please stop calling it burma,
the country is now known as myanmar.

Meh, what's wrong with chivalry? If you modernize the reasoning for it, that is.

Though I wonder why on earth the girls didn't put their feet down and say, "I want to go to the dance," if it bothered them so much.

Incidentally, Kevin Drum is having a "Worst Blog Post of All-Time" poll at his site, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com .

Among the list: Ann Althouse's meltdown over Jessica's ta-tas.

Althouse does face some stiff competition, though, especially from John "Assrocket" Hinderaker's remarks about Bush: "It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius...."

Check out the list if your stomach can handle it... and let's show Althouse our support! :)

Love Katha Pollitt's piece; finally some left-feminist writing that shows you don't have to be a David Horowitz fan to find Ayaan Hirsi Ali's work deeply compelling.

Chivalry might not be a problem, if men never-ever thought that A) it meant they were owed something, B) it meant that women are weak and shouldn't get to do whatever they want, hold certain positions of power in society, etc.

Unfortunately, we will never be able to test this hypothetical, b/c plenty of men who practice chivalry also believe A and or B, and probably always will. That's the way things seem to work when you polarize gender.

For just one itty-bitty creepy example, a study at a sizeable university found that the average college male felt that if he spent at least $10 on his date he expected something sexual.

Chivalry might not be a problem, if men never-ever thought that A) it meant they were owed something, B) it meant that women are weak and shouldn't get to do whatever they want, hold certain positions of power in society, etc.

Unfortunately, we will never be able to test this hypothetical, b/c plenty of men who practice chivalry also believe A and or B, and probably always will. That's the way things seem to work when you polarize gender.

For just one itty-bitty creepy example, a study at a sizeable university found that the average college male felt that if he spent at least $10 on his date he thought he should get something sexual.

Personally, my biggest feeling towards chivalry is just that it's /unnecessary/. I am not a child. I do not need to be taken care of. I will, however, generally let someone do it if I trust the person, and if I feel like it's not an essential part of the relationship for them. (the guys who freak out at the idea of a woman holding the door for them or a woman offering to pay for a date are the ones to avoid)

That being said, Basiorana, I guess I agree that it's too bad if the girls really did want to go to the dance, but let the boys decide the activities. But an article I'd support would have to be a different article altogether. If the article had focused on how teenage girls are too passive, and boys think they always get to determine what happens on a date, and then asked how we can get girls to be more assertive and boys to genuinly care about their partner's feelings, well that one I might agree with. But that wasn't exactly the focus of the article. The focus was more promoting adhering to traditions, making blanket statements about what girls want.

Personally, I was as anti-school dances and anti-tradition in general in high school as anyone. It had nothing to do with not being in touch with my own desires and feelings.

Basoriana -

So what would your idea of chivalry be?

I thought that story was interesting. I wonder if the girls really were bothered by it or if it's just the father projecting his own discomfort. It's possible that some or all of the girls knew what was up but did not explain that to their parents. Of course if it was just a bait-and-switch deal that the girls weren't aware of beforehand, they have every right to be pissed but I bet they'd have a hard time showing it due to peer pressure and the overall desire not to be called a bitch and whatnot.

NINA: "For just one itty-bitty creepy example, a study at a sizeable university found that the average college male felt that if he spent at least $10 on his date he expected something sexual.?"

Nina, is there any possible chance that you remember the author of the study or have a link?

We are about to do a large scale study (N = 30,000-60,000) on attitudes toward gender and money. One of the questions we are asking is about men's beliefs about sex and women's sexual obligations when they pay for dates (and women's feelings of discomfort/obligation when men insist on paying), and how feminist attitudes relate.

I'd appreciate it if you are able to find a link!

apple blossom: Some of us choose to refer to the country as Burma because "Myanmar" was the new name chosen by the military junta when they took power. The democracy movement in Burma prefers the name "Burma."

I'm sorry, If some guy ever sent me a text at 2 or 3am saying "u busy?" the answer they would get is...oh, wait, I would be sleeping! I don't know of any girl who thinks that a text at that time of night would end in "romance" and they certianly wouldnt be "clutching their cellphones" the next day. Maybe girls deserve more credit than that. And maybe those boys had another reason for skipping the dance other than groping in a dark corner: theyre high school kids, probably broke high school kids, or maybe they were making a statement. And how does the author know that all the other girls wanted to go? That whole article was just too 50's or me

I actually usually think of "chivalry" as "basic manners, coupled with romantic ideals."

Most of chivalry is in fact manners that women should do too (holding doors, giving up your seat to the infirm, etc). But then there's also the aspect of chivalry that is things like expecting that your date won't want to have sex with you after only one outing, or wooing someone rather than the modern atmosphere of bed-hopping. Romance over one-night stands, basically.

Well, at least that's how my parents explained chivalry to me. I know it has other connotations, but frankly I agree with the writer to the extent that forgoing a dance for hanging out in someone's basement is not chivalrous.

If they had other reasons to skip it, like money or making a statement, they should have confirmed that their dates wanted to do the same thing BEFORE making that commitment.

There was once in high school where a boy I liked from another school asked me to his homecoming dance but only after his date turned him down. He asked me when there was pretty much no time for me to get a "proper" dress (as my mother put it) so we were just going to go out on a regular date. However, he said he needed to put in an appearance to take photos for his mom, so while he went in he left me in the car, and it just so happened my parents drove past. To this day my mom hates him for leaving me in the car. I didn't really care at the time or even now but it totally pissed off my mom, and this article sounds like the dad is the same way. It's nice that he wants his daughter to be treated "nicely" but I think he has more of a problem with his daughter being sexual without the boy really "earning" it.

He even quotes Laura Sessions Stepp, which is never a good thing. But I loved this;

Meanwhile, 60% of 125 college students in a new study by Michigan State University have had a sexual "friends with benefits" relationship. Nine out of 10 "hookups" didn't lead to dating relationships, the study found. More ominously, after casual sex, females are more likely than males to show symptoms of depression, according to a study reported last year in the Journal of Sex Research

Must be that pesky semen they're craving;)*

*note there was an article a while back about women being addicted to semen or some such stuff.

UltraMagnus, it's possible. Most parents like this genuinely just want their kids to have chivalrous dates and never be sexual *cough*yeahright*cough* but he could think that the boy somehow doesn't deserve his daughter.

And if she actually didn't want to go to this thing, her dad's a bit of a loser.

