Chivalry vs. Feminism: Can they co-exist?

[Yeatts]

According to the free online dictionary a definition of chivalry is:

The qualities idealized by knighthood, such as bravery, courtesy, honor, and gallantry toward women.

According to the Urban dictionary feminism is defined as:

Feminism...embraces the belief that all people are entitled to freedom and liberty within reason- including equal civil rights--and that discrimination should not be made based on gender, sexual orientation, skin color, ethnicity, religion, culture, or lifestyle

Feminists....Are dedicated to fighting the ignorance that says people are controlled by and limited to their biology.

So those definitions are all fine and dandy but how does those descriptions translate into actions in 2015? Let's start with examples for chivalry:

Bravery: Some guy won't leave a female alone after she clearly has stated that she is not interested and has told him to go away. You then go up and tell the guy to go away.

Courtesy: Holding the door open for a female.

Honor: Showing respect and respecting a females opinions.

Gallantry is similar enough to the bravery example I gave.

So you may not have an everyday chance to be brave but you certainly have an everyday chance to show courtesy and honor.

Now let's look at feminism. Although for the most part women are fairly equal to men in the developed countries if not in certain situations have more of an advantage in something like dating.

There is still some inequality with women being victims of more crimes and also being stereotyped to be a certain way for the most part worse for society as a whole ex. only being attractive if they look or act a certain way.

Overall feminism is about the ability to choose. To be able to choose to go to school, to work, to become whatever you can, to act (within reason) how you want to act.

Modern-day feminism isn't the same as it was in the 60s or 70s it's now realizing that women's voices matter in all areas of life no matter how small and that they can be the person they want to be regardless of gender.

Now how do those two meet? They meet quite well in fact. Men can still choose to be chivalrous by showing women courtesy and honor (and bravery when needed) and women can choose how far they will accept courtesy and honor.

For example I am a strong believer in women getting off their ass and doing things for themselves (for example approaching a guy). But I still enjoy it when my boyfriend opens the door for me. Yeah I realize I am perfectly capable of opening the door for myself but it is the thought behind the action. It's like a guy buying a girl flowers. She is perfectly capable of buying flowers for herself but the fact he thought of her to do it is what matters.

Now I am not saying that men should do this without any thanks! Women should appreciate what guys do for them and thank them for it. (Heh why do you think my boyfriend still opens to door for me? :P)

Please note this does not apply to the extreme Feminists who hate men and think they should die or whatever. This take is referring people who are legitimately concerned about social inequality.

So basically this:

and not this:

I would like to hear other people's view points please leave your opinion below this is my first mytake. :)

[AleDeEurope]

First of all, you can't get a definition from a dictionary for one word, and the definition of a "fake" dictionary for the other.
Feminism according to the dictionary: the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
It has nothing to do with the fight for equality for everyone, just for women.

That being said, I do think that Chivalry and Feminism can co-exist, I support both of them. When I open the door for a woman I don't do it because I think she's not capable, and I don't do it because I think she's more than me, I do it because it's a way to be nice to another person. And like you said, women need to say thanks when a man does something like that, they can't take it for granted because then, no one will ever do that again. You can't expect people to do nice things to you, when you aren't nice to them, that's what can't co-exist.
REAL Feminism will not be the end for Chivalry, because REAL feminists like that and are grateful for that, and they fight for the same respect men have. The problem comes with the extremists, the FAKE Feminists, those are the ones that are fucking things up, because they don't fight for feminism, but for women's superiority, not women's equality.

Chivalry is just nice acts showing respect and courtesy, and if women keep being thankful when a guy does this acts, then yeah, there's no problem with both of them co-existing.

[Yeatts]

Thanks for the dictionary suggestion is there a dictionary I should use in the future instead of that one?

[AleDeEurope]

When you want to get the definition of a word, just type "Define (word)" and automatically Google will give you a definition :)

by the way, I forgot to say it before, but good Take ;)

[Yeatts]

Thanks :)

I will definitely use your suggestion in the future.
:)

[Ccmeu]

I don't call myself a feminist with a good conscience because of all the misperception and stigma attached to it these days. I believe in equality in terms of education, freedom of speech, choice of career, equal pay, etc. I don't feel feel demeaned if a man holds a door open for me, or any other form of polite chivalry. I smile and say thank you, acknowledging that he took the time to show me, most likely a stranger, a form of respect. In turn, I try to be polite and show respect to my male colleagues when I can. It could be as simple as asking how their weekend was, or doing them some sort of simple, run of the mill favor. I guess my point is that women should have equal rights, but we should not take it to the extreme and reject kind gestures from men. I think a lot of modern feminists could use a dose of humility. The world would be so much better if we could learn to be gracious and respectful to everyone around us.

