When Did Chivalry Die?

1. 61

   Cassie Smithposted 13 years ago

   There are reports that when the Costa Concordia cruise ship started sinking, able-bodied men pushed aside elderly women, women, and children in the rush to reach the lifeboats.  The Costa Concordia captain apparently abandoned his ship.  Contrast this with the sinking of The Titanic and it was women and children first on the lifeboats.  Captain Smith of The Titanic as well as the majority of the men in First Class and in all other classes died.  Modern men seem to be less caring and every man for himself.  When did chivalry die and what killed it?

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Stacie Lposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Unfortunately manners and chivalry died a long time ago...some say when the women's movement started.
      I read that the captain got off and was ordered back by the authorities but he refused.. it's a sad statement for humanity

      replyreport
   2. 67

      Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      It happened exactly when:
      
      "Captain Smith of The Titanic as well as the majority of the men in First Class and in all other classes died"

      replyreport
   3. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Chivalry HAD to die when women demanded to be seen as equal.
      
      I'll gladly be more chivalrous once I see a woman put her coat on a puddle to keep my feet dry.
      
      On a side note, I was recently in a discussion with a fellow female teacher who was complaining about the double standard between the sexes:
      
      "When I get home", she says, "I'm expected to start making dinner. Men don't have to work AND cook!" etc etc.
      
      I countered with "Well, you probably wouldn't be with your man if he made less money than you. Also, if you were on a sinking boat, he'd give you the seat on the lifeboat first."
      
      I dunno, maybe I was a jerk, but women don't see the other side of things. Chivalry and absolute equality can't co-exist.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         IMO, equality of the sexes has more to do with the workplace than anything else. And chivalry should be espoused by both sexes. I think anyone in their right mind would give up a seat for a heavily pregnant woman or a very senior citizen. I think any sane person would at least attempt to save someone in peril if they could.
         
         The idea of chivalry associated with mid-century ideals was part of the helpless female ideal. Woman today must be far more industrious and self-sufficient but I think most women would welcome an act of chivalry, even if it's just an unnecessary shell, like opening a door. Not necessary, but an expression of civility.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Respect is respect - everyone should aim for this.
            
            Chivalry is a male thing.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Can you, from your male perspective, explain the difference in your own words, without using a dictionary definition please? You know I respect yor opinion, Evan, and welcome this bit of insight.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Being respectful is one thing, but when the boat is sinking, chivalry is what puts the female stranger on the life-raft instead of me.
                  
                  Respect is what makes me open the door for an elderly woman; chivalry is what makes me give up my own umbrella to the woman who spent all morning putting on make-up.
                  
                  We on the same page? Or is chivalry dead AND forgotten?

                  replyreport
   4. 80

      bethperryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Cassie, I tend to believe chivalry isn't dead but is close to social extinction. And it my opinion that the two biggest antagonists to chivalry are the ER movement and religious dogmas that categorize women as inherently evil. Women are not evil nor are they "helpless females", but biologically speaking, men are the born protectors of the species and women are the nurturers. Chivalry developed from a response to the need of protecting women, children, the elderly and otherwise vulnerable from hostile human forces. In medieval times knights didn't just defend royalty but swore allegiance to a code of ethics that bound them to protect these most vulnerable among their societies.
      As far as the tradition of saving "women and children first" in dangerous situations I do feel a great part of this stems from the natural inclination on the part of males to insure the life of the next generation. It may not be politically or religiously acceptable or even fair in the minds of some, but nature has balanced this in many ways. For every man who has offered his own life to protect women and children there is a woman who willingly sacrificed their time and attention for family, and even their very lives in the bloody and often perilous objective of bringing life into the world. 
      So is chivalry a fair thing? Perhaps not, but it has, in times past, helped bring about civility out of chaos. So I for one think we'd be better off with a little more old-fashioned chivalry and a lot less politically-correct chaos.

      replyreport
   5. 59

      KFlippinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Amazing insight into liberal humanity today here, at least the predominance of humanity that happens to post here, which of course is of long standing liberal bent.  Amazing and disgusting - may God help us all if it is the future of human behavior.  Cook your own dinner, find your own maid, shop for your own sheets, worry about your own health, live by yourself, get a paid surrogate for your kids, mother your own kids (heaven help us all) and get the heck out of my way - except when we both happen to need one another?

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Bill Yovinoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Huh?

         replyreport
         1. 70

            Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Bill Yovinoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I just looked at his profile. Now it makes sense. I guess he removed his tinfoil hat and stepped away from Fox News just long enough to come up with that non-linear reasoning.

               replyreport
               1. 70

                  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  

                  replyreport
         2. 59

            KFlippinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            One would expect no less than a guttural and manly grunt........

            replyreport
            1. 0

               jonnycomelatelyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I am sure I would utter a "guttural and manly grunt..." if equality said I should step into a woman's shoes, when they had 3 inch heels.!!!
               
               On a more serious note, good manners are the oil which lubricates community relationships.  Whether one calls good manners civility or chivalry, I don't really care.  However, giving up one's seat to someone who is more in need applies to the elderly, handicapped, pregnant, a shopper loaded down with groceries, and anyone who might appear exhausted. 
               
               As a 70 year old, fairly fit young man, I have been offered a seat by young guys and girls - it was really appreciated and on more than one occasion it resulted in more than just a Thank You.  We chatted!
               
