Chivalry?

[TKDShoujo]

why do women want to be like men anyway? were slow, inflexable, narrowminded, accident prone, hormone driven, never in control of our own emmotions, and generally stupider than you!

 

I dont think we necessarily WANT to be like them. but like chh said, its just a matter of equality. And I'm not slow, inflexible or any of those things you listed. At least IMO. I think i'm some-what offended. =\

[fireka]

bull. Though they disguise it under political bueacracy if you look carefully all the feminist have done since the very beggining was try to assimilate male roles. I think there deffinitly should have been a feminist movement but they went about it all wrong and now its controlled by bleeding heart lesbian liberals whod never litsen to my ideas anyway because men have no right to any kind of opinion. In the end, the feminist movement despite there man hateing worked out to mans advantage, now the women are taking care of the children and the house and going to work and the guys are sitting on there as*ses, some great movement. The one time i got the most steamed is when during a debate on my schools team about abortion i was told i had no right to give opinions because i was a man and had no control over the decsion anyways. that burned me up. first off, this is america, i have rights to opinions in any subject i want, and second, i dare any women to try and make a child without a male, i think youll find it dmaned near impossible. but then i could have just told you that in 6th grade family life. so gee, i guess im kinda part of the process after all huh? oh well this got way off topic, im sorry, just a subjec tthat really gets me going, ill shutup now.

[battousai16]

well, first up, as to the abortion topic, i've been in that debate many a time and one girl gave me a sort of slogan that summarized the general view point: "bros don't know". i don't know what it's like to go through the 9 month process, i don't know what it's like to bare the child (though, although i'm sure it's painful, i think there's a limited amount of times a woman can use that in an argument.) and i don't know what it's like to finally see the child that just sprang from my loins; to see the little guy/gal who i've just spent my last 9 months with and will spend the rest of my life raising and doing my best to reflect my values and morals on to him/her. and although way may be crucial to the whole process, in the end i've found that the male plays a very minor role as far as abortion goes. teh only thing you can really control is whether or not to impregnate the woman to begin with, after that, she could very well be on her own. and do just fine, mind you.

 

second, you're making a lot of generalizations that, quite frankly, just aren't fair, even if it is against your own gender. "were slow, inflexable, narrowminded, accident prone, hormone driven, never in control of our own emmotions, and generally stupider than you!"? that's quite possibly the biggest stereotype i've heard all summer. it's really not at all ethical to just lump men into that category. you're saying that men tend to be fat lazy slobs who do nothing but think about sex and destroy stuff, and quite frankly, i think that everyone here knows that that's just simply not true. i don't believe that two genders can co-exist if this is going to be the belief.

 

and, no one ever said that a woman wants to be like a man. the feminist movement wasn't to make women more like men, but to ensure that men and women have the same rights. it's like the poster in my old history teachers room said:

 

i'm not a feminist, but-

 

i like that i can wear pants if i want to

 

i appreciate that i do what i please without the fear of my husband having the authority to beat me

 

i'm pleased that i have the ability to...

 

and it went on with more sentences like that; i can't remember it, it went something like that.

[battousai16]

oh yeah, so to prevent the thread from being locked, just be nice to everyone regardless of gender, no matter what the reason, be it whether you respect them or if you find them inferior in your little mind, because it's just the nice thing to do. chivalry may no longer have a place in the modern world, but there's no reason why common courtesy dosen't, as people in here seem to be saying.

[Shorin Ryuu]

bull. Though they disguise it under political bueacracy if you look carefully all the feminist have done since the very beggining was try to assimilate male roles.