[OpenClose]

Totally agreed. The deeds are not the problem. The expectation of the deeds is the problem, and the part that puts guys off. Guys aren't opposed to generosity, we are opposed to being puppets, or having our interest so worthless that we have to PAY you to stick around. It's deeply insulting, especially if you claim gender equality, but say this is the man's job.

Also, lesbians and gays don't do this. So it isn't a relationship thing, it's a sexism thing.

[lonerider]

glad to see such women around :)

[Ccmeu]

Yeah, I hate it when women feel entitled to special treatment 'just because'. It totally defeats the purpose of 'equality'.
I can see how that would be horrible. I'm sorry about that. I have to say, I'm a bit of a traditionalist in the sense that I like to be pursued a little for a short period at the very start. I guess I just like to know that I'm really wanted, not a fling. Then after we get into the swing of things, I am a firm believer of give and take. Relationships are like tug of war, you have to find the right balance to stay up. If everyone is stubborn and insists upon doing their own thing, everyone loses.

[Ccmeu]

@lonerider Thank you! Haha

[lonerider]

You've won my heart... care for a coffee, mademoiselle? :P

[Ccmeu]

@lonerider I would be honored, monsieur. :P

[lonerider]

*starts to save money for a US trip*

[inamorata]

This is absolutely ridiculous. First you're ignoring actual feminist propaganda, its consequences, roots and social influence.
"Freedom to choose" many things feminism demands comes to women without required work they'd need to get it as men. There is nothing equal about giving you a head start just because you're weak. It's cheating and degrading to men.

If chivalry is "The qualities idealized by knighthood, such as bravery, courtesy, honor, and gallantry toward women."

Yet feminism claims (read: LIES) women aren't limited by their gender...

Then chivalry is NOT needed. If women are not limited by their gender they should be expected to do the SAME for guys, in which case the word chivalry becomes redundant. It just becomes "helping people".

No, feminism and chivalry can absolutely not exist and what you are doing in this article is exactly this: s3.amazonaws.com/.../...4b63-a9ca-a2bc10f39773.jpg
Like a typical feminist...

And even if when you try to be one brain cell smarter and point out feminism wants women to have some easier treatment as opposed to men because we are "equal and not the same", you'd just openly be saying: s3.amazonaws.com/.../...4b63-a9ca-a2bc10f39773.jpg

When a man is refusing to protect you and help you, he bears the brunt of social condemnation and punishment of internal pain for going against his own instinct. Men are not just polite, they are burdened with female safety and comfort. And women expect it and they like it.

You don't get to opt out of your imitations, you can't cancel out maleness without sissifying the men turning them into almost-transgender creatures, you can't refuse to admit your own desire to be protected.

And you're not even trying unlike some butch dykes out there.
All you're saying is: This is not hypocrisy because I say so.

As a feminist you don't need male protection and bravery, you can be as strong. As a feminist you don't deserve a politeness ritual that celebrates gender differences. As a feminist you have to earn male respect by beating men in their area, you have not femininity worth their respect.

[Yeatts]

The power that makes humans equal is the ability of choice. If you take that away even in just one area you are making them unequal.

Equality means different things for different people but in the end it's about the ability to chose (within reason) and to not be judged unfairly because of that choice (within reason)

If you feel differently I am sure you can write your own mytake about it. You seem to feel strongly enough about it.

[inamorata]

"Equality means different things for different people..."
Unless you have a standard to go by, unless you can actually describe what you stand for and why, you shouldn't be writing any myTakes.

Saying: Of it's individual and ambiguous, but bottom like *insert generic, useless line with phrases like "ability to choose" and "fair judgement".
is utterly useless. You're not saying anything to anyone. You're just showing your opinion is not intellectual, but emotional.

[Yeatts]

What I mean by that is this:

female a) she wants to be a housewife

female b) she wants to be a breadwinner

Both are equal it's what they want. To say 'Oh its sexist for a female to want to be a housewife' would make them unequal.

If you ask different people how they want to live their lives you will get different answers because they are different people. To say they can't do something because they are female or male makes it sexist.

When I say the ability to chose I mean the same as any other person. For example when women got the right to vote yeah I am sure tons of females signed up to vote but then tons probably didn't. Does that make the two groups any less equal? No that was their choices.

The ability to chose what you do in and throughout your life is a standard. It means not restricting someone based off of shallow things like gender.

[inamorata]

" To say 'Oh its sexist for a female to want to be a housewife' would make them unequal. "
Again, you have no standard.
WANTING something doesn't concern itself with issue of sexism. Wanting is internal, subjective. No one gives a shit what women want. It's the objective, what women DO that is examined.

