Is chivalry dead?

[Sisqui]

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.

Sounds like it is at least as good a reason as any and probably beter than most. Good luck with it :smallsmile:

[Siwenna]

I think, and hope that chilvalry is dead. Chivalry has always involved being kinder and gentler to women, because women "need" it. That is sexist, and should be outdated. However general kindness is still very much needed. For instance, if you can take the time and effort to hold the door open for a woman, then do it for men as well.


treat ladies like ladies, women like women

But what do you mean by that. Why do all women need to be treated the same, and why is that so different than how men should be treated? I appreciated the guy holding the door for me at Walmart. I would appreciate it less if I knew he was doing it just because of my sex.

[Cyr]

Its... hard to explain, but allow me to try. Men are men, and all of our inherited pain comes from duty, having to do X and having to do Y in the hot sun all day long (theoretically), this is relatively easy to avoid in the modern era. But the female gender has numerous things that men would find most uncomfortable, periods and pregnancy (I know not all women get pregnant, none the less, its still a, how shall I put it, occupational hazard.). Now, thats what I'm referring to when I say "treat women like women," it refers to affording them a degree of dignity for those costs to a woman. A Lady is a much different thing, and its someone who earns respect and difference and is female. Such a person is worthy of a great deal of respect, and having earned it, deserves to be treated better then people. Its worth noting that I know a great deal of women, and only a few ladies. The same goes to Gentlemen, but the rules for dealing with gentlemen are slightly different (and very complicated).

Allow me to try and explain with one of those "your on a boat"
The order it goes in in who I'd like to preserve:
Children.
Ladies.
Women (this is again, a granting of dignity)
Men (they deserve a chance)
Gentlemen
Me.
Any extremely evil person (Murderer, ectera who hasn't repented his crimes.)

Its worth noting both Gentlemen and Ladies are supposed to put themselves at the bottom or near bottom.

Also, I have a few religious reasons for my system ranking, but obviously, I can't post them.

Finally, Chivalry isn't all about Women. In fact its got very little to do with women. It has as much to do with women as it does with Elderly and children people (do more for elderly and children people then you would for young people), which is something, but not a great deal. Chivalry is about honor, duty, and living your life with dignity. To behave with pride in your accomplishments, kindness to others, to show due respect to others, to do you work without complaining, all of these are part of Chivalry. The list goes on.

[averagejoe]

Men (they deserve a chance)
Gentlemen

Uh, I don't know if anyone has told you, but the gentry have been done away with for a long while. I would be very suprised if I found myself on a boat with some.


Its... hard to explain, but allow me to try. Men are men, and all of our inherited pain comes from duty, having to do X and having to do Y in the hot sun all day long (theoretically), this is relatively easy to avoid in the modern era. But the female gender has numerous things that men would find most uncomfortable, periods and pregnancy (I know not all women get pregnant, none the less, its still a, how shall I put it, occupational hazard.). Now, thats what I'm referring to when I say "treat women like women," it refers to affording them a degree of dignity for those costs to a woman. A Lady is a much different thing, and its someone who earns respect and difference and is female. Such a person is worthy of a great deal of respect, and having earned it, deserves to be treated better then people. Its worth noting that I know a great deal of women, and only a few ladies. The same goes to Gentlemen, but the rules for dealing with gentlemen are slightly different (and very complicated).

Pardon my bluntness, but baloney. I'm sure that there are some things inconvenient about being a woman (though I can't make any firm judgement on this, not ever having been a woman myself), but if that is the case then it doesn't afford them special treatment just because their life is inconvenient in certain ways. Life is inconvenient for everybody. I mean, should people keep track of every inconvenience in their lives, and then figure out how much dignity they should be treated with by doing so?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Lady;" see my comment about the gentry above. I'm not quite sure how they've earned the right to be treated better than other people, in any case. Which isn't to say that people shouldn't be recognized for their accomplishments, but I don't see any way that someone could earn being treated better than everyone else.

[Siwenna]

Its... hard to explain, but allow me to try. Men are men, and all of our inherited pain comes from duty, having to do X and having to do Y in the hot sun all day long (theoretically), this is relatively easy to avoid in the modern era. But the female gender has numerous things that men would find most uncomfortable, periods and pregnancy (I know not all women get pregnant, none the less, its still a, how shall I put it, occupational hazard.)

Women can do X and Y in the hot sun all day as well. Yes, women have to deal with periods, but it's not like anyone is forced to get pregnant (with the exception of rape.) It's not an occupational hazard, because it can easily be avoided by simply swallowing a pill. And males have a much higher rate of sex-linked diseases. Hemophilia, for instance, occurs much more often in males than in females. Same with certain types of color blindness. Should men be respected more because they have to deal stuff like that more often than women do?

[horseboy]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Lady;" see my comment about the gentry above. I'm not quite sure how they've earned the right to be treated better than other people, in any case. Which isn't to say that people shouldn't be recognized for their accomplishments, but I don't see any way that someone could earn being treated better than everyone else.

Well, for equal bluntness, there are, was, and will always be those that society values more. These tend to be the more "useful" members of society.
In the modern era, you don't need a title to be considered part of the "genteel". What you need first is manners. A well mannered person will usually be able to pass, but what you need for the lock is a servile attitude.
For a hierarchy from bad to best you'd have Paris Hilton, The average bar skank, a "normal" person, den mothers (Hell, they could be canonized), Red Cross Volunteers, National Guard, Mother Teresa.


Hemophilia, for instance, occurs much more often in males than in females.
That's because hemophiliac women don't live much past 13. :smallwink:

The reason that men and women are treated differently is because men and women are different. Men are ultimately far more expendable than women. This is one of those painful truths of Nature. One male can propagate with 10 females in a season easy. 10 females are required to propagate with 10 males in the same season. Society knows this. That's why men are so (excuse the word) Cavalier with their lives.

[Cyr]

Women can do X and Y in the hot sun all day as well. I am well aware of that, and not only can they, they do, which is part of why they get more respect. Men have mitigated most of the disadvantages of being male, women have one that, quiet frankly, I would think completely horrible to have. *shivers*

Yes, women have to deal with periods, Exactly, and who would volunteer for that?
but it's not like anyone is forced to get pregnant (with the exception of rape.) It's not an occupational hazard, because it can easily be avoided by simply swallowing a pill. Your right, I concede your point.
And males have a much higher rate of sex-linked diseases. Hemophilia, for instance, occurs much more often in males than in females. Same with certain types of color blindness. Should men be respected more because they have to deal stuff like that more often than women do? Ah, no. Because thats probability, if they do in fact have that certain disadvantage, then yes, they deserve extra respect. But a risk is not sufficient. Let me put it this way, if one were taking faults (in DnD, alternate rule) and one were to say, "Hey is it a fault if I'm more likely to have a -2 to intelligence" no, because it only matters if you do in fact have a -2 to intelligence.