               Conversely, I will gladly stand for someone older, or younger than myself, depending on the circumstances.

               replyreport
   6. 0

      Stevennix2001posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I thought these two threads that I had opened a while back had these answers accordingly.
      
      http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/37330#post848907
      
      http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/40197#post931215

      replyreport
   7. 59

      WD Curry 111posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      It hasn't died! Cowards have always been around.

      replyreport
2. 81

   Bill Yovinoposted 13 years ago

   One of the articles i read about the Concordia said that some of the crew members loading the lifeboats prohibited men from boarding with their families, saying "women and children only".  Really? In this day and age? 
   
   You can't have chivalry if you want equality. I'm not talking about civility, which should go both ways.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Wow, this is a real eye-opener, though I shouldn't be suprised. Equality has nothing to do with chivalry. Women have been possessions and literally 2nd class citizens for many years. When the lib movement came along, it was about equality in the workplace and being seen as equally capable to do a job in corporate America. I absolutely disagree with lowering physical standards to accomodate women or anyone else in jobs like firefighting, for example. But when it comes to the office, there's no secret magic held by men. In fact there are some areas where women can excel over men.
      
      With that said, chivalry is about respect and appreciation for the opposite sex and should go both ways. Men are generally stronger and should be delighted to lift the burden for a woman just because he can. Seriously, dudes, what's up with that?
      
      I think the tricky part is to know where to step and where not to. If I'm a superior surfer and you think carrying my surfboard is cute, think again. A polite offer is not insulting but don't grab the board and assume I'm incapable.
      
      On the other hand, if I'm struggling to carry 50 pounds of groceries up the stairs and you walk by, please offer to help.
      
      Likewise, if we're on a date and I'm wearing 3 inch heels and a flimsy dress, it might benefit you to offer your jacket if I'm cold. That's if you intend to ask me out again and want me to say yes.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Josakposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Actually its pure logic, men are better equipped to survive in without a life raft where as a child would be dead and a woman might be in real trouble its a step designed to hopefully minimize casualties.

      replyreport
3. 61

   Cassie Smithposted 13 years ago

   A lot of the guys seem to think that if women were accorded equal rights that it means men don't have to be chivalrous.  Chivalry meant being considerate and heroic toward people who were less fortunate.  What does that have to do with women being able to participate in public roles?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Well put.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I know a few people who have gotten in trouble in the workplace for being chivalrous.

      replyreport
4. 0

   Muldaniaposted 13 years ago

   It is sad to notice the difference between  a hundred years ago and today.  I think there is nothing wrong with chivalry.  I doubt an orchestra would stay to play 'Nearer My God to Thee' today.  They would be using their violins to hit old women over the head in their attempts to escape.  I think our ancestors have a lot to teach us.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      .. but they are dead.....
      
      some because they were chivalrous

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Muldaniaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Being dead is no excuse for not helping their descendants.  That is the trouble with dead people, they can be very lazy.

         replyreport
         1. 67

            Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            ....and uncommunicative

            replyreport
         2. 0

            jonnycomelatelyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            You are dead right, Muldania.

            replyreport
      2. 61

         couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Better to die as a hero than to live as a coward?

         replyreport
         1. 67

            Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Tell that to my wife who would have to support our kids on her own

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Cassie Smithposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Yeah, that's a good reason to push elderly women and children out of the way.

               replyreport
               1. 67

                  Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  i never said I would push... just be first on the boat

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Ok, I understand your point but if there was one boat that held two people, not three, who would go, you, your wife, and not the child? Some people believe they can have more children so leave the child behind.

                     replyreport
5. 81

   Bill Yovinoposted 13 years ago

   Again, you're confusing civility, which is not gender-specific, with chivalry, which was a medieval code of conduct for knights. The notion that one person's life is more valuable than another's, solely based on gender, is ludicrous.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Cassie Smithposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not confusing the two.  Civility is about politeness and public manners.  Chivalry is an outlook.  It's not the notion that one person's life is more valuable than the other.  It's about a certain standard in how you conduct yourself.  I give up my seat to an elderly person or a pregnant woman because they need that seat and I don't.  On a sinking ship I would give up a seat to a child because I'm more capable of saving myself.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Bill Yovinoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Again, that is civility, not chivalry.  Any honorable person would give up a seat to a child under those conditions.  From wikipedia: For other uses, see Chivalry (disambiguation).
         Chivalry is a term related to the medieval institution of knighthood which has an aristocratic military origin of individual training and service to others. Chivalry was also the term used to refer to a group of mounted men-at-arms as well as to martial valour.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Cassie Smithposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            It's true that chivalry evolved from a code of knighthood. So you're saying  that men shoved elderly women and children out of the way to get to the lifeboats because of bad manners?

            replyreport
   2. 61

      couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Bill - good point about the knights. They were protecting the lives of the royalty? As for chivalry toward women in general, they must have held that it was their honor and privelege to protect the weaker sex in those days, as it should be now. But in today's world, the line gets harder to define but I bet we'd find it in a crisis.

      replyreport
6. 70

   Cagsilposted 13 years ago

   It hasn't. I'm not dead yet.

   replyreport
7. 81

   Bill Yovinoposted 13 years ago

   Another point is that when confronted with a life or death situation, some people panic, some people freeze, and some people are at their best. You may think you know what you'll do under those circumstances, but until it happens to you, you'll never know. That is the nature of human behavior. Don't judge someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. Then it's ok, because even if they get mad at you, you'll be a mile away, and you'll have their shoes.

   replyreport