About the living-apart-together piece.

I'm covetous of my own space, and personally feel like such an arrangement has lots to recommend it . . . but what are we to make of this part of the scenario:

Not that I never get angry, especially because I’m usually the one rushing around in the morning trying to get our boys off to school. When I’m on vomit patrol by myself, or when Henry wakes me at 3 a.m. to ask, “Why do we have knees?�

Yet . . . he agreed to take on the burden of children in his late 60s; the least I can do is let him get a good night’s rest.

I don't want to be harshly critical of one couple's choices (each situation has its own particulars), so my point isn't to criticize Judith Newman or her husband specifically, but raise a larger question about how successful equitable co-parenting can be when spouses have two separate house-holds.

If divorced couples are any guide, women would end up, overwhelmingly, the custodial parent. And when you're the on-site parent, you're going to do more of the day-to-day work regardless of how "on" the off-site parent is when they're there.

What do other people think? Could this type of arrangement work for couples committed to gender equity in house-keeping and child-rearing? What would that kind of equity look like?

On the 'chivalry is dead' piece, what that guy really needs is to step up to the plate, be a REAL man, and take his daughter to one of those purity balls already. It's obvious that's what he really wants.

But everybody must have something about their families to complain about right?

Sigh. My problem is that I don't see anything wrong with this 'hook-up culture', so I really don't get what all this fuss is about. You know what bugs me though? The way they've fucking polarized the whole thing. You're either an angelic virgin (complete with card, a ring, and apparently a personal relationship with Jesus) or you're shagging everything that moves.

Um, I'm sorry. Why can't they just leave some room for the rest of us to live in already? I'm sick and tired of all these ppl who seem to think it's great fun to tell everyone what's wrong with everyone else.

Next time I see some more of those stupid lifestyle articles I'm going to leave a comment informing them that it has now been decided that baby-boomers are now officially too old to have sex. Since you know, they get to decide whether or not it's okay when I have sex.

I wonder how well they'd take it...

The trouble with the hookup culture is that it causes emotional distress when young people don't really want that kind of relationship but feel pressured into it; plus, it's coupled with abstinence-only sex education and laws restricting birth control availability. It makes young men feel that they are entitled to sex (that's NOT sue to chivalry), it makes young women feel that they HAVE to be having sex to have a relationship with a man, even if they don't want to.

The "hook-up culture" hurts young women WAY more than chivalry did. Not that polarizing it is a good thing, I agree with you on that matter.

I mean, chivalry was a custom employed to appease women so that they remained passive...

So why, again, are we mourning its apparent demise?

Because it was not accompanied by an actual improvement of men's views of women, so consequently we have all the misogyny of old-school chivalry without even the pseudo-respect for women that chivalry offered?

Let's not forget the role class played in chivalry. Only certain women got the alleged "benefits" of it, and many of those who did were certainly caused enough emotional distress that they fought to tear it down.

I'm curious about this alleged "hook-up culture." I've never been a part of it. I teach college students, and have quite friendly relationships with some of my former students, now graduated. I've never known anybody who was a part of it. I keep reading screeds by histrionic baby boomers waxing eloquent about its destructive habits, as though it's a new thing. But...really? Because I know a lot of people who were sexually active in the 1960s and 1970s--you know, the sexual revolution?--and it seems like what we call "hook-up culture" was the norm back then, not now. Not in the post-HIV era.

So, really, who's participating in this "hook-up culture" How do we know? And is it any different from the casual sex of the 1960s-1980s? And is it really more destructive and distressing than any other part of young adulthood?

I'm in college. I see it all the time, associated a lot with drinking and party frats. It does exist, but yeah, I don't really think it's a new thing. I probably did start, as you say, in the 60's, which was about when chivalry started to disappear.

I've actually felt pressure from it too; there are many people who think it is odd to wait almost a year after starting to date a person before one has sex with them. It appears constantly in movies and on TV. Don't assume everyone is smart enough to stop having casual sex just because there are STDs out there.

And yeah, traditional chivalry wasn't always the best thing, which is why it needs to be modernized and taught for the right reasons, as I said in my first comment.

Ah but Basiorana, I too am in college (though it's grad school now for me) and I agree more with EG.

I've heard of ppl participating in this 'hook-up' culture but I don't know anyone personally. That's the problem with anecdotal evidence, there isn't any.

But I disagree with you on the part where you think that hook-up culture causes ppl all those problems. I don't think that hooking up causes those problems. They might coincide, but there's a bigger problem. You say that hooking up causes guys to expect sex from girls, effectively controlling their sexuality. Chivalry contols female sexuality. From that point of view, they both have one thing in common, men wanting to control when/how/ and with who women have sex with. I think that is where the emotional distress is coming from, from not being allowed to control your own sexuality.

Second I agree that abstinence-only 'education' hurts ppl who hook up. But ppl in relationships aren't exempt. And at least with hooking up you're not expecting the person(s) you're sleeping with to not sleep with other ppl. Obviously in both situations you would be better off with a solid understanding of birth control and STIs. So that problem isn't unique to hooking up and I would have trouble believing that it would even be worse.

I think that mainly because ppl in relationships and ppl hooking up are not mutually exclusive entities. Most ppl I know seem to flipflop between the two rather than taking part exclusively in either one. THAT is the number one reason I don't believe that this 'hook up culture' doesn't exist in the way that all these naysayers seem to think.

And the second one? I don't have a problem with casual sex. It doesn't cause problems. People being judgmental, malicious in their intentions, not being upfront and honest about their expectations, and genuinely not knowing what they want; THOSE cause problems.

I think we need to completely scrap the whole idea of chivalry and try again with the whole respect and tolerance thing. And maybe a healthy amount of if it occurs between two people capable of consent and doesn't affect you, fuck off.

The chivalry article rather made me laugh. I was one of those teens in high school who boycotted dances and led my little group of friends astray. (No joke, a parent once told me I was leading her son astray.)

At the time - I graduated in '97,so it's been 10 years since high school - it made perfect sense to us. One the one hand, put on pretty but uncomfortable clothes, listen to lame music and spend time with people we really didn't care for. On the other hand, wear comfortable close, eat pizza, watch movies with friends. No pressure for sex, no requests we dance or take pics or park or any of that stuff. Didn't have anything to do with chilvalry or hooking up or whatnot, it just had to do with choosing how we wanted to spend our evenings.