Uh, I don't know if anyone has told you, but the gentry have been done away with for a long while. I would be very suprised if I found myself on a boat with some. Its a metaphorical term, and refers not to nobility of blood, but nobility of character. And I'm fairly certain you are aware of that. Being a "gentleman" in most modern terminology (not just mine) refers to someone who behaves with and is worthy of respect. Being a gentleman on a date for instance, refers to treating a lady with proper respect. Being chivalric if you were.



Pardon my bluntness, but baloney. I'm sure that there are some things inconvenient about being a woman (though I can't make any firm judgement on this, not ever having been a woman myself), but if that is the case then it doesn't afford them special treatment just because their life is inconvenient in certain ways. Life is inconvenient for everybody. I mean, should people keep track of every inconvenience in their lives, and then figure out how much dignity they should be treated with by doing so? No. Keep track of inconveniences in your own life would a very arrogant thing to do, "Oh I stubbed my tow this morning thats one" could be you while Humble person over yonder only puts down things like, "My mother just died I don't know if thats big enough but" and so forth. Its not an effective system of measurement. And of course, one should always be aware that ones actions influence how one is treated more then any innate dignity.


I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Lady;" see my comment about the gentry above. I'm not quite sure how they've earned the right to be treated better than other people, in any case. Which isn't to say that people shouldn't be recognized for their accomplishments, but I don't see any way that someone could earn being treated better than everyone else. Once again, modern terminology, being, "Lady-like" is behaving with dignity and holding yourself with a certain form of grace. Again, it refers not to nobility of blood, but of character. I'm probably just distinctly Southern, but have you never heard either of my example terms?

[Holy_Knight]

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)
[spoiler]
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.*

Quick question: Why did she kick you in the first place?


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?
Doesn't that seem just a little bit manipulative to you?


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.
Pyrian, those aren't contradictory, and you're misusing "assumption" here. Typically that word has negative connotations associated with forming a belief too hastily, and that seems to be what you mean by encouraging people not to make them. But under that meaning, it's not true that "every judgement is an assumption". A judgement is a belief, which may be formed on the basis of very good evidence, very poor evidence, or something in between. In this discussion, then, you can't just dismiss judgements that people make in the way you've been doing. What I think those you've been disagreeing with are suggesting is not a case of an assumption in the negative sense you've been using it, but cases where the evidence presented may legitimize a belief of impending violence.


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?"
Did you even read any of the thread beyond the first post, Tor?


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!"
But part of the point of chivalry is a rejection of those stereotypes of masculinity, Prince. Chivalry was originally developed largely to encourage men to not be thuggish brutes.


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.
Yes.


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

Or Band of Brothers.
And most importantly of all, the death of Optimus Prime in the animated transformers movie. :smalltongue:


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.

Sounds like it is at least as good a reason as any and probably beter than most. Good luck with it :smallsmile:
Agreed, good for you, Thrawn. It's always good to strive to be more courageous.


I think, and hope that chilvalry is dead. Chivalry has always involved being kinder and gentler to women, because women "need" it. That is sexist, and should be outdated. However general kindness is still very much needed. For instance, if you can take the time and effort to hold the door open for a woman, then do it for men as well.

Out of curiosity, Siwenna, have you been following the thread, or did you just come in now? I just ask because we had a long debate about this several pages back.

[horseboy]

Doesn't that seem just a little bit manipulative to you?
Eh, it's on the same line as makeup. Or if you'd rather, remember that line in Wayne's World: "If you blow chunks and she bails, it was never meant to be." If she can handle you at your worst, that's actually more honest than pretending to be something completely different.



And most importantly of all, the death of Optimus Prime in the animated transformers movie. :smalltongue:


Man, I still get misty eyed when I watch that.

[averagejoe]

No. Keep track of inconveniences in your own life would a very arrogant thing to do, "Oh I stubbed my tow this morning thats one" could be you while Humble person over yonder only puts down things like, "My mother just died I don't know if thats big enough but" and so forth. Its not an effective system of measurement. And of course, one should always be aware that ones actions influence how one is treated more then any innate dignity.

Er, beg pardon but that's quite beside the point. I wasn't asking if it was realistically feasable, I was asking whether such a thing would be hypothetically desirable.


Its a metaphorical term, and refers not to nobility of blood, but nobility of character. And I'm fairly certain you are aware of that. Being a "gentleman" in most modern terminology (not just mine) refers to someone who behaves with and is worthy of respect. Being a gentleman on a date for instance, refers to treating a lady with proper respect. Being chivalric if you were.

Well, I was aware that the term is used in such a way, but that didn't seem to be the case, seeing as you were using "lady" and "gentleman" as standards for separating out survivors. There's no empircal way to say who is and isn't a gentleman by your definition, so you couldn't realistically say, "These people over here are all the gentlemen," except by some arbitrary set of standards.


Well, for equal bluntness, there are, was, and will always be those that society values more. These tend to be the more "useful" members of society.
In the modern era, you don't need a title to be considered part of the "genteel". What you need first is manners. A well mannered person will usually be able to pass, but what you need for the lock is a servile attitude.
For a hierarchy from bad to best you'd have Paris Hilton, The average bar skank, a "normal" person, den mothers (Hell, they could be canonized), Red Cross Volunteers, National Guard, Mother Teresa.

Yes, there will always be people who society values more, but so what? You said,


Such a person is worthy of a great deal of respect, and having earned it, deserves to be treated better then people.

Now, I don't know, or much care, what Paris Hilton or some "average bar skank" (whatever that means) have done; if they found their way into my home then I would offer them food, refreshment, and a place to sit, same as I would Mother Teresa. No denying that Mother Teresa has done some great things, but I don't see why that makes her worthy of being treated better than other people; or, rather, I don't understand why I should treat other people worse than I did her.

[Hell Puppi]

The transformers movies was indeed sad...still to this day I still get teary-eyed....but I can't watch Band of Brother anymore...
Watched it 3 times over with different people, and it still males me upset.
SPEARS!

[Siwenna]

That's because hemophiliac women don't live much past 13

No, actually males are something like 1000X more likely to have hemophilia than women. It's carried on the X chromosome, so women need 2 of the recessive genes to show it. Men only need one, because they have one X chromosome.


Ah, no. Because thats probability, if they do in fact have that certain disadvantage, then yes, they deserve extra respect. But a risk is not sufficient. Let me put it this way, if one were taking faults (in DnD, alternate rule) and one were to say, "Hey is it a fault if I'm more likely to have a -2 to intelligence" no, because it only matters if you do in fact have a -2 to intelligence.

OK then, do hemophiliacs deserve to be treated with more respect than other people. I mean, I don't have hemophilia, but I think it would be a whole lot worse than dealing with periods.


Exactly, and who would volunteer for that?

No one, but so what. In response to averagejoe, you said that it would not be appropriate for everyone to tally up her/his disadvantages. But that is exactly what you're doing, just with genders. If someone were to quantify certain issues with, say, race, and it was determined that X had it the worst, then Y, then Z and so on, would you start treating X's the best, then Y's, then Z's?