"To say they can't do something because they are female or male makes it sexist. "
"Can't do something.." - exactly.
That's again a faulty standard: can't do SOMETHING. I can say to a woman you can't float in mid air. Does that make me sexist?

Not to mention women can't SUCCESSFULLY do many things men can, even if you insist you only mean that: pee standing up. Be a good cop. Etc.
Their inability to do those things, leads to a conclusion that they should not do them halfassedly.

No one is saying you CAN'T stan up and pee. But you can't do it functionally, like a man.
To call something sexist doesn't mean it's evil. It's just seeing reality.

[inamorata]

"For example when women got the right to vote yeah I am sure tons of females signed up to vote but then tons probably didn't. Does that make the two groups any less equal?"
This is a ridiculous example. You already asserted women had the right to vote, thus were equal. The standard of equality is established before we establish what individual women did, so wtf?

"The ability to chose what you do in and throughout your life is a standard."
NO, it is not. By that standard you should be able to schoose anything, and you're not. You can't choose to not die. You're limited by your BIOLOGY. You have to die.
That's no standard at all.

"It means not restricting someone based off of shallow things like gender."
And there you go. In the article above women ARE different, so "be brave for them", and now a distinction used to restrict such as gender is all of a sudden "shallow".

You want the benefits of being weak, but not the restrictions that come with it!

[Anonymous]

The two can not co-exist. If the man and woman are equal and free from gender roles, then they would both be trying to beat each other to the door in order to show courtesy and both would be respectful toward each other. If both genders are doing it, then it makes it impossible for these traits to be seen as being acts of chivalry toward a woman, because the woman would be expected to do the same for a man. It just becomes a way of showing respect to another human, and is therefore not an act of chivalry.

In order for a man to do an act of chivalry, the man would need to do something that women are not expected to do for men. This means we would HAVE to have some type of gender role expectations within society. For instance, I have heard that in some countries the woman might keep the man's drink full during dinner, while the man might push the heavy shopping cart for the woman when they go to the market. Each gender has different expectations placed on them, and therefore you can have chivalry, toward women, but also allow women to show the same level of respect toward men.

Expecting someone to fulfill a gender role is against the basic ideas of feminism. This means that men and women have to treat each other exactly the same, or else you are forcing gender roles onto people, and therefore are being sexist according to feminist beliefs. Otherwise it could be argued that the male and female gender roles always were equal, and it would destroy the very foundation of the feminist moment. You can't argue about wanting to be let out of your gender role, and then expect men to follow their gender role, without looking like a hypocrite. This is the problem a lot of men have with feminist movement now.

If you support gender roles, then you can believe that men and women can be different and equal. If you don't support gender roles, then you must believe that men and women need to be treated the exactly the same, and I don't see women running ahead to open the car door.

[Yeatts]

Yeah but it's not really an expectation for guy to open a door for a female. I know if a guy does do it it really stands out and if it was expected then no thanks would be required because it's an expectation that you need or have to fulfill.

This article is how chivalry and feminism relate to eachother. Basically it's a case of basic respect on both sides and for chivalry it's a case of going that extra step for a female because you want to. Like you can do a nice thing for a friend but you are still equal.

[Yeatts]

Nobody said guys have to be chivalrous. But they certainly would have an easier time with females.

[Opinion Owner]

"for chivalry it's a case of going that extra step for a FEMALE because you want to." Why only for females, and not males? During times of chivalry, women also had certain expectations placed on them. That extra step should be taken on both sides. Chivalry is not just something men should do, but most women ignore that fact. This is why chivalry is dead. Women abandoned their gender roles and even got on to men that tried to hang onto ours. If women want chivalry back, then they need to step up their game, and learn ways to be chivalrous toward men.

The last statement you made I agree with. Then again, women would benefit from that advice just as much as men. Women are not special just because they have a vagina. If they want men to go that extra step, then they need to be willing to go that extra step as well. Otherwise men end up putting women on a pedestal, and women end up taking those men for granted.

[Opinion Owner]

Personally I don't think men should be chivalrous to all females. I believe we should only act that way to the women that actually are special to us. Otherwise it waters down the meaning behind our actions.

[Yeatts]

Yeah I agree with you.

[Kalinda]

You don't need gender roles to be respetful. They get in the way of respect.

[Opinion Owner]

I didn't say you need gender roles to be respectful. People that are against gender roles, will share your viewpoint. Women that want to be treated differently for being a woman however, end up putting men back into gender roles. This is why feminism and chivalry can not coexist. You can have one or the other, but you can not have both. That is the point I am trying to make. To ask for chivalry is to support gender roles.

