19 at the time. I'm 5'8" and quite fit. My sister is 5'1" (maybe a half inch shorter) and is not capable of beating up anybody. Running wasn't an option. Even I couldn't have run away simply because the guy had a bike, all I would have accomplished was exhausting myself. I stepped in front of my sister to draw attention to myself (the target most capable of defending itself) and said two words, "Go away."

I didn't yell. I didn't attack him. I simply held my ground and showed that I was quite prepared for whatever might happen (which doesn't require assuming a stance). Why did I do this? Because I made a split second judgement that this guy wanted money not to fight. As such, I didn't expect him to do anything. And I was right, oh sure he rode away screaming curses and such at us, but nothing bad happened.

Now, I'll freely admit that I was scared, but I knew that I had to protect my sister because she was incapable of doing so herself. I didn't want to fight, and I took the course of action that I considered to be least likely to lead to violence. Personally, I think I acted in a manner that is perfectly described as chivalrous.

I hope none of us on this thread have come off sounding like bullies or people walking around looking for an excuse to fight. I'm certain that everyone here would love to avoid a conflict if they could. We're simply approaching this from the perspective that sometimes conflict is inevitable, and that you should have something to govern your course of action in such times. Some of us are even saying that it might by chivalry.

Note* I would have acted in a different manner had my interpretation of his intent been different.

[Sisqui]

We tried to avoid him via the path we walked but were unsuccessful as he came to us. I had about 4 seconds to decide on a course of action. Now, to finish setting the scene, I was 19 at the time. I'm 5'8" and quite fit. My sister is 5'1" (maybe a half inch shorter) and is not capable of beating up anybody. Running wasn't an option. Even I couldn't have run away simply because the guy had a bike, all I would have accomplished was exhausting myself. I stepped in front of my sister to draw attention to myself (the target most capable of defending itself) and said two words, "Go away."



I can agree with all of that. You didn't go looking for the fight, but, at the same time, you let him know in no uncertain terms that if he came looking for one he'd definitely find it.

[Space-Is-Curved]

I agree with Sisqui, in that I think there are some circumstances that necessitate the first strike. Here is a fictitious example to explain as simply as possible.

Person A is a very tall, muscular, football player.
Person B is a smallish man, outmatched in strength and speed.

Person A walks up to Person B after an argument got slightly out of hand. Person A cracks his knuckles and throws off his jacket, obviously about to start a fight. Person B realizes that he could try to run, but he would be run down by Person A so he decides on option 2, i.e., kick to the nads (or possible kneecap), then run. Person B's goal is to escape, but it is necessary to strike first.

[horseboy]

To bring this back on topic.
I'm really surprised and slightly disappointed. Let's stop and look at the "high water marks" of Chivalry. You've got the 15th century, and the American South, circa the American Civil War. What do these things have in common?

Men were trained to open doors for ladies because they were too physically weak to open their own doors, they did it because women couldn't REACH the doors. Seriously. If you can get through a door on your own while wearing a hoop skirt..............we need to meet. Because apparently you're REALLY limber. :smallsmile:

Standing when a woman came into the room or when she went to leave the table was because you were going to have to get up anyway to help her with her prom dress from Hell. To do it as she starts something shows that you're paying attention to her. (Girls love it when you pay attention to them)

It has nothing to do with "subjugation" of women and everything with the practical problems of fashion.

The jacket thing comes from the American North East, thinking NYC. IIRC it was a baseball player.

Beer flavored stuff: I found some Guinness flavored cheese once. I fed it to the gamers along with some venison summer sausage and Ritz. We had to leave the house the gastric distress was so bad.

Violence: I have a strict "Look but don't touch" policy. They can say what they want, but the moment you put a hand on her, that hand now belongs to me.

Hitting women: I never hit women. If a friend female hits me I just laugh that they forgot how much that hurt them LAST time they tried that. Strangers hitting me, well, I'm VERY good at blocking. I can block hard. It usually only takes a couple attempts at hitting me before a woman stops. Unless of course, she tries a kick. That's easier to deal with, you just catch the foot and lift until they're off balance. Then you get to play with them like they're a yo-yo.

