In another thread I started a while back, many of you blamed the equal right movement with women and feminism for the reasons why chivalry is dead...or mostly dead anyway. therefore, i would like to know how do you draw that line then? i know it's right to treat women as equals, but can any of you cite examples of displaying chivalry without compromising a woman's independence then? i only ask this since MOST of you blamed it on equal rights and feminism for chivalry's death, so now I ask you to list examples of how to show chivalry in a equal rights era.
exploit my weakness, treat me as lesser, I dont care
but please please please TAKE OUT THE FREAKING GARBAGE!!!!
thanks. it's good to be back. i decided to pop in to see how you all were doing.
Feminism is beleiving in rights for women. It tends to be a tangential argument when we compare chivalry to feminism. I know it may seem innocous but it really isnt when we think about what the meaning is when we make this comparison........What we are saying is chivalry exists because it is our treat to women for being under our thumbs.
I met a nun who is a president of a university in the Philippines who said, "I am a feminist....but not the type that hates men....but the type that respects both men and women alike". I think most men view feminism as hatred of men. It is just empowerment.
I think we polarize ourselves when we try to seperate ourselves completely by gender. I believe in individuality. When we consider people in a manner of individuals with rights and desires that are very much the same as ours, the world will be a much better place.
We can argue differences but if we dont find commenalities we wont get along with each other. This has to do with not only gender, but race and other ideological differences between humans. When we come down to the basic human, we have the same basic needs and wants.
Chivalry is something nice us men may do........and i have seen women being chivalrous too. Feminism is just basically about women having rights.
Flowers are good in any one's book even feminists and respect for what that woman wants...it's a specialised subject and hard to generalise feminism as every feminist is different and individual believe it or not, i suspect....even though I believe in equal rights I am not a feminist.Chilvary is not dead thank goodness.
This is good. I have only had it happen with two separate relationships. It makes you eel highly values, prized, as a woman. As you are walking on the sidewalk, the man should be between street traffic and the woman. This may sound silly, but if she asks why you shifted to the outside, you can let her know it is for her protection. If a car ran the curb, or if someone tried to "snatch her away" into a van or car, you are on the protecting side.
Also, if she carries a purse, suggest that it is between you and her, that way no one can run by and snatch her purse off of her shoulder.
Open doors, and let her go first, and always say please, thank you an excuse me when necessary, but not just to her, to others when you are with her.
Waiter: "Would you like to see the wine list, Sir?
You : "Please" (not " yes thank you", or sure) When he hands it to you then say thank you.
Chivalry is about making her feel valued, not making her feel weak. Showing good manners is a way to make her feel valued, too.
Well I know what the males in my house do that I like, so I'll just use them.
Open doors and let the woman go first, carry heavy stuff, look after the vehicles. My husband still closes vehicle doors behind me sometimes if we go on a date. Little things like that.
And chivalry is pretty much dead and I blame it on bad upbringing. I have walked into stores carrying a baby in one arm and holding a toddler hand with the other and many men under say 35 will just stand there and stare stupidly rather than hold a door open. One actually let me and the kids hold it for him. I let go of it and it hit him. Accidentally
"I have walked into stores carrying a baby in one arm and holding a toddler hand with the other and many men under say 35 will just stand there and stare stupidly rather than hold a door open."
Difference is, that's not to do with chivalry, that's just plain rude! I presume you'd hold the door if you were carrying nothing and he was carrying a 100lb box?
Besides why should chivalry still exist? Above and beyond common politeness that is. Aren't preferential treatment and equality exclusive to one another?
As a final note, I don't think it's upbringing as such I think people just don't read the right books any more :-)
I believe in equality, I will hold doors open for men and women and I expect the same from them if I need it.
I don't think feminism has anything to do with it. There's been a decline of good manners in general, and most of the chivalric gestures that are worth hanging on to are common courtesy for ANYONE, male or female.
Sure, I enjoy having the door held open for me, but I make it a practice to hold the door open for others as well, male and female. If my husband finds me struggling to carry too many or too heavy things, he'll pitch in, but I would do the same for him, and both of us will offer help to total strangers if it looks like they need it.