Yes, I'm a female and yes, I was the one who led my friends, both male and female, to boycott the precious high school moments like homecoming and prom. The world didn't end, we don't look back upon it with regret or longing and I'm pretty sure we had a better time than the ones who went to the homecoming dance and/or prom.

The other article that caught my eye was the one about Texas being the leader in teen pregnancies and repeat teen pregnancies. I'm a Texan and boy howdy, was I not surprised by that. Last year I had a seventeen year old *student* with 2 children, a three year old and a 16 month old. Unreal.

Basiorana, pressure to have sex definitely predates the "hookup culture."
The stuff about Horowitz was infuriating. As Pollitt points out, this is coming from major-league sexists who are probably fine with oppression of women outside of Islam (I'm reminded of D'Souza's argument that liberal support for women's rights is one of those things that justifiably enrage Muslims and drive them to terror).

ULTRAMAGNUS: "Must be that pesky semen they're craving;)* *note there was an article a while back about women being addicted to semen or some such stuff."

You're referring to Becky Burch's dissertation research - "Semen as an antidepressant" hypothesis." Basically her idea is that factors that motivated reproduction would have been selected for.

One of those mechanisms might have been chemicals in semen that elevate women's mood (above and beyond the obvious orgasm/direct physical pleasure). Becky noted that some of the components of semen are analagous to chemical components in antidepressants, and did a correlational study examining whether semen exposure was associated with elevated mood (controlling for a variety of relationship factors).

Interesting hypothesis, who knows if it is true or not.

Gallup, G. G. Jr., Burch, R. L., and Platek, S. (2002). Does semen contain antidepressant properties? Archives of Sexual Behavior 39(3), 289-291.

I don't know. There is still a lot of pressure to have sex and have it soon in relationships, at least where I am, and especially with incoming freshmen.

I don't worry about casual sex if people use protection, both know exactly what they want out of it and can voice it and agree, and people are allowed to NOT engage in casual sex and not be judged for it. But none of those happen frequently enough to make casual sex a good thing to encourage, at least for young women who are not confident and assertive enough to resist the pressures.

Chivalry, in the right context and for the right reasons, IS respect. And frankly it's better than the current alternative. In an ideal world we would have gained suitable respect for women BEFORE chivalry disappeared, and life would be great; but that's not how it happened, and I prefer chivalry to blatant misogyny.

FeDhu can you talk more about why you boycotted the dances - in Texas that must have been a brave step.

Have you gone to any formal events since?

I'm under a lot of pressure to go to my school formal (Prom in Americanese) from ppl and adults - both my mum and grandmother are already looking in the formalwear shops online and off and generally acting as if its definately going to happen.

Conservative country town thats heavily into tradition especially for girls/women - vs. kid thats started to realise shes a ALP supporting liberal feminist who wishes she was in the big city.

i dont hate the people that go to dances - i know thats their choice to make and i shouldnt try to do it for them - why im surprised FeDhu decided to "persuade" her friends.

What do people here think i should do?

I went to the dances at my high school mostly because they *weren't* big deals - they were an excuse for us to not be at anyone's house, like we usually were. I never had a date, so it was just a fun time to hang out with my friends - especially since I'm a bargain hunter and found my senior prom dress for $10.00, and my junior prom dress for $1.50. I went with one of my (girl) friends as a 'date' since we got discounts to buy a pair of tickets instead of sinlges.... For homecoming dances, we weren't supposed to 'upstage' the Court with our dresses, so we generally just wore jeans and cute tops, and gossiped at the side while they did their dance. I'm from Michigan, where I don't think these things are such a big deal. During my high school career, we seemed to mostly go through the motions of them just for the 'milestone' than the experience. I had fun, but I probably wouldn't have had any regrets if we had skipped and just had a bonfire those nights instead.

Julianne, it's your life you're the only one who has to live it. If it makes you uncomfortable tell them that this time, they don't get to live vicariously through you.

But back to how the whores are taking over our country.

Bas I can empathize with standing counter to what is commonly done in your group of friends or classmates. But in my ideal world (otherwise known as my head, le sigh) people should be able to have sex however and with whomever they want without it being of huge public interest. That is what I want, and anything short of that just isn't good enough (at least in the ideal sense, in the real world I would do whatever lets you sleep at night).

But I think I've already established that I think morality is relative and that I much prefer my own to what others would impose upon me. heh.

Aw yes but to me chivalry and misogyny are one and the same.
Women are weak, and need to be guided and controlled, taken care of.

But what about the women who didn't fit the mold laid out for them? There hasn't ever been chivalry for them. They get punished, hurt, ostracized, put-in-their-place.

Chivalry is all about taking care of someone too stupid, weak, and ignorant to do it themselves. Here can I carry your bags? Let me hold this heavy door open for you. Here take my arm as we walk, I'll make sure you don't get lost. Don't go out by yourself, take me along with you. Why? BC(proper) women aren't out on the streets alone.

I do not call that respect and it is a very poor substitute. I call that patronization, and I don't want any part of it.

If women were respected, chivalry would not be needed to protect the few women that the menz find worthy.

But the issues you raise with casual sex have nothing to do with the actual sex part. Using protection is an important part of ALL sex, not just casual sex. Knowing what you want and being able to speak up for it, applies in a million situations even completely outside of sex. We should be addressing the people who Do judge others, pressure others, victimize others.

Sitting there and saying we shouldn't encourage casual sex is bullshit. Instead of addressing the actual problem you want to tell people to avoid having certain sorts of sex because other people will think poorly of them. By saying that, you caste yourself in the same boat as people who want to 'save' sex for marriage and label everybody else as whores. I understand that you want to be pragmatic, but you're not even addressing the real problem. The real problem is not that people are having casual sex, the problem is that other people think it's okay to JUDGE them for it.

And secondly, I actually find it offensive that you assume that if a girl wants to have casual sex it is because she is not confident enough to say no and has problems asserting herself. Bullshit. You create that girl with your idea that girls need to be protected from casual sex and not encouraged to think that they're allowed to desire sex outside of a relationship.

Helping girls be more confident and assertive can start by us not telling them when and with whom it is or isn't okay to have sex with.

This thread reads a lot like a Basiorana Q&A.
-----------

I really want young people to learn to value their peers and their partners and to derive enjoyment from treating each other well. I don't think that has to be a gendered endeavor.