Out of curiosity, Siwenna, have you been following the thread, or did you just come in now? I just ask because we had a long debate about this several pages back.

I skimmed a bit of the first page when it was originally posted, but I pretty much just jumped in. I've started reading back through, though..

[The Prince of Cats]

Uh, I don't know if anyone has told you, but the gentry have been done away with for a long while. I would be very suprised if I found myself on a boat with some.
Er... Actually, I come from a long line of gentry. My father, my grandfather, right back to something we did for the king. It just confers no bonuses, so it is not a useful trait...


That's because hemophiliac women don't live much past 13. :smallwink:
Actually, I was taught in biology that haemophiliac women are 'inviable' and never develop in the womb. As I was told it, the blastocyst never progresses to a foetus and is simply flushed out of the womb. Of course, I learned never to believe everything I was taught at school...


But part of the point of chivalry is a rejection of those stereotypes of masculinity, Prince. Chivalry was originally developed largely to encourage men to not be thuggish brutes.
Yes, I agree. Many of the 'courtly virtues' were about being less 'manly' and more about being able to contribute to society off the battlefield. Even the samurai (who followed a whole other path) were meant to be painters, poets and scholars.

My point was more that chivalry, as a word, has too many outdated and unfortunate connotations that detract from what many men are trying to say and do.

[horseboy]

Er... Actually, I come from a long line of gentry. My father, my grandfather, right back to something we did for the king. It just confers no bonuses, so it is not a useful trait...


Actually, I was taught in biology that haemophiliac women are 'inviable' and never develop in the womb. As I was told it, the blastocyst never progresses to a foetus and is simply flushed out of the womb. Of course, I learned never to believe everything I was taught at school...


Usually that's true. However, there was a period in time back when the European royal families were so heavily inbred it was showing up in females, and they always died around 13ish. If point 1 is true, I can understand why they don't like talking about it. :smallwink:

[averagejoe]

Er... Actually, I come from a long line of gentry. My father, my grandfather, right back to something we did for the king. It just confers no bonuses, so it is not a useful trait...

Yes, but all that means is you are related to people who were apart of the gentry when they lived. You yourself are not considered gentry, nor is anyone else today, because there is none.

[Sisqui]

Now, I don't know, or much care, what Paris Hilton or some "average bar skank" (whatever that means) have done; if they found their way into my home then I would offer them food, refreshment, and a place to sit, same as I would Mother Teresa. No denying that Mother Teresa has done some great things, but I don't see why that makes her worthy of being treated better than other people; or, rather, I don't understand why I should treat other people worse than I did her.

Are you saying merit should not be a factor in how you treat people? :smallconfused: What about murderers or child rapists? If virtue doesn't get you better treatment I don't see how you would be able to justify treating these kinds of criminals any worse.........

[averagejoe]

Are you saying merit should not be a factor in how you treat people? :smallconfused: What about murderers or child rapists? If virtue doesn't get you better treatment I don't see how you would be able to justify treating these kinds of criminals any worse.........

I'm not quite sure why I should treat a criminal any worse. :smallconfused:

Also, I didn't so much mean that virtue shouldn't get one better treatment, as I did that non-virtue shouldn't get one worse treatment.

[Sisqui]

I'm not quite sure why I should treat a criminal any worse. :smallconfused:

You're kidding, right? Why, I'll even give you room to wiggle and say that he is actually guilty of the crime (one of the ones listed above, no wussing out and responding with a jaywalker). :smalltongue:


Also, I didn't so much mean that virtue shouldn't get one better treatment, as I did that non-virtue shouldn't get one worse treatment.

(PSA: If you want to be treated as a virtuous person no matter what your bad acts, welcome to averagejoe's. On a side note, don't go to Sisqui's house!! :smalleek: :smalleek: :smalleek:) :smalltongue:

I am sincerely hoping you mean virtue-neutral here. Neither extremely good nor extremely bad.........

[averagejoe]

You're kidding, right? Why, I'll even give you room to wiggle and say that he is actually guilty of the crime (one of the ones listed above, no wussing out and responding with a jaywalker). :smalltongue:

I'm still not entierly sure why I should treat a criminal worse, or even what I should do differently. Should I chastise them for their crimes? Such a thing would be unlikely to change anything, and they are not for me to judge anyhow. I'm really not being deliberate about this, I really don't know how to treat any person except for as a person.


(PSA: If you want to be treated as a virtuous person no matter what your bad acts, welcome to averagejoe's. On a side note, don't go to Sisqui's house!! :smalleek: :smalleek: :smalleek:) :smalltongue:

In theory, that is. I am, after all, imperfect. :smallwink:


I am sincerely hoping you mean virtue-neutral here. Neither extremely good nor extremely bad.........

Yes.

[Thrawn183]

OMG!

I haven't seen Transformers yet! Please stop saying stuff about the movie without putting it in a spoiler block with an appropriate warning.

I would put this under the common decency people are expected to afford other people on the basis of being... people. I am officially requesting an apology.

(How ironic that this would come up in a post about chivalry)

[averagejoe]

They're talking about the animated movie, not the recent one.

[horseboy]

OMG!

I haven't seen Transformers yet! Please stop saying stuff about the movie without putting it in a spoiler block with an appropriate warning.

I would put this under the common decency people are expected to afford other people on the basis of being... people. I am officially requesting an apology.

(How ironic that this would come up in a post about chivalry)


And most importantly of all, the death of Optimus Prime in the animated transformers movie.

I'm sorry you can't read? :smallwink:

[Thrawn183]

Well, my mind more went, oh god oh god LOOK AWAY... So, yeah, at the time I would say that my ability to read was temporarily impaired.:smallbiggrin: My bad you guys.

*sigh* Oh, the irony of irony.

[Holy_Knight]

Eh, it's on the same line as makeup. Or if you'd rather, remember that line in Wayne's World: "If you blow chunks and she bails, it was never meant to be." If she can handle you at your worst, that's actually more honest than pretending to be something completely different.
Are they the same though? I took you to be saying something like this:

"When you first meet a girl, intentionally do something jerk-like so she'll think you're that way, and then when you don't act like that afterward she'll think you changed for her." Whereas in the post above it sounds like you were talking about someone accidentally doing something jerk-like or otherwise undesirable. The second one wouldn't be manipulative, but the first would be, which is why I asked what I did. Or did I misunderstand what you meant in the first instance?


Even the samurai (who followed a whole other path) were meant to be painters, poets and scholars.

And flower-arrangers, too! I think Musashi specifically mentions that. It turns out being manly can include some pretty girly things!


Well, my mind more went, oh god oh god LOOK AWAY... So, yeah, at the time I would say that my ability to read was temporarily impaired.:smallbiggrin: My bad you guys.

*sigh* Oh, the irony of irony.
Heh, no problem, Thrawn. Sorry for the spoiler scare, but yes, I was referring to the animated one. Since it was from 20 years ago, I figured I didn't have to put a spoiler tag on it. :smalltongue:

And I'm still curious about your altercation.