[OpenClose]

Chivalry and Feminism are only compatible if they are not gendered.

Remember, you want to be treated as fellow humans. This means you either won't be treated like princesses, or you will need to treat your boyfriend like a prince.

Saying "Treat me this way or you aren't a real man" while thinking it would be bad for men to hold the same standard? That's just laziness, plain and simple.

"Treat me like a princess!"
"Heaven forbid I should have to treat you like a prince." or "What guy deserve THAT kind of treatment?"

Here it is, said by the video that broke the internet for a day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ7wT4CUprQ

If you are going to expect chivalry from me, I am going to expect chivalry from you.

I remember offering to pay for a date once. "I'll take this!" I said. Her response? "Umm yeah. That's how it works." It was my first formal date ever, so I ignored it that time. But I was tempted to "lose" my wallet, or just completely walk out and leave her the bill.

Now, I generally won't go out with a girl who doesn't offer to at least pay for herself. If she offers, I'm also more likely to pay for her as a "thank you for not being like those other chicks."

And you know what? That doesn't make me at a loss. There are plenty of girls with a reasonable sense of reciprocation. For instance, I've had a few cases where me and a girl plan to go out for a walking date, and she shows up with Starbucks or a picnic basket.

---"Your Time" is not something you righteously give and I selfishly take. If I ask you out, I am offering my time. You agreeing is you offering yours.

---"Giving" sex is not reciprocation for money or gifts or chivalry. Sex itself is already a reciprocative activity. Unless you want me to believe you are asexual.

When I do nice things for girls, it's out of the kindness of my heart, not out of payment for some sort of future deeds.

Note, this isn't necessarily a response to the OP. This is a response to the discussion as a whole.

[OpenClose]

And yes, you can bet that I paid those girls back for the starbucks and lunch. There's no way I'd let that go unappreciated.

[JaysunFe]

I want to take that girl out somewhere on a date then go home and fuck her make love to her.

[EpicDweeb]

I take issue with two points that lie in the used definition of feminism.
@AleDeEurope already addressed my first one actually in regards to feminism exclusively referring to the equality of men and women not the equality of all people.

My second issue lies in the statement that "Feminists are dedicated to fighting the ignorance that says people are controlled by and limited to their biology." I think this statement in and of itself bares willful ignorance as it seems to ignore the fact that there are very real and very significant differences between male and female bodies. Now I don't believe men have any business telling women what they should do with their bodies and I don't believe women have any business telling men what THEY should do with their bodies. I agree that both men and women should have equal civil rights and I believe that they do. I think it's dangerous to presume that women are entirely capable of doing every single thing men are physically capable of doing. The way in which men's muscles develop is fundamentally different from those of women which means that, baseline, men will be stronger than women. I'm not saying there can't be strong women, only that the limits of men's strength is greater than the limit's of women's strength (strictly in the physical sense). This was exemplified as a British special forces LOWERED their physical requirements because there hadn't been a single woman who'd successfully met the previous standard.

I take issue with feminism because it tries to say there are NO differences between men and women when it's just plain not true. I believe men and women should be treated as equals, but NOT as equally capable of everything. I think women are far more capable than men in some regards and vice versa. I think we lose something if we try and pretend that men and women aren't different.

I will say that I think Chivalry is not opposed to feminism, BUT I think it's greatly opposed to feminists. From my experience dealing with self-proclaimed/vocal feminists, many are offended by men doing things for them that I'd consider "chivalrous." Feminists make it offensive to be a chivalrous person. Again, it's not a matter of feminism causing it to be offensive, the problem arises from those who claim to uphold feminism.

I think the problem with feminism is that, rather than fighting for equality, it fights for sameness. While there is plenty of overlap, these are two different things at their core. I believe men and women are equals and where they aren't they should be treated as such. I do not believe men and women are the SAME and to treat them as such would be to neglect what makes them individual and special. Feminists seem to say "take pride in being a woman who's capable of doing everything that men can do." I believe the approach ought to be... take pride in being a woman, you can do things men aren't capable of doing. And likewise, take pride in being a man, you can do things women aren't capable of doing. Neither statement is oppressing one gender but is lifting up a gender. That is how I believe it should be.