I recently graduated college and perhaps i can offer some insight into hookup culture. a lot of people i knew were part of it, and most of those who weren't were in relationships. A lot of the time its a friends with benefits situation and its nice because both people are on the same page and know what to expect- someone cool to go out with or meet up with after being out to fulfill your needs. no big deal. I still can't figure out why it is so hard for some people to believe that girls always want to be in a relationship. A lot of my friends and myself were not in relationships because we didn't want to be in them because of timing or because of lack of romantic interest in anyone. whatever the reason, I understand how having sex when you don't necessarily want to could lead to emotional damage, but to assume that mutually agreed upon sex or sexual activities can't work without causing that same damage (and, of course, only to women), is such a lame stereotype.

"Don't go out by yourself, take me along with you--" in my college town on weekends, this is a common practice by "chivalrous" men because it deters drunks, creeps and rapists from bothering girls if they've got a guy along with them. Is that right? No. But it's safer.

Truly chivalrous men (of whom I know several, but which are admittedly rare) do not care if a woman does not fit the mold. My brother, for example, will offer to get up from his seat on public transportation for any woman, even if she's a butch lesbian or was once a man or looks like a prostitute. They don't fit the classic chivalrous mold, but he is still chivalrous towards them (Actually, we've warned him about this on occasion lest a "feminist" woman take offense to his actions and retaliate).

And yeah, technically most women don't need to have a man offer his seat, or hold doors, or carry their bags. But the guys I know whom I would describe as chivalrous aren't doing it because they think women are weak, but rather because they think it's a nice, helpful thing to do, and they've been taught women are more likely than men to accept their help, so they're not going to offer it to men. And yes, I do know a lot of Boy Scout-type guys.

There is a kind of "chivalry" that is little better than misogyny, but that is not what I was raised to interpret as chivalry and not what I referred to here. I consider it unfortunate that the two approaches are so confused in our society.

And I am not saying that all women who engage in casual sex are doing so because they feel they cannot say no. I am saying that there are women out there for whom this is the case, many of them. Some were victims of abuse or other trauma, many are young and have been inundated their whole life with the idea of owing sex to the men around them.

If a woman truly wants to have sex outside of a relationship, more power to her. But our culture is glorifying that to the level at which middle-of-the-road types-- those who want sex outside of a traditional marriage but only within long-term trusting relationships-- feel that there is something wrong with how they want to live their life.

We shouldn't dictate sex. But what we have now is not the answer. Rather, we should focus on presenting a more realistic image of relationships to young women-- show them that there are relationships with or without sex, that there can be sex without relationships, and that they have the right to chose whatever scenario they want.

RE: the living-together-apart article

This piece was rather strange. The statistics cited about how many couples are living-together-apart seemed high, and I do wonder if that number included couples that haven't (yet or ever) divorced but are no longer "together".

The specific woman who wrote in seemed to gloss over the large (apparent) age difference between her and her husband, and his seeming disinterest in the children. She mentions "he agreed to take on the burden of children in his late 60s; the least I can do is let him get a good night’s rest" and that he hates noise and makes the children cry when they have to live with him- to me that was a red flag that the author had convinced this man who didn't want children to have them on the condition that he didn't have to do the difficult work. She certainly makes it sound as if he doesn't particularly care for the children and isn't willing to make room for her and the children or make changes to his apartment which he likes just so. Reading between the lines (and maybe I am wrong) but he sounds just too old and set in his ways to change for his third wife and the children she seems to want way more than him.

I wouldn't have issues with living-together-apart, and I have often said that the only way I could live with a long-term lover is if we had apartments across the hall from each other. Then again, I never want children. If there were children in the picture, I have no idea how they could really split the child-rearing 50-50- it seems almost impossible, and certainly not what this particular couple is striving for at all. My guess is unless the couple did live super-close, there would be one home/parent that would have the children most often, and that parent would do the majority of the difficult work.

RE: Did I steal my daughter?

A really interesting read that brought up even thornier issues that I have never read about before, such as the danger in supporting the bio-parent(s) after the adoption, which can mess up the child's village's perception of adoption. There was a part talking about how a $30,000 adoption seems mean when the parent could afford the child with an additional $200 a month. Now, I am the childfreeist childfreer to want my tubes tied, but even I can see that supporting a family halfway across the globe is not the same as raising a child at my home. Still, its more than a little sticky to be taking the kid away from the parents, spending gobs of money, when the parent(s) are alive and heathy and able to care for their child, if only they had a bit of help. It certainly put transatlantic adoptions in a new light for me.

RE: the abortion doulas

I'll admit I never really understood what doulas did, and I thought they actually delievered the baby. The article made if more clear that they do not, but that they are supporting the woman through the birth. Interesting. Anyway, I wouldn't have minded have a doula at my abortion, and I am glad there are some open-minded doulas out there who can halp women who need it when having abortions. Meanwhile, if I ever had a baby, you better believe I would fire the pro-life doula who told me that abortion is murder or whatever. Screw that. I think women can either be pro-women's health, or judgemental. Who would want to work with a pro-life doula? Not me.

I'm 20 and a junior in college.

I have to say that this "hook-up" culture, so to speak, is real in both high school and college contexts. It also has a very strong link to alcohol consumption and rites of "adulthood" from what I've witnessed or been a part of. I'm very pro-sex and sexuality, but the problem with the type of culture described, tied in with the "chivalry" concept, seem to be the lack of respect for fellow human beings that it breeds in both sexes.

In my experience, casual sex works like communism...in theory. Maybe it is old fashioned, but to me sex is opening up a very intimate part of yourself to another person, making yourself vulnerable. The "rules" of casual sex, such as having no emotions and no ties, deny the individuality of people and creates a numbness to the feelings of a sex partner. Essentially, you can exchange body fluids, but there must be an emotional distance, which I believe there is already too much of among people in general. In "hooking-up", one is using another person's body for sexual gratification (male or female) in a rather cold and objectifying manner.

It seems like certain populations of women are so frustrated at some level by the sexual double standards between men and women that instead of trying to raise the level of respect for the power of sex and sexuality, they react by living up to the "male" stereotypes of sexuality. That bit about women being more depressed after casual sex than men really hit me.

I don't think it is so conservative or anti-feminist to say that sex is a human experience to be treated with conscious thought and respect and which is not to be treated so lightly. Obviously people should be able to do as they wish, but what about stopping to think about what one is really trying to "get" through these casual encounters, why one has this need and how certain choices of behavior will serve one further down the line? Sex is about more than just lust, otherwise everyone could just masturbate and be satisfied.