People who say feminism killed chivalry are just looking for an excuse to hate feminism, and probably an excuse to be rude, too.
Give equal rights the boot and treat everyone with the respect they deserve. Women are different from men. We are not as physically strong and more emotionally sensitive. It is right for men to help women by carrying heavy shopping bags and to move a heavy piece of furniture. It is also right fro a man to reassure a women who is emotionally upset and offer support.
Women who resent chivalry and genuine shows of affection and care are rejecting a man's willingness to show respect and take care of the women in the ways they should.
I loathe feminism. I think it's provoked the death of femininity in many women and it has crushed chivalry sadly, in many men.
I don't loathe feminism, a great deal of it needed to happen, but it did run amok in many ways. But I agree with a lot of your post anyway.
Anyone who has ever read Wuthering Heights knows that women always had power. To claim otherwise is to sell them short, implicating them as incapable of managing their lives in the same breath one seeks to speak for them. Power is not always in your face.
That would be because you don't know what feminism is, nor do you know what femininity is. Or chivalry really. Many people here are mistaking chivalry (which really wasn't as romantic as many people think) for politeness. It is right for ANYONE to help ANYONE ELSE carrying a heavy load. It is right for ANYONE to reassure ANYONE else who is emotionally upset and offer support. These things have nothing to do with the equipment between your, or anyone else's, legs.
I am just as physically strong as many men I know, and stronger than some. I am less "emotionally sensitive" than some men I know (one in particular). But I assure you, I am ALL woman, and quite feminine to boot.
Before you go spouting off about giving "equal rights the boot" maybe you ought to educate yourself on the many women who fought hard to make sure women like you could even own property! Without equal rights you wouldn't even be on this forum, because you would be considered too empty-headed to do anything other than make a doily, play a song, clean the house, fix some food, get f*cked, and have some kids. Certainly you wouldn't have enough brains to participate here among the big-brained men--why it might give you all sorts of unnatural notions-like that maybe you're not an incubator!!
Feminism (at its best, and YES it has been abused by some) is about a woman's ability and right to choose for herself her own life's path. If that means you want to be a corporate lawyer you are an intelligent, autonomous human being and can choose to do so. If that means you choose to marry and become a stay-at-home mom, you are an intelligent, autonomous human being and can choose to do so.
When people stop cramming themselves and each other into arbitrary, generalized gender roles then PEOPLE can respect and value one another as individuals rather than what everyone thinks they should be. And, one hopes, people will value one another and treat each other with due civility and politeness - regardless of gender, gender role, or some out-dated rules of courtship.
Be your own white knight, baby, and maybe you'll learn something.
You remind me of someone I once knew...nicely stated.
Having a degree in Sociology would suggest I far more familiar with femininity then any person should ever have to be. This degree also suggests I know plenty about chivalry and femininity. Gender roles is a huge area of study and quite frankly I think it is unecessary. When we get to the point where men need to be told how to be men and women need to be told how to be women we have a problem.
Also many come back with the desperate need for femininity at one point and indeed I can see the purpose in Liberal Femininity but that's where the penny stops. I think the kind os hero worship which goes on for the likes of the Sefferagettes is a disgrace. They threw bombs at people to make a point. Nowadays we call that TERRORISM! Yes I know they didn't all throw bombs but less fundamental feminist groups were far more useful for woman's rights and can be credited for progress.
Why would a confident woman who is comfortable in herself feel the need to do battle with 'Mankind' to show she has power??
Having a degree in sociology (or anything else) would suggest that you know how to pay a school and jump through their academic hoops - very little more. Your words reveal that either A. you really do NOT know as much about it as you think, or B. you are a hypocrite. I prefer to think it's just A, since you seem like a nice person overall.
Whether you believe it or not, BEFORE equal rights men were being told how to be men and women were being told how to be women (and it's still happening). And yes, it was a major problem...and still IS a major problem. Feminism and the equal rights movement suggested that people can and should figure those things out on their own without being pigeon-holed into arbitrary roles.
For a supposed sociologist you sure make a lot of generalizations, oh wait...you only said you had a degree, my bad.