[Sisqui]

I'm still not entierly sure why I should treat a criminal worse, or even what I should do differently. Should I chastise them for their crimes? Such a thing would be unlikely to change anything, and they are not for me to judge anyhow. I'm really not being deliberate about this, I really don't know how to treat any person except for as a person.


Well, let's say I have three young kids in my house. I have two potential guests. One is Mother Theresa and the other is a convicted pedophile. Guess which one I let in. Now guess which one I show the business end of my shotgun. Prior acts help you predict future ones-whether good or bad. The criminal's past may not be relevant in some situations, but I really don't think you can say that they should be ignored and the criminal treated the same way as others. You speak of treating people as individuals, but how can you ignore the fact that their crimes are part of who they are as individuals? If all of a person's prior acts (of which you are aware, anyway) are not the basis for how you decide to deal with them, how do you decide how to deal with them? And if you say "I treat everyone the same" isn't that the same thing as saying you treat people as if they are generic and interchangeable instead of as individuals?:smallconfused:

[averagejoe]

Well, let's say I have three young kids in my house. I have two potential guests. One is Mother Theresa and the other is a convicted pedophile. Guess which one I let in. Now guess which one I show the business end of my shotgun. Prior acts help you predict future ones-whether good or bad. The criminal's past may not be relevant in some situations, but I really don't think you can say that they should be ignored and the criminal treated the same way as others. You speak of treating people as individuals, but how can you ignore the fact that their crimes are part of who they are as individuals? If all of a person's prior acts (of which you are aware, anyway) are not the basis for how you decide to deal with them, how do you decide how to deal with them? And if you say "I treat everyone the same" isn't that the same thing as saying you treat people as if they are generic and interchangeable instead of as individuals?:smallconfused:

Ah, but I didn't say that I treat them the same, I said I don't treat them any better or worse. If I were to treat everyone the same then anyone who is, for example, blind or paralyzed, would have a very difficult time dealing with me. :smalltongue: Remember kids; like and equal are not the same thing.

For instance, in the example you gave, if I had to choose one to let in then of course I would choose Mother Teresa; however, I wouldn't break out the shotgun until the pedophile did something to warrent hostility. One can be polite without being stupidly naive.

On the other hand, I wouldn't be bowing or spreading rose petals for Mother Teresa either.

[Sisqui]

Ah, but I didn't say that I treat them the same, I said I don't treat them any better or worse. If I were to treat everyone the same then anyone who is, for example, blind or paralyzed, would have a very difficult time dealing with me. :smalltongue: Remember kids; like and equal are not the same thing.

Then what exactly do you mean? How do you define "equal treatment" exactly?:smallconfused:


For instance, in the example you gave, if I had to choose one to let in then of course I would choose Mother Teresa; however, I wouldn't break out the shotgun until the pedophile did something to warrent hostility. One can be polite without being stupidly naive.

So you are arguing treating people with equal levels of courtesy, not equal levels of respect?


On the other hand, I wouldn't be bowing or spreading rose petals for Mother Teresa either.

Well, neither would I, but I would much sooner trust her than the pedophile (although anyone who knows me will tell you I suffer from extreme paranoia- I don't trust anybody, I just have varying levels of DIStrust :smallwink: )

[averagejoe]

Then what exactly do you mean? How do you define "equal treatment" exactly?:smallconfused:

To be honest, I don't. I've found that no matter how much one thinks about certain things, there are parts of life that simply have to be played by ear. I can't say with a great degree of confidence what I would do, because there are too many variables for us to reasonably consider in such a conversation.

However, you are probably going to say that saying such an answer is wimpy, or something along those lines, so I'll have a try at definining it, just for you. :smalltongue:

In broad terms, I would say that by "equal treatment," I mean that, while one doesn't necessarily treat people the same (i.e. I would warn a caneless blind person about a step where I wouldn't do so for most people) but at the same time one gives equal consideration to the fact that they are human.


So you are arguing treating people with equal levels of courtesy, not equal levels of respect?

I thought the two were related; that is, when you are courteous to someone then you show you respect them. I don't see how I could be both courteous and disrespectful. Or how I was less respectful in the presented scenario. :smallconfused:

[Sisqui]

I thought the two were related; that is, when you are courteous to someone then you show you respect them. I don't see how I could be both courteous and disrespectful. Or how I was less respectful in the presented scenario. :smallconfused:

A rant of mine from earlier in the thread:


Too many people these days do not understand the meaning of respect. Respect is not courtesy. Courtesy is owed to all human beings until they have proven they are unworthy of it. Respect is owed to NO ONE until they have proven that they ARE worthy of it. And respect is always in the eyes of the beholder. No one can demand respect from another human being. Respect is given by each individual according to their own lights, by the measure of their own standards.

[averagejoe]

A rant of mine from earlier in the thread:

I don't quite understand; you list the properties of respect and courtesy without telling me what they are. Anyhow, I meant respect in more the verb sense; that is, you can be respectful of someone without respecting them. You were talking about how I was treating them, no thinking about them.

[Sisqui]

I don't quite understand; you list the properties of respect and courtesy without telling me what they are. Anyhow, I meant respect in more the verb sense; that is, you can be respectful of someone without respecting them. You were talking about how I was treating them, no thinking about them.

I mean that courtesy is more in line with what you would call using good manners. You would hold a door for anyone. You say "Thank you" and "You're welcome". That type of thing. Respect is something altogether different. If you respect someone, you hold them in esteem for some specific reason. For something they have done or some particular merit you believe they possess. Courtesy is a set of conventions invented so people could interact socially within an agreed upon framework of what constituted inoffensive behavior. Respect is something more personal- not what you give people at large but a special showing of favor to someone who meets whatever your individual standards are. If that makes it a little clearer.

[averagejoe]

I mean that courtesy is more in line with what you would call using good manners. You would hold a door for anyone. You say "Thank you" and "You're welcome". That type of thing. Respect is something altogether different. If you respect someone, you hold them in esteem for some specific reason. For something they have done or some particular merit you believe they possess. Courtesy is a set of conventions invented so people could interact socially within an agreed upon framework of what constituted inoffensive behavior. Respect is something more personal- not what you give people at large but a special showing of favor to someone who meets whatever your individual standards are. If that makes it a little clearer.

Ah, I see. In that case, yes, I was advocating equal courtesy. Although, to be fair, by that definition, I respect most people equally in that I don't respect them very much at all.

[Sisqui]

Ah, I see. In that case, yes, I was advocating equal courtesy. Although, to be fair, by that definition, I respect most people equally in that I don't respect them very much at all.