[genericname85]

all those propositions of what feminism is supposed to mean is total bullshit to me, because in the end it´s allways only focusing on women anyway.

never seen a feminist talking about any male problems. they are a side note at best to legitimate the claim that feminism is about "equality"

in fact the tables have pretty much turned nowadays:

a guy is a gentlemen, he is friendzoned at best and ridiculed or even insulted for it. if a guy is an asshole, he also does everything wrong and is considered a sexist douchebag. there is no way for a guy to behave in an appropriate way.

whereas girls can be as sexist as they want.
slapping a guys ass: you go girl
groping a guy in public: you go girl
accusing a guy of rape after she had consensual sex with him: awww poor girl

Speaking of diskrimination:

Girls: awww "curves" are fine (if she's obviously fat).
Guys: lol no sixpack? you´re a fat lard.

also: i´ve never been an asshole or sexist and allways tried to be friendly and considerate... girls don´t like that i can tell!

[GirlsLie]

I guess I understand where you're going with this but damn these are such stereotypical examples lol

Why do they need to be thrown around like it's an accomplishment that a man can hold a door open for someone else. Women hold doors open all of the time, I hold doors open all of the time for people and sometimes those people walk by without giving so much as a "thank you" but I don't make meme's calling those people "ungrateful bitches" because I expect people to grovel at my existence because I took 2 minutes of my day to hold a door open for them. Sure they are rude but if it offends you that much then you're really not a nice person.

Women are nice to men all of the time, we do all sorts of things that are nice for men and for each other and those things don't have a label but the things men do for women are perceived as "chivalrous". It's actually a little insulting to men as well because you're basically saying he's doing it because he's a man and not just because he's a nice person regardless of his gender or ours.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

If you have equality in every other way and THEN chivalry as well, that's special treatment. Respecting women's opinions isn't chivalry because I respect everyone's opinions regardless of gender, and I can't give more credence to women solely because they're women. So it's chivalry OR feminism, to get both IS special treatment. Even to say men shouldn't have to do these things and that you 'just like' it is still setting a precedent. Now if we all treated everyone this way then that would be fair.

Expressing gratitude for guys doing such things is THE LEAST you can do, but gratitude isn't actually worth anything real. If I could pay for goods and services with gratitude that would be cray. It's not fairness, I'd rather be thanking people for their generosity than being generous all the time.

You can't rightly want equality but also set a precedent for special treatment.

I've often heard women justify it with something like 'You should make the person you care about feel special.' Well my thought is yes I totally agree, so when do I get to be made to feel special?

[Dargil]

When Feminism is the advocacy of equal opportunity and equal treatment, yes, and chivalry should support that. When (Radical) Feminism advocates the general abandonment of traditional femininity, modesty, moral self-restraint (which is the province of women) and a central focus on family and children, it should be quarantined and avoided like the plague.

Civilization was created for the protection of women and family. It took time for them to achieve relative equality in the working world and on the street. But identical to the the Civil Rights movement's successes transitioning into race hustlers' excesses, the Women's Liberation movement of the 60's spiraled into today's Radical Feminist mind set, which has rendered generations of middle class (mostly) educated white women unsuited to traditional women's roles, some of them dictated by DNA and others by the logic and reason that support those roles. And these women have busied themselves infecting other domestic races and cultures.

I have said here before that Radical Feminism must be quarantined and allowed to die out. Take their easy sexuality if you must early on (but that bribery is how they got their teeth into us in the first place). But don't marry them and, for G0d's sake, don't let them raise children. The cure for Radical Feminism is importing foreign born women from traditional cultures. The patience of waiting and the costs associated with visas, "remittances", airfare, etc. are nothing compared to the disaster of a planned, tactical divorce arriving when success has been achieved by men and sympathetic courts eviscerate them. Gentlemen. Look to the south of the far east.

[MrTexan37]

It all comes down to that ugly "double standard" like the picture says chivalry is not dead guys just get tired of ungratefull bitches!

She loves my abs my muscular arms the way i eat clean but get mad when i dont go on a drunken binder with her or shove pizza down my face like she does and dont even think about mentioning that gut she's developing cause then im an asshole pig

If i cook its "sexy" or "romantic" but if i ask her to make something "your lucky cause i dont cook"

Im a asshole if i ask for a blowjob but its ok if she demands that i buy her stuff

If im washing clothes she has "stuff to do" but when she's doing laundry im a jerk if i dont sit there with her for 3 hours while she does hers

a lot of women nowdays have this misconception that as long as they give sex that they dont have to do much in a relationship and that they have all the control

Yeah i expect to get death threats from this but this is true and NO its not EVERY woman so do i think chivalry and feminisime can coexist YES but only if the ugly double standard goes away

[Bellibooo]

If you're together with a woman like that I think you should move on... Or have a really serious talk about how unfair you're being treated.

[SexyTexas]

At 37, why are you still with this chick? It's clear the two of you are not compatible and she is beyond annoying from what you wrote.