I also liked the point someone made about how a hook-up culture doesn't really give girls and women the option not to have sex immediately or at all if they don't want to. One can be liberal minded and secular and choose not to enter into physical relationships lightly. If men get the idea that sex is "expected" from a female they are spending time with, that's very unfair to the female (or the male vice versa, should one be so inclined). Such expectations of sex as legitimizing one's status as an "adult" gives a person few options if they want to fit into a larger group.

After experiencing many things, I've made the choice not to drink, do drugs or have casual (impersonal) sex, yet I'm very liberal and rather perverted in my sense of humor. I've struggled finding a middle group of people who are neither "promise ring" religious types or the "get drunk and screw" types.

Then again, I am in the South...

It sounds like what people are saying is that "hook-up culture" thrives hand-in-glove with promise-ring/chastity vows--which doesn't surprise me, really. Two sides of the same coin, really--if you're in a context wherein you're being told that sex is an all-or-nothing proposition--either you're a virgin or you're impure--you won't have the opportunity to learn about how and when sex works for you. After all, if you're going to give it up, why not just give it up for anybody and everybody, if you've been told for your whole life that once you've given it up, it's gone.

The thing is, Basiorana, chivalry was practically defined by its classism, its division of the world into good girls who deserve thoughtful behavior and bad girls who don't, into upper-class men who knew how to behave "properly" and working-class men who didn't, and by its ideology of turning good girls into weak objects to be petted but not taken seriously. There're damn good reasons to get rid of chivalry. The chivalry of the past made it open season on poor women, or women who did enjoy casual sex.

Thoughtful behavior is thoughtful behavior regardless of the gender involved. Manners are manners. Part of thoughtful behavior is being responsive to one's romantic partner's desires and comfort zones. But a man giving me his seat on the subway? That's nice, and I might even take it, but I don't think it's a part of the culture that really needs to be brought back.

Okay, EG, how's this for a compromise-- abolish old-school chivalry, but the kind I'm talking about can stay and be encouraged? I'll admit there's parts of the traditional chivalry that are less desirable, but I see no problem with encouraging young men to treat women with respect and manners. Some women I can think of could stand to learn some manners as well. And if they want to call it chivalry, or I do, even if you think it's just thoughtful behavior or manners, well, a rose by any other name.

And I think it should be brought back because I've noticed that "chivalrous" men tend to be nicer to women and to people in general, and the apathy of the modern world is unsettling at times.

I consider myself a chivalrous, new-fashioned gentleman. And for me, like Basiorana, new-fashioned feministic chivalry is possibile. And I like dating feminist, chivalrous and new-fashioned womyn in return.

I like social dancing. I like asking someone to dance without the assumption of romantic ulterior motives. I like it when people ask me to dance. I like holding doors open for others, not because someone else is weak, but because it is a nice thing to do...and I like it when people open the door for me.

Rather than a society where no one does anything nice for strangers, I'd prefer to live in a society where we all do nice things for each other as a matter of course. I'd rather live in a polite and mannered society than a rude and violent one or a cold and indifferent one.

I spent a bit of time in the SCA doing Med-Ren reenactment. And we all get a bit courtly in a modern California sort of way. When I participated in my first rapier fight, one of my teachers, an amazing swordswoman asked me to carry her favor in the fight...it was a great honor! And I later sewed a favor of my own so that at the next tournament I was able to ask her to carry my favor. It was really nice...and it was not about either one of us being weak or passive or having power over. It was making nice gestures towards people.

I think it would be great, considering the appaling levels of violence towards women by men, if men believed it was unmanly to beat on women. (Really I think it would be great if men believed it wasn't manly to beat on anyone...but the open warfare the patriarchy is waging on women is a bit more disconcerting to me at the moment).

Because I know that some women will interpret kindness as oppression, I tend to freely give chivalrous aid to other men, who are almost never offended by being given a friendly gesture, but very careful to try and judge if the woman I'm interacting with will be receptive to kindness. When in doubt, I show no kindness, but blank neutrality. If she seems like she'd appreciate pleaseantry, then I'll give her the same level of chivalric kindness I give to random men.

One of the things that a mourn the loss of when I transitioned from female to male (I'm a transman) is that I can't be polite and friendly to women like I used to. When I was read as a woman I could hold open doors and make small talk and there never was an assumption that was a jerk. Now that I'm living male, I am often assumed to be a jerk even if I just want to know the time. Of course I don't blame women for this state of affairs, I blame the patriarchy. But it's still a bummer.

re: boycotting formals / proms

Julianne, is this your year 10 or year 12 formal - will you be seeing most of these people again? Is it tradition to take a date or will you be going with a group of friends?

I suppose the thing to ask is, is there a way for you to enjoy your formal and make your mum and grandma happy? It is your choice, but these kind of things are a milestone in your life that you might (though not necessarily) regret missing later on - I wasn't so jazzed about my formal, but it was, on reflection, a nice opportunity to say goodbye to some really great teachers that I had in year 12, once all the HSC stress was over.

"The abstinence-only haven of Texas ranks first in the nation in teen births and in teen repeat births."

When this came up on another forum one of the conservatives whined that counting the pregnancies within marriage wasn't fair. As if a married pregnant sixteen year old somehow isn't a pregnant teenager. o_O

"But what about the women who didn't fit the mold laid out for them? There hasn't ever been chivalry for them. They get punished, hurt, ostracized, put-in-their-place."

Not to mention the women who were pushed into the other molds. Remember settings with the "women shouldn't have sex with men before marriage and men should have sex with women before marriage" attitude (which led to the "there are the girls you marry, and then there are the girls you date" attitude)...

"Truly chivalrous men (of whom I know several, but which are admittedly rare) do not care if a woman does not fit the mold. My brother, for example, will offer to get up from his seat on public transportation for any woman, even if she's a butch lesbian or was once a man or looks like a prostitute."

Now I'm wondering if he'd give up his seat for any man. On occasions I've given up my seat for women, men, and children.

"The thing is, Basiorana, chivalry was practically defined by its classism, its division of the world into good girls who deserve thoughtful behavior and bad girls who don't, into upper-class men who knew how to behave 'properly' and working-class men who didn't,"

Exactly.