You are one bright ray of sunshine, aren't you? :smalltongue: But, as it happens, I agree. Then again, I've been told my standards are too high. I don't happen to think so, though. :smallbiggrin:

[wadledo]

random question,
Have either of you (Sisqui and averagejoe) read any Buddhist lit?
I found it (pardon the pun) very enlightening on the subject of courtesy and respect.
Especially the current Dalai Lamas works like "the art of happiness" and "the wisdom of forgiveness"

Also, has a woman ever done anything chivalrous to you without some kind of prompt?
I believe it's not guys only.

Or would that be to submissive?

[Sisqui]

random question,
Have either of you (Sisqui and averagejoe) read any Buddhist lit?
I found it (pardon the pun) very enlightening on the subject of courtesy and respect.
Especially the current Dalai Lamas works like "the art of happiness" and "the wisdom of forgiveness"

No, but I might look it up since you mention it.

EDIT: I looked the two works up as much as was possible on the internet. Buddhism is most definitely NOT my thing. Try averagejoe, though. It definitely sounds more like his cup of tea (or cup of joe, if he prefers :smalltongue: )


Also, has a woman ever done anything chivalrous to you without some kind of prompt?
I believe it's not guys only.

Or would that be to submissive?

Not quite sure I understood this part. Do you mean you think the guy would be too submissive if he allowed a woman to do something chivalrous for him? :smallconfused:

[wadledo]

Sorry I was a bit rushed,

I meant that a woman would possibly be submissive to, say, hold open a door for a man who is her age or younger(discounting parent/shotacon stuff), and if you knew of a female equivalent of chivalry.
The reason I put it in that way was because I have had this discussion before with some of my Extreme feminist friends(I'm apparently one of the 3 non-gay men who they like), who seem to believe that chivalry is actually of the "men's" way of making the entire female gender lower than males.
*(I didn't come up with it so don't ask me) shrug*

Also, did you try BuddhaNet.net? Or tricycle.com? Both are very good for the budding buddhist.

[averagejoe]

No, but I might look it up since you mention it.

EDIT: I looked the two works up as much as was possible on the internet. Buddhism is most definitely NOT my thing. Try averagejoe, though. It definitely sounds more like his cup of tea (or cup of joe, if he prefers :smalltongue: )

*Dies from pun hemorrhages*

Actually I have read some Buddhist philosophy, although little on courtesy specifically. There's some I take, some I leave.

[Sisqui]

Sorry I was a bit rushed,

I meant that a woman would possibly be submissive to, say, hold open a door for a man who is her age or younger(discounting parent/shotacon stuff), and if you knew of a female equivalent of chivalry.

A what?

EDIT: Oh, well. :smallredface: Looked that up. Never mind. Definitely never mind.


The reason I put it in that way was because I have had this discussion before with some of my Extreme feminist friends(I'm apparently one of the 3 non-gay men who they like), who seem to believe that chivalry is actually of the "men's" way of making the entire female gender lower than males.
*(I didn't come up with it so don't ask me) shrug*

Read through the thread, the whole feminism debate is back there..........somewhere between killing for your religion and Transformers- the Movie, I think. Fortunately, all the advertising posts have already been sent elsewhere so they don't clutter up the thread :smallbiggrin:

*falls out of chair laughing*

[Hawk]

Yes

-Hawk

[Pandaren]

Short answer, no

As for MOST guys, yes they have stopped caring about being civil to woman, i think that woman do deserve respect, but they lost most of their chivalry rights when they got rights and got to vote.

[Trog]

I thought this chivalry thread died a long time ago. :smallconfused:

[CharlieSmiles]

Is it chivalric to put your coat over a puddle for a lady to walk over it if the puddle happens to be 12 feet deep?

[13_CBS]

Less chivalrous and more foolish, I'd say.

And a 12 foot deep puddle isn't really a puddle...

[Youngblood]

Short answer, no

As for MOST guys, yes they have stopped caring about being civil to woman, i think that woman do deserve respect, but they lost most of their chivalry rights when they got rights and got to vote.

Chivalry is not just men respecting women, and it has nothing to do with civil rights. To be chivalrous is to behave honorably and courteously towards the people around you, and as such chivalry applies to women every bit as much as it does to men. You should behave in a chivalrous fashion towards everyone, including people you percieve to be your social equals or betters and even people you don't like or who behave badly. I think real chivalry, not just pretend chivalry for the sake of impressing someone, is hard to find, but then there are also fewer people who really appreciate it.

[Serpentine]

Less chivalrous and more foolish, I'd say.

And a 12 foot deep puddle isn't really a puddle...
Yes, more of a small well...

[13_CBS]

We should try to keep in mind that, as said before, chivalry is mostly a warrior's code, so of course it's mostly dead...

I think we should try to refer to the modern term for "chivalry" as "courtesy" (or however you spell that).

[Darken Rahl]

Forgive me for coming late to the party, but I feel the term "chivalry" as used in this thread, is simply being applied to something that it is not in order to make it seem more than it is.

Politeness and courtesy are still alive and well, and I believe that bemoaning the death of chivalry is simply an exercise in attempting to make one's self feel superior through the use of outmoded terminology.

It is, I believe, a farce.

[LCR]

Forgive me for coming late to the party, but I feel the term "chivalry" as used in this thread, is simply being applied to something that it is not in order to make it seem more than it is.

Politeness and courtesy are still alive and well, and I believe that bemoaning the death of chivalry is simply an exercise in attempting to make one's self feel superior through the use of outmoded terminology.

It is, I believe, a farce.

Oh, don't say that.
Or the Knights who say Ni shall teach you about "outmoded terminology".

[Darken Rahl]

Icky-Icky-Icky-P'tang-Zooo-op-Boing!


:smallbiggrin:

[Rachel Lorelei]

Forgive me for coming late to the party, but I feel the term "chivalry" as used in this thread, is simply being applied to something that it is not in order to make it seem more than it is.

Politeness and courtesy are still alive and well, and I believe that bemoaning the death of chivalry is simply an exercise in attempting to make one's self feel superior through the use of outmoded terminology.

It is, I believe, a farce.

"Awww, snap."

Is... is that what the kids these days say?! I think it is!

[LCR]

Icky-Icky-Icky-P'tang-Zooo-op-Boing!


:smallbiggrin:

Exactly. And now be a good boy and bring me a shrubbery.

[Holy_Knight]

We should try to keep in mind that, as said before, chivalry is mostly a warrior's code, so of course it's mostly dead...

Are you suggesting that there are no longer any warriors?

In any case, dealings with others, as well as conflict (including non-violent conflict) should still be subject to chivalric considerations.


Forgive me for coming late to the party, but I feel the term "chivalry" as used in this thread, is simply being applied to something that it is not in order to make it seem more than it is.

Politeness and courtesy are still alive and well, and I believe that bemoaning the death of chivalry is simply an exercise in attempting to make one's self feel superior through the use of outmoded terminology.

It is, I believe, a farce.
On the contrary. Aside from all the men/women stuff, chivalry has always been about dealing fairly with others, upholding righteousness, serving justice, protecting the innocent, and so forth. Perhaps there are those who view such things as farcical, but they should garner our pity.