For your edification: Look into the New Woman Movement. See how many bombs were thrown, see how many babies died of venereal disease because of the Madonna/Whore dichotomy, see what women really had to live through and try to imagine yourself there. See how many women protested with only words and hard work. They WERE heroes, and the fact that you can sit here and call the women who MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO BE HERE terrorists is the disgrace.
If that doesn't do it for you, take a look at the current state of Female Genital Mutilation around the world and tell me we don't need some feminism and equal rights going on all over the place.
Have a good day.
What your campaigning for is not feminism. It is humanitarianism. You seem so angry. If you are going to get so angry I do not think this will be a helpful exchange. Your assault on me and outright mockery in your words is so derogatory it reflects badly on people who advocate feminism.
You seem all for bashing me down. How selective is you feminism? Do you realise this is the respecting women forrum? Can't I have a different opinion from you?
You are projecting this anger; I normally "type" with a dry, intellectual tone in mind; remember, I am not "as emotionally sensitive" as the world would like think that all women are. I'm in a fine mood today! LOL I don't care what you believe honestly. It's just a shame to see a nice young, modern woman like yourself say some of the things you have said, given some of the points made earlier-i.e., without the movement you wouldn't even have been able to be who you are or where you are. I just think women ought to appreciate the people who made such educations and mind-speaking possible.
ETA: And when I said "Have a good day" that was my way of coming to the conclusion that this conversation was probably going nowhere.
Again I think that's all human rights. I am going over to India to work amongst a team of men and women to relieve the consequences of poverty. I'm as concerned for the women as the children. I have equal concern for both, The point I am making is that feminism is unecessary. If we have humanitarianism is all that matters and we must strive for this.
Feminism is not important but women safety and good treatment comes under the umbrella of humanitarianism.
I can assure you that I feel no malice towards you at all. I am a very peaceful person and I do not become angry easily. That is why I am not engaging in a heated exchange.
I do not refute your points about the right for woman to be treated well and looked after off course. I simply think we need to stop focusing particularly on woman and their need for a different set of rights- which feminism is- otherwise it wouldn't have a separate name.
I believe in humanitarianism. I am staking my own well being and going to live in desperate slum conditions to assist men, women and children who are literally dying from oppression. I refuse to refer to my work with the women there as feminism. No it's humanitarianism.
I DO NOT BELIEVE IN FEMINISM. I BELIEVE IN HUMANITARIANISM.
Please don't perpetuate the unecessary. I respect your right to have a difference of opinion from me. I don't know what else to say to communicate that I am not looking to find disagreement with you or a womens right to safety and respect.
Grace and peace,
I disagree that feminism is unnecessary (At least in the western world, just the feminist de-construction of language alone teaches us things that are important, IMO).
However, certainly there are parallels between feminism and humanitarianism - on this we can agree. We can also agree that those feminists who push for a "different" set of rights are doing themselves AND reasonable feminists AND everyone else a disservice.
I highly respect your desire to go to different places and serve others. Be careful, and I wish you much strength. You will need it.
I have no malice for you, or anyone, merely an opinionated "mouth".
Grace and Peace to you as well, Fiona!
ETA: Also...don't forget, Fiona-"the poor will always be with us." I hope your strength, faith, and goodwill can withstand the onslaught. You are very much needed...Take care.
"We are not as physically strong and more emotionally sensitive."
Speak for yourself. Some women are as strong as men, some men are as sensitive as women, some individuals are a mix of strength and sensitivity, and even if we're different, that doesn't mean we're not equal.
I don't appreciate special treatment on account of my gender. In the field I'm going into, I have to meet the same physical fitness standards as my male colleagues, so there is no rational reason to treat me, an individual who happens to be a woman, as physically weaker than the average man.
Yeah, but a penis makes a man 10 times stronger!
I have seen Mr. Apollo uproot trees with his bare hands... :-)
http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs … ollo.shtml
You may be different from most women and that is fine as long as you are happy with it. However most women are physically stronger than women and more emotionally sensitive.
Because of physiological differences this strength is much more readily available to men than women. For instance men are built for strength with stringer upper bodies and the increased testosterone gives rise to adrenaline for readily. Women are rarely so muscular naturally. Also the estrogen levels in us does trigger more emotional responses.