I detest the concept of chivalry. I think everyone should be polite, offer seating to those who need it, hold open doors whenever it seems appropriate to do so, and pretty much everything else that it seems Bas and trooper values (though Bas seems to think it should be a man->woman thing, which I do not agree with), but I will not connect those upstanding values to the loathsome standard of chivalry. Chivalry has its basis in a time and place where women were property, where women were treated as passive chattel, mere objects so that in the case of upper class-women, "knights" could look good observing chivalric ideals, and for lower class-women, "knights" could use them for sexual pleasure or whatever else they wanted.

Sure, you could try to redefine chivalry, but considering the heritage and how it's still used today, why on earth would you want to? As it is, I see a lot more problems with the chivalry-romanticising to be criticized, than positives that could be gained from redefining it.
It all ties into sadly alive ideals of "proper women" and patriarchal ideals for men.

To offer your seat to someone who needs it is polite. According to chivalry, you should offer it to able-bodied women, and at best, that just makes it patronizing.

This is a bit late, but here's an interesting article from the CBC about the Burma vs. Myanmar debate. Their preference is for Burma, also known as Myanmar, which is admittedly a bit of a mouthful!

I agree, Anders. That's respectful behavior, not chivalry. Chivalry says that men should give women a seat; respect says that a person capable of standing should give anyone who needs one a seat, whether male, female, poor, rich, whatever. Chivalry says men should hold doors for women, respect says that it's rude to let a door slam in anyone's face, so hold it open, people. I like respect better.

I've had a couple of those fuck-buddies, and I'm a girl, and I can't say I remember much cold, calculated sex. It was more friendly, happy sex. I cared for all of my young men, but, for various reasons, I didn't want to date them. I'm not saying this'd work out for everyone, because it won't. However, I really don't like the suggestion that casual sex is only ever cold and unemotional, while romantic partner sex is the only kind that'll ever be nice. It's not. There are plenty of people here in the middle of the virgin/whore dichotomy, even if the prevailing dialogue forgets about us.

About the chivalry article:

Why didn't the dad encourage his daughter to go with her girlfriends? I'm assuming she could have bought her own ticket. I think it's pathetic that he stood there taking pictures and wondering if he should talk to the boy when he could have (or should have) talked to his own daughter about it and come to an understanding with her. Jerk.

Melissa - year 10 formal - tradition where i am is to take a date - its also a very conservative Coalition voting country area - which causes problems when your like me - getting frustrated at trying to get through to my mum and my grandmother that i appreciate their advice but i dont want things decided for me - my grandmother in particular seems to have pretty much decided on what i should wear and do.

Ding Dong, Chivalry is dead! Long live Chivalry!

Chivalry, as depicted in popular culture and understood by most people, is a sexist, classist system that treats women like dolls and the poor like property, and I'll be happy to see it die.

Re: the chivalry article:
"At Cardinal O'Hara High School in Springfield, Pa., class of '06 homecoming queen Cathy Caramanico never got her big moment at the dance. It was called off due to lack of interest."

Oh, boo-hoo. Forgive me if the teenage outcast in me really doesn't care that the homecoming queen didn't get her "big moment." What is the world coming to?

Re: David Horowitz, I'm sure y'all know full well and good that he doesn't give a flying f*ck about women's rigts, but I thought I'd share a little anecdote. When Mr. Horowitz spoke at my alma mater trying to rile up support for his "academic bill of rights," I got up and asked him, then, if he (and the student organization that brought him) were concerned about student free speech, certainly they would help the student organizations trying to get "The Vagina Monologues" on campus, right? His response was that, well, um, you see, this was a private religious college, so really, he believed the administration could make decisions about that. Um, okay. So advocating for women's rights only pops up when he views it as helpful to his cause.

I'm going to go read more now. :)

The homecoming dance issue was not about chivalry. It was about some lazy-assed guys welching on half of the invitation. It's like inviting someone skiing and then deciding (as a group so as to heighten the pressure) to stay in the lodge to drink. The poster above who said the author should have been lamenting the girls' failure to assert what they wanted was on the right track. I would have encouraged the girls to say "Yeah, we'll go to dinner and have fun but we (i.e. whichever girls wanted to)are going to the dance if we have to hire a cab. You guys can sit on your asses and drink if you want to, we may or may not come back. Oh, and any chance you might have of getting under my dress depends on how happy you can keep me." Well, the last sentence might be too much for a h.s. woman, but the implication would be there anyway.

My son when in h.s. was reluctant to go to the semi-formal dances, at first. His school was a magnet school so the young women were plenty smart and independent. Still they were more into the dress-up and dance thing than the guys. I told my son that his women classmates were his friends and to be a friend included doing something nice for your friend, even if it wasn't a romantic gesture. Since it was traditional for the guys to ask the girls (still--sigh) the guys should step up to the plate --ask a girl to the dance ("girlfriend" or not), get the tickets, buy the flowers, get dressed up. In their group the women made the dinner plans and the guys drove or they all pitched in for a limousine or mini-bus. The last was a relief to the parents as it helped avoid the drunk driving problem. Surprise--the guys actually liked the experience. The group dinners were fun, the dances were fun also, if only for the chance to see their other classmates dressed up.

My advice to Julianne--participating in the shindig does not necessarily mean you are selling out to a culture you don't want to be a part of. Consider it an opportunity to learn how to become comfortable in that world without adopting its political/cultural ideas. Bring your ideas into their tent.

We would want chivalry...why, again? The concept holds absolutely no appeal for me. There's a huge difference between not hooking up with someone because you're "chivalrous" and not hooking up with someone because they don't want to hook up with you and you understand and respect that they have the right to tell you to screw off. I'd say the latter should be the basis for sexual interaction, not the former.

Also, the "victim" is cringe-inducing again. Pro-survivor language, please?

- GPAC Condemns Non-Inclusive ENDA - GenderPAC condemns the action of removing gender identity and expression from ENDA that the Democratic leaders decided to do last week. GPAC does, however, applaud the House on postponing the new ENDA and listening to the LGBT community on this divisive matter. Riki Wilchins feels that removing gender identity and expression from ENDA would take away protection from the most vulnerable people in the work place – be they gay & lesbian, transgender, or straight. The entire release can be read at: http://www.gpac.org/archive/news/index.html?cmd=view&archive=news&msgnum=0688.

Basiorana, if one is polite and respectful to people of both genders regardless of their physical attractiveness, it's not chivalry; it's plain old manners.