[Darken Rahl]

The act of being polite and having respect is not the farce. Calling it chivalry as if that somehow makes you nobler or knight-esque is the farce. Bemoaning the "death of chivalry" makes one sound pretentious and condescending. Chivalry as a code has been dead for a long time, as is evidenced by some of its tenets. The parts which fit into contemporary society have been appropriated, but the term, as it is, is not useful anymore.

[averagejoe]

Huh, I remember this thread. Y'all are still talking about this?


Is it chivalric to put your coat over a puddle for a lady to walk over it if the puddle happens to be 12 feet deep?

No, but it is hilarious. :smallbiggrin:


On the contrary. Aside from all the men/women stuff, chivalry has always been about dealing fairly with others, upholding righteousness, serving justice, protecting the innocent, and so forth. Perhaps there are those who view such things as farcical, but they should garner our pity.

Don't forget oppressing people of other religions. Chivalry has always been about that too.

I can see where Darken is coming from. I'm polite to everyone, but I've never really thought of myself as particularly chivilrous. No need to dress it up as sweeping chivilrous gestures when simply calling it manners would do. Or do I mistake what everyone means by chivalry?

[Last_resort_33]

chiv·al·ry (shĭv'əl-rē) pronunciation
n., pl. -ries.

1. The medieval system, principles, and customs of knighthood.
2.
a. The qualities idealized by knighthood, such as bravery, courtesy, honor, and gallantry toward women.
b. A manifestation of any of these qualities.
3. A group of knights or gallant gentlemen.

[Holy_Knight]

The act of being polite and having respect is not the farce.
You're still missing part of the point--equating it simply with politeness and respect doesn't adequately capture the concept.



Calling it chivalry as if that somehow makes you nobler or knight-esque is the farce. Bemoaning the "death of chivalry" makes one sound pretentious and condescending.
Sure, someone could be pretentious about it, but it's not a necessary part of it. What's really condescending is to assume that someone who claims to care about such things must be pretentious.



Chivalry as a code has been dead for a long time, as is evidenced by some of its tenets. The parts which fit into contemporary society have been appropriated, but the term, as it is, is not useful anymore.
You're being inconsistent. If parts have been appropriated, it isn't dead. And if you think of many of those parts as being a cluster of related things, it even makes sense to speak of chivalry still existing as a code.


Huh, I remember this thread. Y'all are still talking about this?
We weren't, but it got resurrected.



Don't forget oppressing people of other religions. Chivalry has always been about that too.
Not always. (And you're kinda running this into the ground.)


Or do I mistake what everyone means by chivalry?
I suppose I can't speak for everyone, but you do mistake what I mean by it.

[dsuursoo]

chivalry was about repressing other religions?

anyone care to explain that one?

[gooddragon1]

Chivalry is too constricting, common courtesy is easier and has loose restrictions.

[Darken Rahl]

chivalry was about repressing other religions?

anyone care to explain that one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry

Chivalric codes

There were several lists written down during the Middle Ages. One example code can be found in the book Chivalry by 19th century French historian Leon Gautier:[3]

* Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches, and shalt observe all its directions.
* Thou shalt defend the Church.
* Thou shalt respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.
* Thou shalt love the country in which thou wast born.
* Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy.
* Thou shalt make war against the Infidel without cessation, and without mercy.
* Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they be not contrary to the laws of God.
* Thou shalt never lie, and shall remain faithful to thy pledged word.
* Thou shalt be generous, and give largess to everyone.
* Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.

[Darken Rahl]

You're still missing part of the point--equating it simply with politeness and respect doesn't adequately capture the concept.


Sure, someone could be pretentious about it, but it's not a necessary part of it. What's really condescending is to assume that someone who claims to care about such things must be pretentious.


You're correct, it doesn't adequately capture the DEAD concept. The DEAD concept had to do with the medieval institution of knighthood. Which does not exist.

And we could get into a circular argument about who was assuming what about whom, but if you would please read what I wrote again, and this time pretend just for a minute that I was following the forum rules and not speaking of you personally as an attack, you might be able to see past your initial impression of HOW I said it and perhaps reconsider the validity of WHAT I said instead.

[dsuursoo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry

Chivalric codes

There were several lists written down during the Middle Ages. One example code can be found in the book Chivalry by 19th century French historian Leon Gautier:[3]

* Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches, and shalt observe all its directions.
* Thou shalt defend the Church.
* Thou shalt respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.
* Thou shalt love the country in which thou wast born.
* Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy.
* Thou shalt make war against the Infidel without cessation, and without mercy.
* Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they be not contrary to the laws of God.
* Thou shalt never lie, and shall remain faithful to thy pledged word.
* Thou shalt be generous, and give largess to everyone.
* Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.

so you've based that assumption on statements made by someone who didn't live during the times, didn't live by the codes, and really only had hearsay and anecdotal evidence to go on?

[Darken Rahl]

so you've based that assumption on statements made by someone who didn't live during the times, didn't live by the codes, and really only had hearsay and anecdotal evidence to go on?

I never made an assumption, I was simply providing a possible source of his information.

[averagejoe]

Not always. (And you're kinda running this into the ground.)

And everyone else is glossing it over, so we're even. Yes, I'm picking on the extreme point, but even so, this is nothing but an idealization, a fantasy based on times which we can only idealize because we are so far removed from them that no one really has a clear picture. I fail to see the necessity of dressing up the simple politeness of, for example, opening a door for someone as "chivalry," especially since none of us are carrying around swords to be used for defending the name of the church and smiting infidels (at least, I should hope.)

[dsuursoo]

hm. what was your basis for the 'repressing religions' statement averagejoe?

[Darken Rahl]

The term Infidel has historically been used by the Church (Catholic) to indicate Muslims, especially during the Crusades.

Thus, smiting the Infidel would be forcible oppression of Islam.

[dsuursoo]

The term Infidel has historically been used by the Church (Catholic) to indicate Muslims, especially during the Crusades.

Thus, smiting the Infidel would be forcible oppression of Islam.

actually, it was used synonymously with paganism to refer to all non-christians.

and since islam was the oppressive force(all expansion of islam happened by force in the middle ages), i'd say the crusades(as an example) were a defensive action.

smiting the infidel really was aimed at working against those who would bring down the church, rather than oppressing islam.

sadly, popular thinking hasn't caught up to historical reality.

[Darken Rahl]

actually, it was used synonymously with paganism to refer to all non-christians.

and since islam was the oppressive force(all expansion of islam happened by force in the middle ages), i'd say the crusades(as an example) were a defensive action.

smiting the infidel really was aimed at working against those who would bring down the church, rather than oppressing islam.

sadly, popular thinking hasn't caught up to historical reality.


I'm not one to attack the Church, really, but you should reexamine your belief that the crusades were totally a defensive action on the Christian's part.

[Darken Rahl]

That being said, thanks for the heads up, I'm reexamining my beliefs about the Crusades as well. Interesting stuff.