As I say you may be different and this is fine. It would be the exception though and not the rule. I celebrate difference as I am sure you do, but I also have a background in Physiology and am aware of the physiological basis for physical and behavioral differences in me and women.
Again I appreciate that you may be different and I do not mean any offense. Thanks for taking the time to respond to my comment. I appreciate the points you have raised.
Grace and peace to you,
Actually, pound for pound of muscle, women are actually physically stronger than men, especially in terms of lower body strength. We seem weaker, on average, only because men tend to be taller and to have proportionally more muscle. Additionally, women tend to have higher physical endurance and greater tolerance for pain, so frankly, this "weaker sex" business is total BS.
I also question the emotional generalizations you made. Men don't tend to be as open about their emotions, true, but how much of that is biological and how much is social conditioning? The men I know intimately enough to see their emotional side tend to be just as emotional as women, it's just expressed differently, and over different things.
And they don't go crazy once a month, but hey, I read once that a comparable flood of hormones in men would literally kill them, so I'm not sure they really get to complain. I have no idea if it's true and don't think it could be ethically tested anyway, but I've found it makes a good retort to stupid jokes about that time of month.
A man's body literally could not withstand pregnancy. His circulatory system, in particular, could not flex enough to deal with the swelling that comes with the growth of the child (not to mention the changes in the pelvis); in short, his heart would explode.
I know. they have no idea how much it takes to be a woman.
I really have no problem at all being treated as a lesser class of human, so long as someone else would take the goddamn trash to the dump.
If people want to play the gender BS roles, fine. Ill bitch when my nail breaks, but come the fuck on? do I have to do EVERYTHING?!!???
Well I deffinitley agree that a man could not withstand labor. My only statement in this instance is that men and women are Physiologically different. This is the biological basis for body and behavior differences between men and women. Of course individuals differ within categories of man and women and these make no one less man or less woman. But it is the biological rule based on genetic blueprint and secretion of hormones and resultant behaviours. Everyone has a different hormonal balance. Men can have 10 to 40 times more testosterone than a woman. That's a huge variation within men! It wold make a difference behaviorally.
Women also have different levels of estrogen, progesterone and testosterone too so of course there are going to be major body and behavior differences within the 'woman spectrum'.
The only thing I'm saying is that men and women have different physiology and this leads to differences in men and women.
I am happy there are such differences between varieties of men and varieties of women. It's great that folk are different and I have respect for all the different types of men and women on this forum whether they have strong feminist leanings or dream of being a patriarch devoted housewife- and all in between. Always great to hear other folks opinions.
Grace and peace to you all!
The only thing I agree with there is that women have a higher pain threshold and this we know is because women are birth givers. However men don't need this pain threshold internally. Also men's external bodies are 10 times less sensitive than womens.
Women have a much higher flesh, fat and water percentage and so are far less muscular. It is not the rule that women are more muscular than men. Of course we have strength in our lower bodies and it would be a nightmare carrying children if we didn't. Women who don't have this lower body strength have very troubled pregnancies and could even suffer a split pelvis.
We even note that women balance weights like children and grocery shopping on their hips. I appreciate your difference of opinion but I personally do not believe it is the rule. I believe it is the exception.
As for the hormonal difference I did not state that men do not have feelings, but that they are less prone to emotional response and this because they are less driven by emotion effecting hormones. I do not think women all get moody when menstruating. Some however do and the most profound evidence of this is the syncing of menstrual cycles that occurs when women live in close proximity. Hormones are contagious and women do become more easily aggrivated when they live with other women during menstruation. This is not incidental or because the women the happen to live with are a challenge. It is just biological fact.
It;s also notable that homosexual men have higher estrogen levels which homosexual women have higher testosterone levels. Hormones of course dictate our behavior. Many women on the pill have noticed the insanity that occurs when they are flooded by testosterone.
I believe there is a huge physiological difference between men and women and that this dictates our behaviors and abilities to a certain degree.
Now I don't think women are shrinking violets. I am a strong and capable woman. I just know what my body can and can't do and what thigs I am emotionally effected by. I also know this is the rule and not the expeption. Not to say that there aren't exceptions and I appreciate that you may be one and I am thankful that differing opinions can be encouraged in this community and embraced.