Manners are good. Chivalry is not because it's sexist!
"Benevolent" sexism is still sexism. It's patronizing and completely unnecessary.

I've had some experiences with "chivalry" in the past couple weeks.
I just moved to an attic apartment in a house with two other apartments.

One of the other residents is a single 60-something (?) Italian American man. Since we both smoke we've had a few opportunities to talk on the front porch.
Right off the bat he was touchy-feely and a little too familiar with me. I didn't reciprocate his intensity because it made me uncomfortable. I'd go to light my cig and he'd insist upon taking the lighter out of my hand so he could light it for me. I let him do it a couple times but it just got fucking tired so after a while I'd decline his offer.
If I came outside and he was sitting in a chair, he'd jump up and insist that I sit instead. "Oh, I'm fine standing / sitting on the stoop," I'd say.

One day he went off: "Oh, you're one of those independent women! 'Look at me; I'm independent'! I do things for myself! I've known other women like you! Yada yada yada
"In Italy the men like to spoil the women! Let me spoil you!" ...and so on and so forth.

It was nauseating. It's not spoiling someone if you INSIST upon treating her differently because she's a woman. When you reveal that you *don't* actually respect her or her wishes, you just want to fluff your own ego and sense of manliness.

Detesting "chivalry" is NOT the same thing as detesting "manners" or "helpfulness." Chivalry is men treating women like china dolls. Manners is everyone treating everyone with courtesty.

My brother, for example, will offer to get up from his seat on public transportation for any woman, even if she's a butch lesbian or was once a man or looks like a prostitute.

Can't you see how that's patronising though? I'm young and able bodied, I can stand. I don't need a man to give up his seat for me. For him to do so implies that, as a woman, I am too weak to stand on a bus for 20 minutes. And that's where chivalry comes from, an idea that women are weak and need special treatment and protection. Now, respect is a different thing. I will gladly give up my seat for an elderly person (yes, even a man!), or a disabled person, or a pregnant woman, because they need the seat more than I do. But that's not chivalry. And the difference between chivalry and respect is that chivalry is gendered and respect is not.

If men get the idea that sex is "expected" from a female they are spending time with, that's very unfair to the female (or the male vice versa, should one be so inclined).

Of course it is! But that has nothing to do with "hook up culture" and everything to do with male entitlement. Under the traditional dating model, some men had an attitude of: "I bought her dinner, so she owes me sex." Under the "hook up" model it's: "I've been spending all this time with her, she owes me sex." Either way though, the problem isn't casual sex, it's male entitlement.

I've struggled finding a middle group of people who are neither "promise ring" religious types or the "get drunk and screw" types.

I'm sorry to hear that, but do you think the answer is to go back to a model where women who did choose to "get drunk and screw" are stigmatised and looked down on?

but I see no problem with encouraging young men to treat women with respect and manners. Some women I can think of could stand to learn some manners as well. And if they want to call it chivalry, or I do, even if you think it's just thoughtful behavior or manners, well, a rose by any other name.

Yes, chivalry is about manners, not subjugating women. Sorry, ladies, everything that started in the 19th century is not necessarily sexist.

When you give up your seat on a bus to an elderly person, a pregnant woman, or a child, you are not patronising them. Nor are you doing so when you let a person hobbling around on crutches sit. When men let women sit down, they are saying, "I was raised to be a giving person," not "You're too weak to stand on your own." When men pay for dates, they aren't "buying" women or trying to keep them subjugated; they are saying, "I am committed to this, and, to demonstrate it, I'm going to put a personal stake into courting you." That's just economics, people: a barrier to entry weeds out people who are not committed. Paying for a date is like typing up your college application instead of writing it in crayon: you are saying, "This is important enough to me to expend effort. I am willing to take a risk in this, too."

We get pissed, as a culture, when people waste our time, use us, or otherwise do not act with good manners. Somehow, though, when it's dating, "feminists" (being so anti-woman, I use scare quotes) not only allow men to waste our time, they encourage it.

Old-fashioned courtship 101: take the girl on a cheap date; take her on an expensive date; ask her out; date for a while; give her a ring or similar on a necklace; give her a frat pin; get engaged. Women knew if men were moving towards marriage. Guess what, ladies? Knowledge is power. Don't want to marry the guy and don't want to waste his time, either? You know if he's getting serious and can stop it. You know if he's not serious. Wow - go figure - old-fashioned chivalry helps women to make decisions about their lives.

There are a LOT of men who will happily use women. Chivalry forces them to act differently: to get to know the person before the body, to build up respect for the woman before possibly impregnanting her, and to build a relationship and not a hook-up.

Men treat women like unpaid prostitutes these days. Thank you, casual sex people: you've replaced dating with fucking like animals. These are not parallel concepts: there is an explicit supplanting of courtship with casual sex.

Re: the married couple living apart. I have read several articles over the years about this trend/phenomenon/whatever, which seems to indicate that it's not extremely rare, although I agree that many of the married couples living apart cited by the author are probably broken-up couples who just haven't gotten divorced yet. The idea intrigues me; I am a very private, neat person who likes a certain amount of alone time. This aspect of my personality has led to the most disagreements in my past relationships. The idea of having my own space is essential, whether it's my own home or simply a room or two that are mine alone.

What I don't think would work for me are the childcare arrangements. The couple's children never stay with their father. And while I don't think a person needs a father to grow up into a stable adult, I wonder what effect this transience will have on the kids. The children change the entire dynamic of living apart. It's no longer his space and her space; it's the house with the kids and his separate enclave away from his family. Perhaps that's not how this couple sees it, and if it works for them, cool. But I would have a problem living in kid space while my partner was insulated from three-am questions, cleaning up kid messes, etc. It seems like he gets to enjoy the nice parts (family dinners, cuddling on the couch) but none of the work (getting them off to school, cooking).

Re: chivalry. I fail to see what's so old-fashioned and "chivalrous" about a sixteen-year-old in an expensive dress grinding against another sixteen-year-old to pop music in a school gym. The last-minute-switchup described by this father sounds to me like a well-planned effort by ALL the kids to dress up and hang out without going to the dance. I fail to see how skipping the dance automatically leads to groping in dark corners.

But then again, I also think most people should be capable of having friends of both genders without sex being an issue.

When men let women sit down, they are saying, "I was raised to be a giving person,"

"...towards women." That's the end of the sentence. If men treat ALL women a certain way but not ALL men, it's sexist. How is that so hard to get?