Nice guys: Nobody says you have to be a jerk all the time. This one time, I made a flippant joke about tuna not tasting right since they took the dolphin out of it. I deeply upset a woman like 4 rows back with that remark. A couple of days later she ran into me at the library. We started talking and realized that I wasn't a jerk, just sardonic. But that "jerk" joke had left an impression. As Mandy said: "Nice will get their attention, but mean sets the hook!" If you're up to the "advanced" tricks. Start off with some jerketry. Get her attention and let it fade. She'll think you've changed for her and you've not had to change anything about yourself. It's a win-win situation.

Did I miss anything?

[Pyrian]

1) Do I feel physically threatened?
2) Do I think, based upon my experience, that he'll let me walk away?
...
No... you need to assume NOTHING.These are contradictory. You can not make assumptions, or you can make judgments. But every judgment is an assumption, and every action is based on assumptions. Different people "feel" very differently about identical situations. If you "feel" threatened because somebody is feeding ducklings, (yes, that's hyperbole) that doesn't justify pre-emptive violence.


In most states in the US you ARE allowed to strike first if you are faced with a credible physical threat to either yourself or another.Like an insult to your girlfriend? Or taking a jacket off? What's a credible physical threat? Going for a weapon is a credible physical threat. Blocking retreat is a credible physical threat. Invading your home is generally considered a credible physical threat in the U.S., but generally not in the U.K.. But the examples we've been talking about in general and Sisqui in particular have not struck me as credible physical threats at all.


It seems to me that what she's saying is that you shouldn't assume either way in advance, but should instead make that determination on the spot based upon the context of the situation.This is masquerading as a response, but isn't. Of course the situation determines the response. But what situations determine what response? That was my question. And how you "feel" is frankly far to fuzzy to be an answer.



Hell, I've backed off and walked away from at least one situation where someone had already swung at me.You're lucky. I tried that once. He proceeded to hit me while my back was turned.I didn't turn my back on someone attacking me. Sheesh, it's like you didn't even read the text you quoted and replied to.


If your agressor wants a fight and he's not just posturing, then he's not going to let you walk away...That's an assumption, and not always a correct one.


...and if you leave yourself open, you're just asking to be sucker punched (or worse).This is a strawman argument. I do not advocate leaving yourself open. Turning your back on someone who'd already attacked was your mistake, not mine.


I'll attempt to diffuse a volatile situation with my words...Good. That's basically the opposite of pre-emptive violence.


But not the actual conflict. There's a very important difference.Escalating a "conflict" to violence is a very serious action and should not be taken lightly based on those assumptions you're trying to claim you don't have to make.


The point is that it is assumed violence will occur and is therefore already unavoidable.My issue is that these people are clearly (to me) advocating violence in response to situations where it is NOT clear that violence is unavoidable.


I'm certainly not advocating turning to violence because somebody's a jerk and is being verbally abusive.That is, of course, exactly where this discussion started. It was supposedly a joke, but it was never really disowned, either.


I'll take my chances making a strategic withdrawal, at which point I will have expended my "best efforts", and be left with no alternative. "Throwing the first punch" and "pre-emptive" violence is not your best effort.I generally agree with this. "Strategic withdrawal" is a good way of putting it.


My original reaction to the scenario was to step back and ask myself, "What is this guy's motivation? What is he really after?" The answer to that, in my mind, was that the guy probably is far more aggressive than just being insulting. Looking past the insult itself you get to the thought process behind it. This guy is insulting a woman in front of her significant other. That implies that he knows there are two of you and is willing to pursue aggressive behavior anyway. In fact, I would say that his real target is the man and he is using the woman as a way to initiate the conflict. To me, this makes his behavior far more dangerous than the "Your girlfriend is fat" scenario that seems to be the other one floating around. Perhaps separating the two and addressing the response you would give each individually might help. Or not, if your response to them would be the same.This is downright scary. This is you making extreme assumptions based on very little information and a whole lot of unsupported extrapolation - and at the end of this fallible thought process, you're physically attacking someone for merely being boorish.