So I'm curious why are you still with her and why from your own crappy situation would you lump all modern women in a category with her ~"a lot of women nowdays have this misconception that as long as they give sex that they dont have to do much in a relationship and that they have all the control"

I am not like her and I'm sure other women on this board agree they are not like her.

[MrTexan37]

@Bellibooo i did move on but this just wasn't one chick it was several

@Sexy Texas did you see where i said "NO its not EVERY woman" im sure YOU are a wonderful woman

[Anonymous]

Ok, so here's the thing: there's a difference between the traditional notion of chivalry (concerning the treatment of women, mind you) and the idea of simply being a decent human being. Male chivalry, in a historical context, has generally been condescending towards women (i. e. the idea that women are weak/helpless and therefore their delicate little natures must be protected at all costs). The problem, nowadays, isn't so much that men are being unfairly chastised for being nice to women (PEOPLE should be nice to EVERYBODY). The problem is that many people seem to think the original ideology of male chivalry and just treating a woman with respect are one in the same; they're not. If a man holds a door open for a woman simply because she's a woman and he's being chivalrous, then it typically means his attitude towards women coincides with a more traditional, sexist viewpoint. If he's doing it just because she's a PERSON and he wants to do something nice for another human being, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Again, the idea behind the word "chivalry" is the problem which makes it utterly irrelevant in today's society. People should be kind towards others because it's the right thing to do, not because it's "chivalrous".

[Yeatts]

I do agree with you, you do have a point.

[aforanon]

Yes, they can. If a woman doesn't like a man paying for dinner or buying her gifts then he shouldn't do it. But don't mistake basic manners and general politeness as chivalry. If a man holds the door open for you he isn't being chivalrous, he's being polite (whether he knows it or not). That kind of behavior should always be present in society but like I said, some women like chivalry and some don't. But ladies, don't expect it. Because if you do you are enforcing double standards and general roles.

[Yeatts]

That's what I was trying to say but I guess I didn't express myself clear enough (I did type this on my phone at 2am) everything comes down to choice no one has to do it but they can choose to.

[PerpetualMomentum]

Since women are unable to perpetually sustain a society if they control it. And feminism is that very concept, it is female social and political domination. In modern society created from capital F feminism it's a more concentrated gynocentric form.

And what we have in feminist societies is a combination of many self-destructive elements, these are: Low-birth rate, high unemployment, attraction to the "thug life" and it's affiliation with the modern definition of the "alpha-beta male" which is akin to nomadic times where the strongest most extroverted meathead is the most attractive. In modern society this is dysgenic since western society needs intellectuals and not strongmen to run complex computers machines and to organize complex societies.

Chivalry is simply the opposite end of the same coin. It's men being manginas, and bowing to the female's dominance in society.

[gloriak0974]

Throwing around fancy words doesn't make your argument more viable by the way.
Feminism is NOT social and political domination. It is simply the idea of women being politically and socially equal to men.

[PerpetualMomentum]

"Feminism is NOT social and political domination. It is simply the idea of women being politically and socially equal to men."

I'll admit I did make statements without proof. And you did them out to me, however all that was stated were statements. Not proves.

I have proof of the anti-male nature of feminism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mprqvuUS_Ho

[Kabloosh75]

Short answer? No.

Feminists want to be treated as equals, but often times want to reap the benefits of their gender privileges. I agree women shouldn't be treated poorly, or objectified as sex objects and in the work place be treated just like you would a man. But that doesn't mean you can start wigging out when I don't slave over you and open every door, order your food for you, etc etc.

I also dislike anyone marching around demanding respect. You'll get common courtesies, but do not think for a moment you've earned my respect. You have to earn that just like how I have to earn yours.

I'll treat anyone how I wouldn't mind being treated.
If they don't treat me well then they aren't going to get treated well in return.

[Yeatts]

Thing with chivalry is honoring someone is just part of basic respect. Like respecting their view or opinion or respecting their choices.

"Men can still CHOOSE to be chivalrous" I never said anywhere that men had to be chivalrous. I wrote this article because people say chivalry is dead because of feminism when really it's not.

It's dead because of ungrateful women and people who claim to be "feminist" who support inequality of the genders by saying men or women should do this or this no matter what or by just acting like women are above men in some way.

[Watermelonoma]

i don't really do chivalrous things for women specifically. I mean, i hold doors open for anybody. I'd hold the door open for an alien if i could. Same thing with showing respect. So of coarse, feminism and chivalry can co-exist, but part of the problem some people have with feminists is that they have a tendency to overreach. At my old school (university of toronto), we had feminists preventing mens rights activists from speaking and sharing their point of view.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0

Im not an MRA, but those kinds of things irritate me. Women and men should be expected to show chivalry towards EACH OTHER. That is real equality in my view

[Yeatts]

Yeah I agree with you and mytake is pointing out that some "feminist" aren't actually feminist but in real feminism it really wouldn't affect chivalry

[Yeatts]

Honestly I feel like real feminist hate a lot of females for shaming feminism by either saying they are feminist and doing stupid shit like in this video. Or women act like they can't do anything without a man or they should be treated a certain way because they are a women.