[dsuursoo]

they didn't start until after the muslim invasions of egypt, north africa and other christian nations in the east, which were some of the most christian nations in the world at the time. indeed, you go to egypt, there's still a lot of old churches and whatnot up. muslim expansion happened by force, through invasion and domination. yes, there were christian knights who were in it purely for the sport of killing in the name of god, but many more were in it for the noble cause of defending fellow christians who were threatened by invaders.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/Crusades.htm is a really interesting article on the subject. the fellow who wrote it also wrote a couple other books on the subject, which a lot of historians are really not sure about at all.

edit: read your second post. funny timing to that. hope the essay throws another light on the subject.

[Darken Rahl]

they didn't start until after the muslim invasions of egypt, north africa and other christian nations in the east, which were some of the most christian nations in the world at the time. indeed, you go to egypt, there's still a lot of old churches and whatnot up. muslim expansion happened by force, through invasion and domination. yes, there were christian knights who were in it purely for the sport of killing in the name of god, but many more were in it for the noble cause of defending fellow christians who were threatened by invaders.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/Crusades.htm is a really interesting article on the subject. the fellow who wrote it also wrote a couple other books on the subject, which a lot of historians are really not sure about at all.

edit: read your second post. funny timing to that. hope the essay throws another light on the subject.


As soon as I posted, I searched for "crusades defensive" and started reading that exact essay.

Now I'm gonna have to watch Kingdom of Heaven again. I hope Ridley presented it ambiguously, he's one of my favorite directors and I'd hate to see him tow a political party line. =\

[dsuursoo]

As soon as I posted, I searched for "crusades defensive" and started reading that exact essay.

Now I'm gonna have to watch Kingdom of Heaven again. I hope Ridley presented it ambiguously, he's one of my favorite directors and I'd hate to see him tow a political party line. =\

he kind of just laid it out as men seeking to bring out a better world(least, that's how i saw it) and i didn't feel too much psuedohistory in it.

great movie. now you got me wanting to watch it.

[averagejoe]

hm. what was your basis for the 'repressing religions' statement averagejoe?

Nothing I could link to. I suppose I could do a google search, and almost certainly find something legitimate that would support me, but I don't really want this to turn into a "source war."

Look, I'm not trying to paint the Christians as the "bad guys" of the crusades; niether am I trying to paint the Muslims as such. It's a war, and such things are rarely as simple as historians make them sound. (Although, the things wrong with the practice of scholarly history is another topic, and not one I want to derail this thread to.) I just mean that chivalry is a warrior's code, and as such it allows for some very Not Nice things, and doing Not Nice things honorably is still doing Not Nice things. Now, admittedly, what precisely constitutes "chivalry" varied by time and geography, but even so, it was hardly an ideal practice. You said before that I've been running this into the ground, but that's simply because people keep trying to paint the chivilrous knight as some sort of ideal, but that's not only off topic (because this is about modern chivalry), it's also untrue. Even if chivalry today isn't sexist, (which is what we're debating,) chivalry then was almost universally very sexist. And, in some cases, it advocated killing people based on their religion.

[13_CBS]

Eh, Ridley kinda did. He basically made most of the christians (especially the poor, poor Templars) look like fargin sneaky bastages, and made the Muslims mostly noble.

Crusades as a PURELY defensive action? Perhaps not. But the 1st one, at least, had strong religious, defensive, and non-materialistic motives to it.

But we are going off topic.

So chivalry...I must stand with Darken on this. Chivalry implies knights, which we no longer have.

And Holy Knight, I would have to say that we no longer have warriors in the old, medieval sense. Almost all of our blood shedding fighters are soldiers, and to me there is a difference between a warrior and a soldier.

[LCR]

Could we please leave this thread alone and be done with it?
Seriously, it's such an unimportant topic.

[Darken Rahl]

Could we please leave this thread alone and be done with it?
Seriously, it's such an unimportant topic.

I find it a bit aggravating that you seem to feel that your opinion of thread worth should dictate how long they proceed instead of taking the logical conclusions of your own advice and simply not clicking and reading. In short, quit trying to tell everyone what to do.

[dsuursoo]

it's funny, i've never been called sexist for being chivalrous around women. any women. in fact, i've ususally noticed they're quite flattered.

funny that.

[Darken Rahl]

I would argue that is because they don't see it as chivalry, they see it as courteous and mannerly. If you started explaining how you were being chivalrous, you might see a slight change in tune.

But there's no way to prove that one way or the other.

[dsuursoo]

well, i've heard comments such as 'they say chivalry's dead, but i guess they're wrong' and whatnot, to that effect, at least half the time.

women love being treated like ladies. i like treating women like ladies.


does that make me sexist? if so, then i'm quite a happy little sexist man-pig.

[13_CBS]

well, i've heard comments such as 'they say chivalry's dead, but i guess they're wrong' and whatnot, to that effect, at least half the time.

women love being treated like ladies. i like treating women like ladies.


does that make me sexist? if so, then i'm quite a happy little sexist man-pig.

Depends on the lady, I guess. Some like being pampered, others do not (and I'd imagine that the latter sometimes despise the former).

[Darken Rahl]

My view is that this, like many things today, boils down to terms and their usage. I got into a discussion of "fate" the other day with a coworker who used the term. Turns out she used fate to mean something religious, including God. My understanding was that fate was somewhat of a non-Christian term dealing with one's future, but she saw it differently. It's a tad dangerous to use words with so many historical gray areas such as "fate" and "chivalry" as stand ins for words with less baggage. If using the term Chivalry will get you into trouble half the time and there's a word that means everything you intend that will never get you into trouble, why insist on using it?

[Holy_Knight]

And we could get into a circular argument about who was assuming what about whom, but if you would please read what I wrote again, and this time pretend just for a minute that I was following the forum rules and not speaking of you personally as an attack, you might be able to see past your initial impression of HOW I said it and perhaps reconsider the validity of WHAT I said instead.
Well, if you say something like: "People who act/talk in this certain way are being pretentious, condescending, and farcical", you may not have mentioned anyone by name, but of course people in that group are going to take it personally. It's silly to think that they wouldn't.

In any case, why don't we just agree that you hadn't intended to personally attack anyone, and leave it at that?


You're correct, it doesn't adequately capture the DEAD concept. The DEAD concept had to do with the medieval institution of knighthood. Which does not exist.
Not exactly. To say that a concept is dead implies that it is no longer followed, or conceived of--which in this case would not be accurate. And while it's true that we don't have a widespread feudal system, etc., the idea of knighthood is still very much a part of our culture in the form of stories and literary archetypes. If it's something that still has an effect on guiding people's lives, it isn't dead.


And everyone else is glossing it over, so we're even. Yes, I'm picking on the extreme point, but even so, this is nothing but an idealization, a fantasy based on times which we can only idealize because we are so far removed from them that no one really has a clear picture.