I didn't attack him.
...
I didn't want to fight, and I took the course of action that I considered to be least likely to lead to violence.I think you handled that well. For one thing, no pre-emptive violence (which pretty much eliminates not leading to violence out of hand).


Person A cracks his knuckles and throws off his jacket, obviously about to start a fight.See, I've had plenty of people do exactly that to me with no fight ensuing, so I question the obviousness of a fight breaking out. This whole initiating violence under the assumption that someone else will is a pretty broken idea that leads to a lot of unnecessary fighting.

[horseboy]

Like an insult to your girlfriend? Or taking a jacket off? What's a credible physical threat? Going for a weapon is a credible physical threat. Blocking retreat is a credible physical threat. Invading your home is generally considered a credible physical threat in the U.S., but generally not in the U.K.. But the examples we've been talking about in general and Sisqui in particular have not struck me as credible physical threats at all.


Missouri and I believe Maryland (Haven't checked in other states) have a clause known as "fighting words." It acknowledges that certain words are the same as them taking a swing at you. Granted this usually falls into racial slurs and epithets, but there is a legal precedence for for having words be a credible threat.

[Sisqui]

This is downright scary. This is you making extreme assumptions based on very little information and a whole lot of unsupported extrapolation - and at the end of this fallible thought process, you're physically attacking someone for merely being boorish.


Life is scary. It also leaves very little time to get confirmation from two or more sources. But this is not making assumptions, it is analyzing the situation and asking yourself "What is the worst possible scenario?" and then trying to prepare for it. Of course you hope you are wrong and of course you wait until what you believe is the last possible moment to commit to a violent act. You aren't looking for a fight, just trying to be as prepared as you can be if it looks like one is inevitable. But failure to do as complete a threat assessment as possible within the constraints of the time you have can be deadly.

But, this is getting repetitive. I don't agree with you (although I will admit that walking away may be a viable option also). You don't agree with me. Neither of us is going to change our outlook. Everyone else can view the arguments presented and decide for themselves.

[Tor the Fallen]

Or is it just being kicked while down?

Seriously, in this modern day and age it seems that being a gentleman is not only rare, but often scorned. Even other women seem to scoff at it. Either you have the feminists who seem to think it is degrading to them somehow, or you have those who just like the 'bad boys'.

I have a friend shall we say who is probably the sweetest person I've ever met, and can't stand how guys seem to treat her. Yet she is so used to it that a guys she's just strictly friends with can make all sorts of really raunchy comments about her or others and its 'just a joke'. Really would have liked to knock this guy on his bum but how can you when everyone else thinks it's 'all in good fun'.

Crude humor can be amusing... but some things just aren't funny even when said in a teasing manner. But now it's just the norm.

It really depresses me at times...

Is chivalry dead? Depends on how you define it. If by chivalry you mean treating women as fragile, delicate flowers because as women, they are frail creatures who need the protection of men? Or chivalry as in "I do nice things cause I'm a great big blubbering wimp who doesn't have the balls to slam doors on cute girls?"

[Cyr]

(Forewarning, I read up to page 7, on 40 post pages, and am so sick and thoroughly tired of reading the lovely cycle they had going I thought I'd just skip ahead and talk about Chivalry)
I believe in Chivalry, more then most people, I give my seat so people can sit next to their friends (even though I'm also that person's friend.), I hold doors open (got nicknamed doorstop which stuck for a year once because of it), try and pay attention to what people are saying (I'm generally good if its not past about 8:15 PM), laugh with people, protect my friends, treat ladies like ladies, women like women, don't cuss, don't curse, refer to those older then me (10 years) (unless their my youth minister or blood relations), as Mr. and Ms. and Mrs., and never, ever, hurt anyone unless they hurt one of my friends first (I am free game, but I am overly protective of my friends and family.).

And I would pick up the bill. This is because I intend to do two things in my life (if the Lord wills):
1. Go into ministry
2. Have a family
The fact of the matter is, my career (for religious reasons only) is gonna determine where we live AND its gonna pay beans. And thats why I'll pay, because I want to, and if I don't, I'll feel like I'm not providing. And if I feel like that, I'll feel like a load of crud.