So really for feminism because it has become such a fad it's a losing battle for real feminist because even the people that are with you are against you.

[TheDevilInside]

I agree that feminism means male=female. But, it also means that women should take responsibility for their choices and not always blame men. About the "asking for it", here's what I think: if you CHOOSE to look like a dog, people will treat you like a dog.

So if a girl is fully covered up and still get raped, then sure, it's always the guys' fault. But if a girl chooses to dress up like a whore, then it's NOT 100% the guy's fault. I think you should present yourself the way you want people to treat you.

Now after all, you wouldn't dress up like a homeless person because you don't want people to treat you like a homeless person, am I right? Same thing with dressing like a whore.

Bring on the downvotes, you feminazis!

[KAZ-2Y5]

rape is unwanted sex. you are saying when a girl dresses immodestly that she was asking for it seems logical *sarcasm of course*

[somethingsomeone]

Are you kidding me?

This is what I don't understand about arguments like yours: Regardless of your opinion on how women should present themselves, when is it EVER ok to excuse someone for committing a legitimate crime against another person? It's not illegal for a woman to dress provocatively, at least not in the U. S. She's not committing any crime by being scantily clad, she can dress however the hell she wants. The person doing the raping, however, IS responsible because they chose to commit an illegal act. Where is the logic in thinking that a person who has has done absolutely nothing wrong under the law is somehow even partly responsible for someone else's crime? Men aren't animals; unless they're mentally unsound, they do have basic analytical reasoning skills and can CHOOSE to like, NOT rape somebody. Don't insult the male population by using the the tired old "but we have no control over ourselves!" excuse.

[Vesuvius87]

Nope, no one deserves to get rape. Even if the woman was a hooker and the guy forced her against her will, rape is rape. It's a crime and he should still be punished.

Your statement sounds like saying guys should only not rape certain women while the others who are dresssing up in non-conservative ways should be raped and treated like garbage.

[ComDom]

@KAZ-2Y5 @somethingsomeone @Vesuvius87 Wrongo and lets be pragmatic for a second and not emotional. This is not about right or wrong. This is about what makes sense. If you tie a rack of ribs around your ankle near a wolf it's probably going to be much more inclined to bite your leg than if you hadn't done that.

What do you think is the PURPOSE of modesty? It isn't to control women or some nonsense like that. It's because fundamentally we're all animals by scientific definition. Males respond to visual stimulai... like oh I don't know cleavage (and skin) and they have evolutionary responses such as arousal to said stimulai.

This is not debatable. This is a fact. If you remove the visual stimulai then you have a SUBSTANTIALLY lower chance of a guy coming onto you. The point I'm trying to make is that modesty is FOR YOU. Not us.

tl;dr Most males do have control of themselves but some don't and modesty helps YOU. So don't make this into something it isn't. It's rational and nothing more.

[KAZ-2Y5]

i am sorry okay not really but boobs are literally that sit on your chest i don't know why men find them attractive.

my main point is, if i was wearing a shirt that says KILL ME would you do it? no because you are obviously crazy and you can't use the words on my rhetorical shirt to excuse that so why do you use a woman dressing immodestly as an excuse for rape?

[KAZ-2Y5]

*fat boobs are fat that sit on your chest i should go to bed

[Vesuvius87]

Those men that rape chose to do that because they're crazy. That's why. Someone that's crazy would do it regardless of how the girl is dressed up. He could also fooled her by tricking the girl or stalking her.

[TheDevilInside]

Bla, bla, bla. Lol

Feminism doesn't mean that women should be able to walk around only half covered and men should just grit their teeth.
That would be the same with letting half your tits out and them slap every guy who looks at them. "I want to show my tits to the whole world, but you're an asshole if you DARE look at them." Then keep them covered, bitch!

Maybe it has something to do with my Asian Background, but I think there's a time and place in which certain body parts can be shown. At the pool or beach, it would be totally appropriate to show more than 50% of your body. Or if you work as... "certain kinds of dancers". To class or on the streets... Especially at night... You better know how to cover your goods if you don't want to attract UNWANTED NEGATIVE ATTENTION

[Anonymous]

"This take is referring to people who are legitimately concerned about social inequality."

