|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Young FRANKenstein
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Location: Castle Frankenstein (that's FRONKensteen)
|
 Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 5:29 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| tzechuk wrote: |
| mole wrote: |
| Chivalry ain't dead! |
I agree. |
I don't. Chivalry is dead. It was killed by feminism. You can't claim you want to be equal then expect the guy adhere to out-dated chivalric behaviours. Either you want to be equal or you don't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
aboxofchocolates
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Location: on your mind
|
| Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What if women were chivalrous as well? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blurgalurgalurga
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
|
| Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Chivalry can mean different things...generally in the common vernacular I guess it means 'being courteous, especially to women.' In that sense I figure it's definitely not dead. As an overarching code of ethics relating to courtly love and religion and all that junk, yeah, it's dead as ditchwater, and good riddance.
I figure being courteous to people is never bad though. Being courteous to women only is better than being courteous to no-one, but I'd prefer it if people--women included, of course--were just more courteous in general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
harlowethrombey
Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aboxofchocolates wrote: |
| What if women were chivalrous as well? |
You mean they'd offer to help carry heavy bags, offer to pay for dinner, etc?
Great. I dont think I could date anyone who wouldnt be willing to do that, or at least offer. That's hardly even chivalrous, it's just basic descency.
Too often people equate chivalry with some form of neuvo-relationship slavery for women. As if the mere idea that a man is offering to help is somehow a blow to every hard won women's right of the last few centuries.
If someone wants to hold open a door for you they're not doing it because they assume you cant (you're too weak or too stupid to figure out how to open a door), they do it because they respect you and they're being nice.
It is an ugly worm turning that some women decide to equate respect with 'he thinks I'm not strong.' Would these be the same women that equate harsh, rude d-bags with 'yes, I'll date him, he's gold'. Because those guys that let the doors shut in your face and play on their handphones while you're juggling three shopping bags arent doing that because they respect your independence so darn much.
There are a thousand little ways you can show your significant other you care and most of them involve simply making their lives a tiny bit easier. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peppermint
Joined: 13 May 2003
Location: traversing the minefields of caddishness.
|
| Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 12:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Can someone please explain where this idea of women getting offended by men holding open doors came from? I moved a lot as kid, but everywhere I've ever lived, holding open the door for someone behind you is just good manners, no matter what genders are involved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JongnoGuru
Joined: 25 May 2004
Location: peeing on your doorstep
|
| Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 1:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| peppermint wrote: |
| Can someone please explain where this idea of women getting offended by men holding open doors came from? I moved a lot as kid, but everywhere I've ever lived, holding open the door for someone behind you is just good manners, no matter what genders are involved. |
I guess the idea came from men trying to highlight the unreasonableness and extremism of feminazis. Unfortunately, too many of them can't tell the difference between feminists and ball-busting man-hating feminazis. (Don't ask how I define these two groups -- I'm making this up as I go.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aboxofchocolates
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Location: on your mind
|
| Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| harlowethrombey wrote: |
| aboxofchocolates wrote: |
| What if women were chivalrous as well? |
You mean they'd offer to help carry heavy bags, offer to pay for dinner, etc?
Great. I dont think I could date anyone who wouldnt be willing to do that, or at least offer. That's hardly even chivalrous, it's just basic descency.
Too often people equate chivalry with some form of neuvo-relationship slavery for women. As if the mere idea that a man is offering to help is somehow a blow to every hard won women's right of the last few centuries.
If someone wants to hold open a door for you they're not doing it because they assume you cant (you're too weak or too stupid to figure out how to open a door), they do it because they respect you and they're being nice.
It is an ugly worm turning that some women decide to equate respect with 'he thinks I'm not strong.' Would these be the same women that equate harsh, rude d-bags with 'yes, I'll date him, he's gold'. Because those guys that let the doors shut in your face and play on their handphones while you're juggling three shopping bags arent doing that because they respect your independence so darn much.