On a slight side subject (it got touched on earlier in the thread), I have been, literally, laughed at for saying I want to have kids at some point in the future as did one of my friends. And I totally respect guys who want to grow up and be stay-at-home dads and think that a stay-at-home parent is just as honourable, if not more, as working outside the home.

[The Prince of Cats]

Well, many people will say this is off-topic, but only until they give it a little bit of thought.

http://www.martinfirrell.com/supersecretthingy.html

The gist of it is this; the role model for 'man' is a thug and a bully. Look at the heroes we are expected to live up to... (ignoring David Beckham) They are soldiers, large but dim sportsmen, overpaid action-heroes, big dumb brutes.

A man who cries is less of a man, just like a man who shows any other feeling openly. A man with a big gun, a man with large muscles, a man who can drink a few bottles of Jack Daniels and still stand... These are 'real' men.

I think the word 'chivalry' is what is tripping us up here. The whole discussion is about the virtues which make a man and we argue over semantics.

"What a piece of work is man!"

[Indon]

In regards to the violence escalation discussion:

I don't feel that a fight should go straight from knuckle-cracking to blows. Rather, being indoctrinated as I am in the military escalation of force procedure, which often includes "show of force", I feel that it is appropriate to state, plainly, that one intends to use violence when presented with a physical threat, in proportion to the threat.

It's much clearer than cracking your knuckles, and it reduces (and may waive depending on circumstance) your legal liability (specifically in civil court) for any injury you should inflict in self-defense.

[horseboy]

Well, many people will say this is off-topic, but only until they give it a little bit of thought.

http://www.martinfirrell.com/supersecretthingy.html

The gist of it is this; the role model for 'man' is a thug and a bully. Look at the heroes we are expected to live up to... (ignoring David Beckham) They are soldiers, large but dim sportsmen, overpaid action-heroes, big dumb brutes.

A man who cries is less of a man, just like a man who shows any other feeling openly. A man with a big gun, a man with large muscles, a man who can drink a few bottles of Jack Daniels and still stand... These are 'real' men.

I think the word 'chivalry' is what is tripping us up here. The whole discussion is about the virtues which make a man and we argue over semantics.

"What a piece of work is man!"

Who's David Beckham?
The audio on that like was really bad, I have no idea what he said.
What's wrong with soldiers?
You're pretty much discussing the "He-man" cliche of masculinity. A Chivalric man knows how to fight, but he also knows WHEN to fight. That's a lesson that really needs to be taught to boys more now a days.

[Thrawn183]

Crying? Every one of my friends agrees with me that there are times where it is appropriate to cry. What's looked down upon is when people just cry at every little thing.

My lab partner last Tuesday? Was talking about how she was about to start crying because lab was taking longer than expected and we were only going to get out an hour early rather than the hour and a half that I can usually manage to blast us through at.

Its not, "Wow, that wimp is crying." Its more along the lines of, "Wow, that guy's crying from a paper cut." (I'd still excuse it if the person was a hemophiliac btw, its a special case). Every case has to be examined while taking the circumstances into account.

[Sisqui]

Crying? Every one of my friends agrees with me that there are times where it is appropriate to cry. What's looked down upon is when people just cry at every little thing.

My lab partner last Tuesday? Was talking about how she was about to start crying because lab was taking longer than expected and we were only going to get out an hour early rather than the hour and a half that I can usually manage to blast us through at.

Its not, "Wow, that wimp is crying." Its more along the lines of, "Wow, that guy's crying from a paper cut." (I'd still excuse it if the person was a hemophiliac btw, its a special case). Every case has to be examined while taking the circumstances into account.

I can agree with that. A man having emotions isn't a bad thing. But the thought of him being emo is what I don't like. But then, I don't like girls that way either. Or the ones into too much "sharing" and such :smalleek: or :smallannoyed: I can't decide.

Crying because a family member died or you broke up with a lover is OK. Someone crying over trivial things all the time would bother me and, I will admit it, it would bother me more in a man.

[averagejoe]

Crying? Every one of my friends agrees with me that there are times where it is appropriate to cry. What's looked down upon is when people just cry at every little thing.