Sorry but I have to call bullshit here. I don't care what feminists say, feminism cares about women, not men, despite the fact that men face at least as many injustices today as women do. Claiming feminism supports men's issues too is about the most dishonest thing I have ever heard.

If you are legitimately concerned with social inequality, as you claim, you simply cannot support feminism. Feminism is extremely female biased and therefore has nothing to do with "social inequality".

[kheserthorpe]

There was an article in my local paper on this topic just last week.

The authors position was that all chivalry or benign sexism is a trap to keep women accepting sexist attitudes and should be eradicated.

The views held by most self-described feminists on GaG match the standard mainstream view of virtually everyone where I live. By contrast self described feminists I run into both in the media where I live or in person are the type feminists here typically say are 'not real feminists'.

Just an observation.

[Yeatts]

Yeah I agree with them. Real feminism is about the ability to choose and not just have things shoved down your throat that you have to do because you are a female.

[kheserthorpe]

I don't think 'real feminism' is any one thing. Nobody owns it. Where I live 'real feminism' is a strong belief that the patriarchy continues to oppress women (and other groups) to maintain a power structure in society.

Anyway it's... Just how it is

[Yeatts]

Real feminism would be supporting the basic values of feminism which would be equality between men and women while a lot of feminism support directly or indirectly the superioroity of women.

I can kind of understand what you are saying though equality means different things to different people. But in the end that all comes down to the ability to choose how you want to live your life.

[Yeatts]

*Feminists

[Kalinda]

What do feminists here say " real" femimsts are? Or why are the other ones not real? You mean bc the omes on here want chivalry? I see tons of women talking about chivalry on here. I don't see a lot of peoeple on here calling themselves feminists and if they do its always qualified with not " that' kind which makes me kimd of leery. Like being defensive before youve finished your sentence doesn't bode well.

Anyhow just curious.

[Yeatts]

@Kalinda

What I mean by real feminist is people who actually support the very basic foundation of feminism and that would be the equality of the genders. A lot support the inequality of genders by putting women on pedestals.

[Jager66]

Feminism is not salvageable, it has become synonymous with bigotry, lies, hate and all for good reason.

This is the only tolerable kind of Feminist, I don't agree with keeping the label but I will side with anyone who fights for real good not bullshit. This lady is a very well known Feminist who has been ostracized by the Feminist movement for being an Equalist instead of a Supremacist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oqyrflOQFc

[Ivy_Nicole]

This dilemma is so American. Really no one meets radical feminists on a daily basis. It is not like it a thread or something. I really think radical feminism does not even exist in Europe . It is just some made-up name by guys who are to threathened by women. Before GaG I never even heard of this. Also I have never met someone who hated men. I did meet people who hated guys temporarily because they broke up with them or so, but this goes for guys too, hating girls who broke up or with them or turned them down.

And for what some of you say, there are still no equal wages for both genders in most of the world.

[LadrosTheHeroic]

Actually, I live in Europe and meet active feminists every day.
The whole benelux-germany is full of them!
In the north of the netherlands girls can even get special treatment at school.

For example: higher marks at gymnastics, history and physics,
Special girls' days,
And mostly if they say something is sexism, they will always get what they want, becouse ortherwise the teacher will get a bad reputation.
And if you would tell this, you would be called sexist.
I think this crisses the border between chivalry and preferentialism.
Also I know someone who actively hates guys since 5 years ago.
Everything is possible.

[Ivy_Nicole]

really I live in the north the netherlands, and the people you portray are not feminists.

Higher marks in gymnastics are logical as men have 10% more muscle then women. They are simply better at sports and get the same grade with a different effort. There are no such things as special girls days, history and physics special marks or any of that. Maybe you only perceive girls to get what they want, I have never seen this in my schools.

If you know some girl who hates guys, she probably doesn't go around hating on guys, this is just not how it is in the netherlands. Probably this is only a phase of the girl or she had a bad experience. This will go when she is older. She probably won't act upon her 'hating'. It is not like 'radical feminism' ment here by the people in the comment section here.

[Rapunzel2490]

I really enjoyed this. I think people should treat each other better on a whole. I don't think being a woman means we should have a door held open for us, or made sure we've gotten home safely after a date. However, it's courtesy. Like getting up for the elderly person on the bus so they can sit, or making sure the pregnant lady doesn't have a door slammed in her face while coming into a building behind you. I think if a man treats a woman well, she's probably going to return the favor and treat him well in return.

[JaysunFe]

Yeah honey you are right, so pretty, I love you.

[damionrain100]

You think so? So if it is courtesy then? This means that you hold open doors, are willing to split the bill, or take the lead sometimes in the relationship right?