There are a thousand little ways you can show your significant other you care and most of them involve simply making their lives a tiny bit easier. |
I agree with that whole heartedly. The only thing I think might give me pause is if someone tried to order for me, and if I realised they were just being polite and not condescending I probably wouldn't mind. I think the trouble with the word "chivalrous" is it applies to the same behaviour which might otherwise be refered to as "polite". I wouldn't pull a chair out for a guy, that'd be weird. When guys open car doors for me I usually like the gesture. I am all for the lending of jackets when it is cold, that is a beautiful thing. Just a thought, I think it might be nice to make a point of accepting the small gestures your date offers. If she opens the door for you, for instance, don't fight to get it from her and hold it for her. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AmericanExile
Joined: 04 May 2009
|
| Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If chivalry isn't dead it should be killed. The thing about ancient and noble knights is that their acts of chivalry were for noble ladies. If they happened upon a peasant woman who they took a fancy to, they'd bend her over and take their pleasure. She could be single. She could be married. Her children could be watching. Sexist/not sexist - it doesn't matter to me because it is a tradition of classism that I'm not really cool with.
Having said that, I absolutely agree things like respect, kindness, consideration, and politeness should be valued in dealing with other humans especially one you may make a life partner. What is better than bringing joy to people? The simple fact is there are no rules. Some women do like a man who takes charge. I can do that. Some women don't want that. That's cool. Some women like to take charge. That can be fun too.
I'm probably wrong about this but it seems to me the horrible/exciting part of the early dating process is that you don't know what is right because you don't know the other person. Any rules for dating are just something you grab onto to help curb your anxiety. That has value, but you have to be ready and willing to let go. The biggest mistakes I've made in dating is thinking something that went well with one woman will work well for another. After being hit over the head with a simple fact more than a few times it has finally penetrated my brain: every woman is unique. When you discover that uniqueness, respect that uniqueness, and appreciate that uniqueness life can be grand. Doubly so if they do the same for you. I've pretty much accepted the fact that at some point (probably many points) during that process I'm gonna look stupid while trying to be smooth.
I don't call myself a feminist, but I believe feminism has made the world a better place. I was raised in a time and place where it simply never occured to me growing up that a woman couldn't be anything she wanted. If it hadn't been for feminism, I would've been raised differently. I'm glad I'm not that guy. I don't think I would've been able to truly appreciate women if I was that guy. Is feminism unproblematic? No. What human construct is? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AmericanExile wrote: |
If chivalry isn't dead it should be killed. The thing about ancient and noble knights is that their acts of chivalry were for noble ladies. If they happened upon a peasant woman who they took a fancy to, they'd bend her over and take their pleasure. She could be single. She could be married. Her children could be watching. Sexist/not sexist - it doesn't matter to me because it is a tradition of classism that I'm not really cool with.
|
In reality, there were many great knights who were loyal to their lords and were good fathers, brothers, and sons, and many did, in fact, have good manners and were not rapists as you allege. There were people who called themselves knights and used their weapons improperly, but that wasn't everyone. What you described was evil, and the knights often were asked to observe a code, but, obviously, not everyone followed it.
1. Thou shalt believe all the Church teaches and shalt obey her commandments.
2. Thou shalt defend the Church.
3. Thou shalt respect all weaknesses and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.
4. Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy.
5. Thou shalt make war against the infidel without cessation and without mercy.
6. Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they be not contrary to the laws of God.
7. Thou shalt never lie, and shalt remain faithful to thy pledged word.
8. Thou shalt be generous, and give largesse to everyone.
9. Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.
These commandments may be said to have evolved from two Charlemagnic sources around the end of the eighth century. The first, now described as Charlemagne's Code of Chivalry, listed the knight's duties as follows ~
http://www.baronage.co.uk/chivalry/chival1a.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AmericanExile
Joined: 04 May 2009
|
| Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
I concede that there are good people from all times, places and walks of life.