My lab partner last Tuesday? Was talking about how she was about to start crying because lab was taking longer than expected and we were only going to get out an hour early rather than the hour and a half that I can usually manage to blast us through at.

Its not, "Wow, that wimp is crying." Its more along the lines of, "Wow, that guy's crying from a paper cut." (I'd still excuse it if the person was a hemophiliac btw, its a special case). Every case has to be examined while taking the circumstances into account.

I'd venture a guess and say that he wasn't crying over the lab per se, but more that there were things building up and this unfortunate event was simply the last straw. In a lot of ways this can be worse than one big event, like losing a family member. Just my two cents. (Yes, mine, not anyone else's :smalltongue: ) You're right about crying over a paper cut, but enough paper cuts add up to something worth crying over.

[BlackStaticWolf]

Life is scary. It also leaves very little time to get confirmation from two or more sources. But this is not making assumptions, it is analyzing the situation and asking yourself "What is the worst possible scenario?" and then trying to prepare for it. Of course you hope you are wrong and of course you wait until what you believe is the last possible moment to commit to a violent act. You aren't looking for a fight, just trying to be as prepared as you can be if it looks like one is inevitable. But failure to do as complete a threat assessment as possible within the constraints of the time you have can be deadly.

But, this is getting repetitive. I don't agree with you (although I will admit that walking away may be a viable option also). You don't agree with me. Neither of us is going to change our outlook. Everyone else can view the arguments presented and decide for themselves.

Sisqui and I are definitely on the same page on this topic. I'm going to follow her example and recognize that further debate on the subject is a waste of time.

[horseboy]

Crying? Every one of my friends agrees with me that there are times where it is appropriate to cry. What's looked down upon is when people just cry at every little thing.


Too right, if the end of Saving Private Ryan doesn't make you cry, you're not a man.

[Hell Puppi]

Or Band of Brothers.

[Thrawn183]

I haven't seen either of those, but I won't deny I have gotten a bit "misty eyed" while watching certain movies. I cried at my grandfather's funeral. I've cried after breaking bones (as much as I tried not to :smallannoyed: ).

The problem is when it interferes with the things that you really need to do. Everybody (well, almost everybody) gets scared, its only a problem when someone panics just as everyone is counting on them.

You know, a friend of mine has been pushing me to use the climbing wall at the gym on campus, and I've been refusing because I'm frightened enough of heights that while its exciting, it isn't fun. But I think I'll do it next week, just because of this thread.

[Sisqui]

You know, a friend of mine has been pushing me to use the climbing wall at the gym on campus, and I've been refusing because I'm frightened enough of heights that while its exciting, it isn't fun. But I think I'll do it next week, just because of this thread.

Just curious........How does this thread make you want to do something you don't like? You can do it, if the situation requires it. But to do it for no reason when you dislike it so seems pointless.

And as for Saving Private Ryan- OMG!! :smalleek: I rank it as one of those really great movies that I never, EVER want to see twice. Some movies are just like that. Schindler's List comes to mind. See them once for the quality of the movie and the importance of the themes being shown and then put them away. Too much unnecessary emotional trauma is not a good thing. :smalleek: Again!

[averagejoe]

I never cared for Private Ryan. I found it to be romantic to a nauseating degree, and a bit trite. Sooo, I guess that makes me not a man then. :smallannoyed:

[Sisqui]

I never cared for Private Ryan. I found it to be romantic to a nauseating degree, and a bit trite. Sooo, I guess that makes me not a man then. :smallannoyed:

I assume you mean romantic in the traditional sense and not in the Harlequin romance sense?

[averagejoe]

I assume you mean romantic in the traditional sense and not in the Harlequin romance sense?

Well, I wouldn't be a very good literary elitist if that wasn't the case, now would I? :smallamused:

[Thrawn183]

Just curious........How does this thread make you want to do something you don't like? You can do it, if the situation requires it. But to do it for no reason when you dislike it so seems pointless.

It has something to do with me forgetting the good and remembering the bad. Hence, reconquering my fears. It... builds character and all that.

Basically, I have two little voices in my head. One is the guy I want to be, and the other is the scared/angry kid I want to leave behind. This is one of those instances where I think I was listening to the wrong voice.