 

Actually, there are two main types of feminist theory. The first (which for the life of me, I do not remember its proper name) is what you describe. Its proponents conclude that women are superior at everything and that they should run the entire world. This is a very naive notion and usually isn't grounded in solid methods of political science. The second is critical feminism, which like the general critical perspective theory (of which I probably am the closest to), states that gender roles and things may have some genetic component, but that most things are determined by history and how that history has shaped our perspectives on matters and thus how we act in them. The main point of critical theory is trying to understand that most perspectives have a reason and purpose for analyzing events in a certain way and that rather than trying to solve a problem within a perspective (such as realism or liberalism), it is better to solve a problem at its roots. Critical theory has a strong argument, in my opinion. A good political scientist who suscribes to this notion is J. Ann Tickner (I think thats her name, its summer and I don't have any of my political science books...), in my opinion. A great book on critical theory is The Twenty Years' Crisis by E. H. Carr, which was written about the period between 1919 and 1939 and came out right before the start of WWII (Carr had great timing). It is actually one of the best political science books I have ever read, by the way.

[Bart the Lover]

Jiminy Cricket!

 

This thread has stirred up a hornets' nest! Very exciting.

 

fireka wrote:

men and women are diffrent. there is no point in saying we arnt. its obvious.

 

Sometimes the obvious turns out be wrong. Not long ago it was obvious

 

women were too weak to run marathons. The people who believed this

 

weren't bad or deliberately trying to keep women from their goals, they

 

were just plain wrong. What we think of as common sense sometimes

 

crumbles to nothing when examined closely. For example: it is common

 

sense (and a reasonable explanation) that the sun orbits the earth, giving

 

us days and nights. It is also, unfortunately, wrong.

 

The reason I queried Valithor's post wasn't because I necessarily believe

 

men and women to be exactly the same. To be be honest, I don't think it

 

matters all that much, at least in terms of public policy. Everyone should

 

have the same rights. Everyone should have the same responsibilities.

 

Everyone should have equal access to education, health, and justice;

 

everyone should be able to seek to represent their community. I don't

 

care if one or two studies appear to show women have superior verbal

 

skills, or one or two studies appear to show men are better at navigating.

 

It has nothing to do with equal access. I queried Valithor's post because

 

usually (not always) when people say what he/she said it serves either to

 

excuse bad behaviour, or to justify prejudice.

you should highlight the things women do well naturally and make them more important than the lies society has told.

 

If you substitute 'women' for 'people' then I whole-heartedly agree with

 

you. Many skills are derided. Certain jobs are looked down upon, and the

 

people who do them unappreciated. Many talents go to waste because

 

the people are the 'wrong' colour, sex, creed or sexuality. Almost everyone

 

has something to offer and should be valued as an individual, and not seen

 

as part of a homogeneous group.

if you look carefully all the feminist have done since the very beggining was try to assimilate male roles.

 

Why do we need roles? As far as I can see, a role is someone telling you

 

what to do. Why doesn't everyone decide for themselves what to do in life?

 

I don't believe anyone should be assigned a role. It is up to the individual

 

to consider their own strengths and abilities, and act on them.

The one time i got the most steamed is when during a debate on my schools team about abortion i was told i had no right to give opinions because i was a man and had no control over the decsion anyways.

 

While it is true you have no control over the decision, it is silly to say you

 

do not have the right to an opinion. You will meet many people who try

 

to persuade you to do, say and believe all kinds of things--including the

 

lie that your views are worthless or irrelevent. They may be annoying, but

 

you don't have to pay attention to them. It's simply a debating trick,

 

designed to unsettle you.

i dare any women to try and make a child without a male, i think youll find it dmaned near impossible.

 

Maybe cloning will settle that one? (I'm joking.)

 

battousai16 wrote:

so to prevent the thread from being locked, just be nice to everyone regardless of gender

 

You beat me to it! The threat of threads being locked is like a sword of

 

Damocles!

 

Love your fellow man. Love your fellow woman. 'Nuff said.

 

Regards,

 

Bart the Lover

[GrrrArg]

The feminist thoeryies bear a striking resemblance to the difference in the opinions of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. X said there should be a seperate black nation ruled by blacks where whites are a minority without equal rights. King wanted a united nation with both races having equal rights. Same ideas really.

 

Interestingly many black civil rights leaders thought that the feminists movement was stealing the limelight of the black civil rights movement.

 

I personally believe that King had the best basic idea it just needs to be applied to everyone instead of only black and white men.