You may choose to believe that the existence of a code means the code was followed. I do not believe that is the case. People make promises, swear oaths and take vows today. Some take them seriously. Some try, fail, and try again. Some intend to break the oath even as they swear it. I doubt people back then were much different.
Sure, we would call what I described as evil. It wasn't to them. It wasn't even rape to them. It was their right. Is that so strange? Claiming to be a group's protector as an excuse to take advantage of them continues right to modern times. The thing is no matter how kind and just a knight may have been he was still an enforcer of class structure. Knights are themselves a class icon.
But, we have gone off topic, so this will be my last post in this direction. I await what you have to say. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AmericanExile wrote: |
I concede that there are good people from all times, places and walks of life.
You may choose to believe that the existence of a code means the code was followed. I do not believe that is the case. People make promises, swear oaths and take vows today. Some take them seriously. Some try, fail, and try again. Some intend to break the oath even as they swear it. I doubt people back then were much different.
Sure, we would call what I described as evil. It wasn't to them. It wasn't even rape to them. It was their right. Is that so strange? Claiming to be a group's protector as an excuse to take advantage of them continues right to modern times. The thing is no matter how kind and just a knight may have been he was still an enforcer of class structure. Knights are themselves a class icon.
But, we have gone off topic, so this will be my last post in this direction. I await what you have to say. |
Here is what I have to say about that, the chivalric code was very noble, and so stating that the concepts of chivalry should be eliminated wouldn't make sense. In fact, I would say more North American men seem to fit more of the knights who ignored chivalry rather than the ones who followed it. In my opinion, men of the younger generation are not taught or encouraged to be polite as they were in the past. They see women more as a means to an end, which would be opposed to the ideals of a chivalric code. I don't disagree with you that too many knights pillaged, raped, and killed, and I feel sorry for all those who suffered in the past
from what those who called themelves knights, and what happened to them was horrible.
Feminism is all right, but sometimes it encourages some females to have bad manners vis-a-vis men, and be overly aggressive and seeing males who are the yang to their yin as adversaries. Feminism has its positive place for sure. It has given many women so many opportunities.
I just think the general idea of having manners has declined amongst female and males.
The good thing about chivalry was that it encouraged people to be of service to one another. Men were supposed to be decent people.
I don't see anything that encourages North American males to be civilized vis-a-vis women or each other. Do you?
That's my take; thank you very much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| peppermint wrote: |
| Can someone please explain where this idea of women getting offended by men holding open doors came from? I moved a lot as kid, but everywhere I've ever lived, holding open the door for someone behind you is just good manners, no matter what genders are involved. |
Well, from what I understand, it is not common to see that, but you are more likely to see that in the United States than in Canada if I go based on my own experience and reading things on dating sites. It stems from the idea that women were oppressed by males, and that has been emphasized very heavily, and chivalry did encourage men to open doors, help damsels in distress, serve the church etc..... It is true, that there was a lot of sexism there, but there were plenty of loving chivalric men.
Women and men, in history, have never been perfect. We are part of each other. Women were not respected enough, but getting aggressive vis-a-vis a man who opens a door is pointless since the person is not looking to oppress a woman:)
Many women view that as connected to a time when men had so much power, so a minority of vocal women view chivalry as a threat, and that's one reason chivarly has not been emphasized as much in society, because it has been deemed as sexist, but one bad consequence of that may be that not encouraging men to be chivalric and honorable and not encouraging such behavior could have adverse consequences for males and females. I could be off the mark, but I am alarmed at how violent and disrespectful males have become vis-a-vis women, and it may be worse than in the old days when sexism was the norm. I open doors for people of both genders. It's good manners, as you said.
There is less chivalry out there, and I don't see that modern men are better than their grandparents at all, female or male. There has been way too much after the 60s, as great it was, the throwing out of the baby with the bath water, IMHO. Of course, the 50s were bad in many ways, let's not be naive about that. We need a kind of balance out there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