Grace and peace to you,
"Actually, pound for pound of muscle, women are actually physically stronger than men, especially in terms of lower body strength. We seem weaker, on average, only because men tend to be taller and to have proportionally more muscle. Additionally, women tend to have higher physical endurance and greater tolerance for pain, so frankly, this "weaker sex" business is total BS."
Pound for pound of lean muscle (i.e. discounting the naturally higher fat to muscle levels in women), male and female muscle tissue performs pretty much equal measures. (Dr. Westcotts research).
On average (based on plots of running clubs over various distance events), women are shown to have a greater endurance in running sports starting somewhere about the 36km length events, where they were shown to be trending better than their average male counterparts although the top male distance runners are still ahead of the top female distance runners. For shorter events, especially on sprint type events males are on average much better.
A few things contribute to the endurance trends. One is that females seem to regulate energy levels better than males, possibly on account of generally higher fat levels, supplying better energy throughout. The second is that time wise, it's easier to mess with mens heads. Females are much better at pace setting, where as males are more influenced by outside factors.
Over shorter distances, the increased ability of males to supply oxygen to muscles counts, as does a generally higher rate coding. Mens brains send signals to the muscles faster, causing harder contractions and increased burst strength.
The tolerance of pain myth is just that. (Unless you have some medical studies?). Women are regarded to have a finer pain trigger, i.e. women will detect pain earlier and at a lower level and for various reasons, often seek help, whether a doctor or an aspirin, both quicker and more regularly than males. Males, tending to have a higher pain trigger, will often ignore lower amounts of pain, until it becomes enough to trip the pain trigger. This tends to mean the point at which a male mentions pain is often at a higher pain level than the corresponding condition in females.
At this point, you're probably shaking your head and muttering about the pain of child birth. There are some interesting points. Because of the pain, you get both sensory overload and endorphin release, both reducing pain. There is no reason to suppose, the exact same systems would not be present in men (they are) were they giving birth. Second, in studies on rats, (pause for parallels), testosterone has been shown, via various other systems, to both deaden pain, especially muscular, and lessen fatigue. Assuming (in this bizzare hypothesis) that men have the same testosterone level, we might have it easier. Third, when you don't have a choice, it's quite amazing what humans can do.
as for hormones, well, they're naturally produced drugs. Feed anything a drug for long enough and they become desensitised to it. Start the male off with the same level of hormonal developement and I'd bet a good steak that the system would cope. Just as if you did the same with a female system and testosterone, you might not turn into a raging, psychopathic animal that tries to screw anything thats available.
A little chivalry anyone?
Agree with most of that but a huge number of neuroscientific studies demonstrate concurrent hormonal and behavioral changes. Hormones are different from other chemicals. They have to have an enduring effect or reproductive capabilities. The effects of hormones do not become selectively desensitised. However, if you have genuine accredited empirical studies then please share them. I have to study pharmacology and behavioral neuroscience as part of my degree and have friends who study medicine, anatomy and bio- medical sciences and none have came across the genuine desensitisation of sex hormones.
Grace and peace,
I don't know off hand of any papers on desensitising of sex hormones. That was based on my observation of a friend, normally both intelligent and non-violent who foolishly took a testosterone type steroid to help with body building. He became, in a very short time, both exceedingly violent and aggressive but did show increased ability with weight lifting. After a week or so, he became less aggressive and more managable. I assumed it was the body getting used to it. Added to that, I couldn't be overly bothered finding a refuting paper :-)
i'm healthy and strong and emotionally sensitive. i like that...i can do all kinds of guy stuff like mow lawns and use tools, but i wish they made ones for women because let's face it we are smaller than men and have small hands and some of those things are heavy. i don't feel insulted when you say we are well, women, and different from men. we ARE! i don't understand women getting offended by people saying we are more delicate than men. duh...we are....strong too, don't get me wrong. but we are still feminine and girly and like the feel of a man's strong arms around us...