 

The topic of Roe vs Wade is a very tough one that is always going to have split opinions. The child is at first part of the mother and she does indeed have the right to any kind of medical aid on her body that she wants, however the child is also half of the father..so surely he should have some say in the matter..but I guess at the end of the day the women is going to be the pregnant one, you don't see many doors being held open for expectant fathers..!

[PrideampPoise]

To me, "chivalry" today is when a guy makes a big show of rushing in front of me to get every door. Or when I'm relieved of a bag that a toddler could carry, or when I'm told not to be silly when I get my wallet out when the check comes, or when a guy leaps out of his seat on the subway and looks offended when I don't take it (honestly, I PREFER to stand on buses and trains, and my legs really are capable of holding me up!). Call me an extreme feminist all you want, but there's a line between being polite and performing a pointed demonstration of power and control.

 

What you are describing is not true chivalry. A gentleman will do the things you describe without making any kind of show out of it, nor would he tell you you are being silly. Power is not the issue...subtlety and courtesy are key.

[GrrrArg]

To me, "chivalry" today is when a guy makes a big show of rushing in front of me to get every door. Or when I'm relieved of a bag that a toddler could carry, or when I'm told not to be silly when I get my wallet out when the check comes, or when a guy leaps out of his seat on the subway and looks offended when I don't take it (honestly, I PREFER to stand on buses and trains, and my legs really are capable of holding me up!). Call me an extreme feminist all you want, but there's a line between being polite and performing a pointed demonstration of power and control.

 

What you are describing is not true chivalry. A gentleman will do the things you describe without making any kind of show out of it, nor would he tell you you are being silly. Power is not the issue...subtlety and courtesy are key.

 

There was a "touch" in that post which was making the same point you just outlined.

 

Bart the Lover wrote:

Jiminy Cricket!

 

This thread has stirred up a hornets' nest! Very exciting.

 

Thank you, thank you very much, im here all week.

[Valithor]

Hi all,

 

Too much and not enough here for my liking...

 

...

 

With reference to my previous post:

 

The terms "men" and "women" refer to the two genders in our species. They differ in sexual function and form a required and complementary function in reproduction and hence the survival and promotion of the species.

 

The differences do not stop there. Those of you who have studied the psycho-sexual theories of the 20th century will understand how deeply connected our "personality" is with our sexuality.

 

Any notion of a comtemporary way of thinking that ignores this essence of our humanity is fundamentaly flawed.

 

...

 

The debate over chivalry exists because of a differene in our cultural heritage and the recent evolution of our legal and subsequent ethical systems.

 

Its important when considering chivalry to remember how it came to be in the first place and the social/cultural context of its development - not to mention the environmental issues around the world.

 

Bart the Lover said: "Sometimes the obvious turns out be wrong" [sic]

 

True. However, sometimes the answer lies right in front of us. Why do we need roles? Human beings have a rational and emotional brain. For these functions to biologically develop properly a social structure is required.

 

A patriarchal way of thinking has dominated the world for centuries. It is a system that has worked well. However, human beings are creatures that seek knowledge and seek to better their lives. Over time, we have identified the weaknesses of our societal systems - sometimes through mutual development, other times through violent revolutions. We have sought to promote fairness and equality - from the abolishment of slavery to recent anti-discrimination laws we continue to search for a better world and a better society.

 

As with the technological industry, the rate of such change has increased rapidly in the last century. Thus, the debate of chivalry exists.

 

A debate such as this can turn from a logical and productive conversation into an emotional argument when the historical or contemporary cultural roles of "men" and "women" are confused or wrongly assosiated with the physiological and psycho-sexual differences.

 

...

 

Personally, I am in favour of maintaining chivalry. Men have been and currently are (but maybe not always) bigger and stronger than women. We all live in a physical world (unlike this virtual forum) - it doesn't have to mean anything other than that. I don't think it stops there either. Rich people should help the poor. Smart people should educate the ignorant... etc.

 

Keep smiling,

 

V