Now, admittedly, what precisely constitutes "chivalry" varied by time and geography, but even so, it was hardly an ideal practice. You said before that I've been running this into the ground, but that's simply because people keep trying to paint the chivilrous knight as some sort of ideal, but that's not only off topic (because this is about modern chivalry), it's also untrue. Even if chivalry today isn't sexist, (which is what we're debating,) chivalry then was almost universally very sexist. And, in some cases, it advocated killing people based on their religion.
Part of what you're missing, though, is that idealizations are important. Did the realities of medieval life fail to live up to the paragons in knightly stories? Yes--but the fact that those characters were idealized in stories shows a standard that real people were admonished to live up to. It's not so far-fetched, then, to talk about an ideal of chivalry, despite certain negative things in history.



I fail to see the necessity of dressing up the simple politeness of, for example, opening a door for someone as "chivalry," especially since none of us are carrying around swords to be used for defending the name of the church and smiting infidels (at least, I should hope.)
Well, this is part of what I've been saying in regards to chivalry being a lot more than just politeness, or opening doors in particular.



Look, I'm not trying to paint the Christians as the "bad guys" of the crusades; niether am I trying to paint the Muslims as such. It's a war, and such things are rarely as simple as historians make them sound. (Although, the things wrong with the practice of scholarly history is another topic, and not one I want to derail this thread to.)
Agreed--there were bad motives and bad actions taking place on both sides.



I just mean that chivalry is a warrior's code, and as such it allows for some very Not Nice things, and doing Not Nice things honorably is still doing Not Nice things.
Well, here's the thing about that. Sometimes, Not Nice things are unavoidable. War is a bad thing, a last resort after the failure of people to live as humans ought. But if a situation arises where fighting is necessary, there's all the difference in the world between someone who engages an opponent with honor, and one who doesn't. A warrior without a code is just a thug. A true warrior will respect the shared humanity of his opponent, seek as peaceful and merciful a resolution to conflict as is possible, and value the life that may be lost, even the life of an enemy.



And Holy Knight, I would have to say that we no longer have warriors in the old, medieval sense. Almost all of our blood shedding fighters are soldiers, and to me there is a difference between a warrior and a soldier.
Maybe--I'd say that a soldier is a sub-class of warrior, implying membership in a certain group, etc. But however we want to spin that, I'd say that there are more commonalities than differences among warriors of all ages. They face many of the same difficulties, and have the same need for a code to adhere to. Yes, there are differences, but I don't think they're significant in this context.


I find it a bit aggravating that you seem to feel that your opinion of thread worth should dictate how long they proceed instead of taking the logical conclusions of your own advice and simply not clicking and reading. In short, quit trying to tell everyone what to do.
Yes. You and I can agree on this point at the very least, Darken.


My view is that this, like many things today, boils down to terms and their usage. I got into a discussion of "fate" the other day with a coworker who used the term. Turns out she used fate to mean something religious, including God. My understanding was that fate was somewhat of a non-Christian term dealing with one's future, but she saw it differently.
I'd say that 'fate' is a general term referring to what one's future will be and what forces will guide it--which of course could be cached out in terms of God, but wouldn't necessarily have to be.



It's a tad dangerous to use words with so many historical gray areas such as "fate" and "chivalry" as stand ins for words with less baggage. If using the term Chivalry will get you into trouble half the time and there's a word that means everything you intend that will never get you into trouble, why insist on using it?
Well, sometimes there is no "safer" word that means the same as what you want to say--not just with this, but in general. That's just one of the interesting yet annoying features of language, I suppose.

[Darken Rahl]

I don't believe one should change one's ways if one follows chivalry. However, one also should not expect others to sympathize when one bemoans the death of it, since others do not consider it a useful term anymore. One also should expect some women to dislike the use of an old and arguably chauvinist doctrine. So be chivalrous all you like, you chivalrous people, but I will continue to call chivalry dead and also continue to be polite and mannerly. :smallbiggrin:

[Om]

and since islam was the oppressive force(all expansion of islam happened by force in the middle ages), i'd say the crusades(as an example) were a defensive action.Whoah. Good thing I caught this one. For some reason this myth has been undergoing a renaissance of late. I can only wonder why...

Let me get straight to the point - the Crusades were not a "defensive action" in any way shape or form. The propaganda that Urban used to stir up Christian passions (pilgrims being murdered et al) was just that - propaganda with no basis in truth. We can discount that right off. The Byzantines did appeal for help from Rome, that much is true, but the Empire was not facing any immediate threat, having survived Manzikert three decades previously, and the Greeks never viewed the Turkish threat in the same religious/fanatical light as the West.

Now the bulk of your charge seems to have its basis in a "clash of civilisations" viewpoint. The idea that a, remotely, unified West was facing up against a unified East has enough obvious flaws that I don't think I need to hammer them home. So let's look at the more mundane historical inaccuracies of your theory. In the first place we have the simply fact that, aside from Manzikert, the expansion of the various Islamic Caliphates had effectively ended almost three centuries prior to the Crusades. Indeed by the time the First Crusade was launched the Abbasid Caliphates was hopelessly fragmented and engrossed in its own internal conflicts. If the Crusades really were a response to an encroaching Islamic threat then they were centuries late. In the case of the Baltic campaigns they were also pretty far off geographically.

Similarly any talk the Crusaders "defending Christians" falls pretty flat when you examine just how the Franks treated their Eastern brethren. For this you need look no further than the massacre of Jerusalem in which the victorious Crusaders slaughtered the entire city - including thousands of fellow Christians. They boasted that the dead were still rotting in the streets six months later. Even when not violent, ie when European colonisation later got underway, dealings with the local Christians were frosty at best. Three distinct communities emerged in the Levant - the foreign Franks, the local Christians and the local Muslims. There was little interaction or feeling between the three communities. This is not surprising given that the Crusaders cared solely for the Holy City and not their fellow Christians.

So if the Crusades were not defensive or intended to safeguard Christians in the Holy Land... just what gave rise to them? The answer - politics. During the previous few centuries there had been twin developments in Catholic doctrine. The first was the formulation of just war (an attempt to reconcile the Church's traditional pacifism with the bloody livelihoods of the European nobility) and the evolving role of the Papacy as a parallel authority to the temporal monarchs. The First Crusade was an expression of these two doctrines - a penitential war fought under the banner of the Holy See. The whole campaign was intended to strengthen the Papacy's authority.

Where that essay of yours is correct is in dealing with the motivations of the Crusaders. Modern historians have largely discounted the "second son" theory and acknowledged that piety did play a major role in driving these hosts across the known world. The problem is that this has absolutely nothing to do with whether the Crusades were a "defensive action". Certainly the participants did not view them as such - reclaiming Jerusalem was one thing but there was no suggestion that the campaign was being waged to halt a tide of Muslim expansion. Such language would not appear until the Ottomans started pushing into Europe some three or four centuries later.

Apologies all for the tangent but this idea that the Muslim world was "gunning for" Christian Europe is a complete myth. Its also a particularly dangerous myth that really should be buried for once and for all.