The "absense" of chivarly is merely the awareness on the part of some women that they no longer get special treatment by men. It is also a mistake to assume that all men were chivalrous in all times or even in any period of time. Most weren't. In addition, there is a difference between courtesy and chivarly, and I see in these forums (this topic pops up regularly) a confusion all the time. The door opening thing is one of those.
It is impolite to let the door slam in anyone's face, just as it is impolite to let anyone with their arms full (whether loaded with babies or car parts) have to open a door while you stand and watch. Gender has nothing to do with either scenario. Nor does chivalry.
I suppose that is correct, there is a difference between chivalry and courtesy, although with reference to the topic of feminism and chivalry, the holding of doors as a particular attention to women is more pertinent than the Song of Roland. In terms of the women and children off the sinking boat first manner of chivalry, there is fortunately little call for behaviour like that at all, not to mention the original question of whether behaviour such as this is reasonable to expect given the change in social attitude. (I understand that this rule is no longer observed on ships anyway, in favour of keeping families together).
"She dropped her glove, to prove his love, then looked at him and smiled;
He bowed, and in a moment leaped among the lions wild:
The leap was quick, return was quick, he has regained his place,
Then threw the glove, but not with love, right in the lady's face.
"By Heaven," said Francis, "rightly done!" and he rose from where he sat;
"No love, " quoth he, "but vanity, sets love a task like that."
How do you stand on Castiglione's Courtier?
"Chivalry" is opening a door for a lady...
"Compromising a woman's independence" is grabbing her by the hair and dragging her through the doorway caveman style
I believe that the difference between 'chivalry' and 'politeness' is this:
The polite man opens the door for someone.
The chivalrous man risks his life so that a woman does not have to.
Chivalry is dying, it will be dead when the draft includes women. (or registration there of)
Aww, I love that bit about the man risking his life to open the door for the woman. Great Mikel! What do you mean when the draft includes women? That women will become chivalrous?
I would imagine that when the draft includes women (you're talking about women in the armed services on a draft basis?) you'd see a massive resurgence in chivalry as their male counterparts attempt to 'protect' them.
I wonder how that works out now with female soldiers around the world? I suspect it's probably not only annoying but dangerous in conflict circumstances.
Dude, we're not talking about female civilians here, we're talking about female soldiers who have been through the same training as their male compatriots. Women have served as combat soldiers openly (in some societies) or in disguise for thousands of years. It's not a new development at all, and I have yet to hear of any case where they needed to be "rescued" or "protected" any more than male soldiers of similar training and competence.
Actually, in some cases they have outdone male soldiers of similar training and competence. The most decorated air force unit in the Soviet military during World War 2 was an all female battalion known as the "Night Witches" by the Germans who got their asses kicked by them.
I guess my punctuation was a little too subtle. The reason the word attempt is there and 'protect' is in in inverted commas is to make it clear that while I think males would attempt to be chivalrous, that behaviour would not be necessary.
It is stated that one of the reasons the Israeli Defence Force removed women from close combat operations is their effect on their male counterparts when the women were either killed or wounded.
"In On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman briefly mentions that female soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces have been officially prohibited from serving in close combat military operations since 1948 (in 2001, subsequent to publication, women began serving in IDF combat units on an experimental basis). The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines is no reflection on the performance of female soldiers, but that of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression."
(While the source for this quote is wikipedia and therefore suspect, I assume the quote came from Grossmans thesis and to there from the IDF).
Melody Kemp mentions that the Australian soldiers have voiced similar concern saying these soldiers "are reluctant to take women on reconnaissance or special operations, as they fear that in the case of combat or discovery, their priority will be to save the women and not to complete the mission. Thus while men might be able to be programmed to kill, it's not as easy to program men to neglect women."
(again wikipedia but again probably a direct quote from the source)
In almost all cases of female soldier squads (Finnish, Russian etc) they are noted for an increase in viciousness compared to most of their male counterparts, how much of that is to do with outdoing the males and proving their worth and from there, pride in reputation, we'll never know.
well, i like some of what Grace said, and i also like some of what TheGlassSpider said, so i guess i am conflicted. i will say though that i enjoy being feminine and having men respond to that but i also enjoy being treated with respect and being paid fairly for work that i do, and i also think there are a lot of things that women do that are undervalued like taking care of children and a home, and feminiists do scoff at those things so they are partially responsible for that.
