Well the toxic womens front has put the kabash on that....MGTOW.

Sadly, i miss those days too. But with the #metoo movment, its just to dangerous for men. Reading new book..... Celibacy, its really not that bad...
:(

I didn't take it that way Joe. I doubt she expects a man would do any/all of these things on a daily basis.

It's just chivalrous when he does one of them now and then.

That's how I took it anyway.

Myself I have never believed that Chivalry was dead.... I see guys all the time opening doors, being respectful/polite to women.... I work with all men it all depends on how one treats men...

Money and what they spend on a woman has nothing to do with Chivalry...

Maybe if more women treated men with more respect they would see the good side of the men more often~~~~

Whenever I see a puddle now Blondey I'll be thinking of you.

Completely impressed. Blondey

Chivalry or not, I just try to treat everyone with respect.
If that means holding the door for a hairy biker, so be it.

Treating people with respect isn't that hard.

That being said, I met a woman that came to a pool party and expected someone to give up their chair so she could sit down.
She got irate that none of the men would give up their chairs for her.
I offered her to come sit with me in the pool and she was so pist off she stormed away.
The guys just laughed at her.

Now, had she just sat down on the edge of the pool, I'm sure one of the guys would have offered her their chair. I know I would have.

There's a right way and a wrong way to be gracious.
Yes, alcohol was a factor.

Oh yes it does... and plenty of puddles. There's a big puddle between the South and West Islands of NZ.

I agree - the little things can be so romantic!

I'm just curious how chivalry could be a lost art, when it wasn't an art to begin with.

Art is created by someone using their talents. For example, painting a picture, composing music.

The acts of chivalry, which usually means doing something for someone is a verb.
Not an art.

Perhaps I'm being too analytical, but was just going with how things were worded in the OP.

I, myself have no problems with the acts of chivalry.

I do however have an issue with a woman getting their panties in a bunch, just for me trying to be nice. There have been several instances of me being reprimanded by women just for holding or opening a door for them.

Doesn't mean I've stopped doing that, but also doesn't mean I'll stand for beratement. If she starts in, I'll just keep on going.

Gallentry- courtesy- honor

Art is one of Skills and Representation

Giving flowers for no reason
Ironing her clothes while she showers
Holding her hand while helping her out of a car
Writing love poetry about her
Giving her back and foot rubs
Making her breakfast in bed

All these things may be considered by some men to be boring and meaningless but others like myself do not. I always did, do now, and always will do these things for that special lady.

It was also only really observed by a minority of the population.
It was also about basic expediency.
e.g. opening doors for ladies. Because ladies wore hoops and corsets under their dresses, so couldn't really exert a lot of energy in opening a solid wood door that was flush with the floor (no rubber gaskets under doors, hinges weren't oiled), or their gown stuck out so far they literally couldn't open a door.

Other than that, chivalry in olden times wasn't just about how (noble) men treated women, but everyone.
There was an implied presumption that (noble) men were inherently better and should adhere to a code in order to keep from being world class a-holes and tyrants lording their natural superiority over others. Instead, adopt a chivalric code for humility and social altruism, it's godly, and helps fulfill the role of noble so everyone knows you're a noble.

There were also quid pro quo's.

"Lady's" had to behave certain ways. There was no "just friends" with a bunch of guys, or being alone with men without chaperones. Women provided conversation and entertainment. Wrote poetry, played a musical instrument. They adhered to what was expected of them as women. They did what they were told was in the purvey of women. They also presented themselves in a certain fashion. There was no sweatpants and "comfy" clothes. "if you can't handle me at my worst, you don't deserve me at my best," didn't exist. You were always at your best. Always. And that was determined by others.
Women didn't argue or disagree with men, they never emasculated them in any way.
Unless she was the queen or of higher noble birth, she did things like walk 3 feet behind a man at all times.


The lower classes adopted the behavior. Monkey see monkey do.
Mostly in order to impress women and try to get laid, after the industrial revolution and dating was invented.

When factories started to appear, people left the small hamlets in droves.
Surrounded by strangers, not knowing which men were good or bad, who could you trust? What did women want?
The guys that emulated the rich folk. Men that adopted socially altruistic traits.
The guys that blew smoke up the girls butt showing her he had rich mannerisms.

"Chivalry" was done by the pioneers of "players."

So:

It was never really art.
It might have been seen as an "art" between men competing against each other to prove which was more chivalrous and therefore better than the other one.


A lot of what is named has nothing to do with "chivalrous" behavior.
e.g. "Being generous in taking her shopping or buying her nice gifts.
Listening to her concerns, Preparing meals, Running her bath, Child setting, Shopping for her"

Other than that, one of the biggest differences between men and women is the importance of belonging to the group.
Men tend to be superfluous. More likely to be kicked out. So had to develop the ability to survive on their own.
Women are more reliant upon the group. They can't afford to be kicked out.
So when looking for potential mates what gets their panties wet are things like how well the guy can conform to the group, exhibit altruistic, less selfish, behavior, communicate emotionally because that's the way she communicates and understands.

What a lot of women seem to define as "chivalry" anymore isn't really chivalry.
It's personal desires for behavior and communication by potential mates that will make her happy because it shows behavior that is subordinating to the group. If he does that, then he helps keep her safe within the group.
At best it's attributed to "chivalry" because she doesn't want to seem selfish or take responsibility for what she really wants.
"Oh no, it's not my selfish demands. Nope! I'm group oriented. It's that pesky chivalry code. That group determined rule. Why aren't you men conforming to that? It's not me and my desires, it's what the group wants, it's what the group defined...live up to the group."

I open doors for ladies and allow them to go first, simply because it is how I was raised. I work at a university and am surrounded by much younger people who were not raised to do so. I don't do it because of a code, but again, it's the way I was raised. I have never experienced anything other than appreciation.

But with a signigicant other, I would think that far more important than opening a door for her, would be to listen and to care about what she has to say. To recognize that household chores are ours not hers and that children thrive off of parental teamwork, not me being absent. There is no list or requirement or my manners would simply be out of obligation, but loving someone requires choices that may be inconvenient and time consuming and offer no reward. The reward is the smile that is more about the shared moment then the "deed" I just did.

Maybe the most challenging thing for me is to allow someone else to be chivalrous or to do something that helps me.