You are right, cosette, too many feminists have made the mistake of undervaluing a woman's right to choose to build a family and stay at home.
I think women having been forced to take on such a role in the past has resulted, for SOME, in a complete hatred for the role itself...many feminists seem to think that choosing that role is devaluing the movement - which is a shame. I think we ought to celebrate the fact that woman CHOOSES...rather than degrade the quality of her choice. As long as she felt as though she COULD have gone another way, then we ought to be happy if she is happy.
my opinion is we are all equal. many of you agree with that. we should all practice the same common courtesy toward one another. not just the men and not just for women. for example if you're a woman and you see another woman coming to the door, with her hands full, you should open the door. if you're a man you should still open the door. if someone needs help you should help them no matter what their gender. this is just good manners.
Here is my mini list,
1. Open The Doors
2. Pull out her chair
3. Take her coat and drape it behind the chair
4. Ask her to order first or order for her
5. Ask her what she wishes to drink and then order
6. A gentleman always pays they do not go Dutch
7. Bring her flowers just because
8. Walk her to the door and kiss her on the cheek goodnite without any expectations.
9. You call her first or text don't expect her to call you.
10. Tell her how stunning she looks or how nice she smells.
Just a mini-list something I have grown accustomed to in my marriage and the chivalry continues.
here is my list. I know, Im being repetitave, I have my reasons...
Ive done EVERYTHING but your 'job' for over ten years..TAKE OUT THE TRASH!!!!
You are so funny!! You are telling someone to take out the trash and that is something else they can do too!
I know, he CAN take out the trash, isn't that spposed to be the "man" thing? Im "barefoot and pregnant" I do all the housework, laundry, dishes, cooking, cleaning, give him head whenever he wants, pay the bills, wash the floor on hands and knees, I make his coffee and breakfast and pack his lunch every morning, and all this is becuase I love him. He doesnt make me, but after a while..come on .....I have allways wanted to be a good housewife and mother, thats all, but if I am doing the "woman" thing..shouldnt he have to take out the trash? I mean....really? Am I asking too much?
He should take out the TRASH not take advantage and you can tell him I said so!
Ok. I will!!
i just noticed its after 1 am....omg!!! why arent I asleep?
You had better get to bed, morning comes early but I have found myself doing the same thing. Your little one needs rest to and are you have a boy or a girl?
3 girls. all sound asleep. ages 12, 9 and 8.
I most likely will sleep tonight. I was going to say tomrrow,but it IS tomorrow!! ha
Our niece that we have is 13 and our son will be 10 in June and they are both in bed too!!! yippeee!!! it is 10:30 here and I have to get up early to.
This is a paternalistic society and always has been. This country protects its women. You want examples of chivalry? Consider that women are considered a minority. In that respect they get certain perks that men don't get.
As a minority women get "points" in applying for schools, in applying for jobs, tax breaks for running a business, and special consideration for loans and grants and other stuff. Several businessmen I know have their wives as the legal principal of the company because of the tax breaks they get. The day women are drafted for combat is the day women will be truly equal. But that will never happen.
In the meantime women have it good both ways. They can be feminine or "equal" as they wish; and some can turn it on and off like a faucet.
by Minta12 months ago
So I work in a museum, and yesterday my position was to accompany people in the elevator from one floor to another and explain to them what their trajectory is.I spend a long time there and I observe how people act and...
by Person of Interest6 years ago
by Credence24 years ago
Somewhere within the tapestry of recent history a determination was made that fully automatic sub machine guns like the Thompson could not be obtained by the private citizen for self defense. These were the weapons of...
by Dawn Michael6 years ago
Some men just like to date some women for fun and then others they want to marry, what is the difference between the two.
by Grace Marguerite Williams4 years ago
There are women who do not believe that women should have equal rights as men do. They are strong proponents that the main roles and goals of women are to be housewives and mothers. They further believe that women...
by SparklingJewel8 years ago
Though this is still in the religion forum, it is also a political issue and a spiritual issue (which to me has some additional/different attributes than as a religious issue)As a spiritual issue, for me, believing what...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.