The fact that you look at paying for the date the same way as applying for entrance to a college is SEXIST and indicative of YOUR view of women as prostitutes. Applying for entrance! Your model is one in which men do all this work ("courtship") to essentially snag a woman, while the woman passively accepts the "chivalry" and maybe decides to give the guy "entrance" (heh).

Men treat women like unpaid prostitutes these days?
A.) You're assuming that women don't get anything out of sex.
B.) Even if your premise were true, how is it any worse than treating women like *paid* prostitutes? [Man buys dinner and some jewelry for a woman in exhange for sex]

When men let women sit down, they are saying, "I was raised to be a giving person," not "You're too weak to stand on your own."

Then why aren't they giving up their seats to other able-bodied men?

When men pay for dates, they aren't "buying" women or trying to keep them subjugated; they are saying, "I am committed to this, and, to demonstrate it, I'm going to put a personal stake into courting you."

Then why isn't this expected of women, too? Doesn't it matter whether or not I have a stake in going on with this fellow?

And that's the problem with chivalry (which you seem to think "started" in the 19th century, weirdly). It allows for only one model of male-female relationships, and that model is one wherein the man is active and the woman is passive. Consider your ideal model:

Old-fashioned courtship 101: take the girl on a cheap date; take her on an expensive date; ask her out; date for a while; give her a ring or similar on a necklace; give her a frat pin; get engaged.

First of all, do you not even see the classism inherent in that "give her a frat pin" nonsense? Second of all--where is her agency? It's all "take the girl here, take the girl there, give her this, give her that," and all she gets to do is say "yes" or "no." What if she wants to ask a guy out? What if she wants to spend time with him and have sex without getting married?

Oenophile, you seem to have this fantasy of the 1950s in which women were happy with the ongoing denial of their sexuality, and were happy with ongoing marginalization of their agency. I've talked to a good number of women who grew up then. These constraints were misery-making.

Men treat women like unpaid prostitutes these days.

It's amazing how many men I know, then, who do not. It must be my magic feminist dust, turning all those awful men you know into reasonable people when they're around me.

Thank you, casual sex people: you've replaced dating with fucking like animals.

I don't know what to tell you about this--fucking is an animal activity. It's pretty basic mammalian behavior. All higher life-forms have some kind of orgasm. It's part of the reproductive incentive.

I don't see why that's a bad thing. Plenty of women enjoy sex--that's why the sexual revolution occurred once women got the pill and were able to have sex without getting knocked up. And if you don't want casual sex, you can go out with someone and then weed them out, as you seem to advocate above.

My, oh my, there is a lot of hand-wringing going on here.

Consideration knows no gender. We could all do with more consideration. Chivalry is part consideration, but it is also part repression, part proprietorship. Sarah MC pointed out its link to "benevolent sexism," the idea that women are special, limited creatures who need special, patronizing treatment. Good riddance.

And the hookup thing? Can we please dispense with the notion that women are not active, agentic participants in their own sex lives?

Chivalry, even from its inception, was not innocuous.

It was a code of honor for rich, white, noble males to follow.

Men would throw down their cloaks for rich women to step over mud puddles - not because it was romatic or polite, but because their shoes were expensive silk.

Men would walk on the outside of the street - not to protect the women, but to keep mud from splashing on their expensive clothing.

Noble women were "off limits" and treated with respect because they were someone else's vaulable property.

Serf women were frequently subject to rape, or could simply be run over on horseback because they were "in the way." After all, if they were on your land, they were YOUR property - and they weren't valuable at all.

There is codified law that states that a male can sleep with anyone of his rank or lower, while a female can only sleep with someone of her rank or higher. This means that the knights could mess around with the peasants, but the noble women could only sleep with their husbands. It was intentional.

Don't forget the idea that the lord of the land could "break in" any new bride on her wedding night - THAT is chivalry, too.

Chivalry is not (and was never) about treating people with respect because they are people. It was a class system that was kinder to noble women than to peasants, though just as repressive.

Yes, chivalry is about manners, not subjugating women. Sorry, ladies, everything that started in the 19th century is not necessarily sexist.

Chivalry didn't start in the 19th century. I humbly submit that you don't know what you're talking about.

Basiorana, I can't even imagine waiting almost an entire year to have sex with a person I'm dating. It's not because of hook-up culture and it's not because my boyfriend pressured me into it; it's because I am a highly sexual person and the person who initiated things was ME, not him. I totally respect your desire to do things your way, but it's amazing to me how girls who are always so anti-casual sex of ANY kind to the point that they're waiting for marriage or long-term commitment seem to...well...dislike sex. It's like old-fashioned views of sex go hand-in-hand with a basic discomfort with your own body and identity as a sexual being.

Same thing to you, Oenophile. I wouldn't WANT to go through the 1950s dating rituals. I know this is hard for girls like you to understand, but women with feminist views don't allow themselves to be treated like "unpaid prostitutes" because they have SELF-RESPECT. I would never be some guy's sexual puppet and I'm in a long-term relationship right now - and shockingly, the guy stayed with me even though I put out after little more than a month! Crazy, I know, but maybe some women don't need stupid 1950s standards to have self-respect and know "where their relationship is going." That's just a healthy thing to do - it's called communication. If you need some scripted date-engagement-marriage plan to understand where your partner stands on your relationship, I feel a little sorry for you - you're not communicating with him at all.

I love the notion that people weren't having casual sex prior to, like, the last five or ten years. People weren't very open about it, but casual sex is not a new thing. That we're more upfront and honest about it now doesn't mean that people in the past weren't also "doing it" prior to marriage.

I'm sorry to hear that, but do you think the answer is to go back to a model where women who did choose to "get drunk and screw" are stigmatised and looked down on?

I wanted to try and deconstruct the language here a little. By implying the option of x or "stigmatized and looked down on" there seems to be a message saying that either this way of behavior can be looked down upon or exalted. This is a fallacy and too black and white.

Let's call in the prior example of "promise ring" types. The language implies an option that "get drunk and screw" types are looked down upon as "promise ring" types are exulted. I don't think anyone here, at least, would like to live the promise ring lifestyle. In a more favorable construct, both lifestyles can be seen for good and bad aspects without either being stigmatized, so to speak. I don't think either extreme should get the "good" or "bad" label. Life is very gray.

Response to the progression of the topic:

I think interpretation of language puts up a certain barrier in trying to discuss something like this. Personally, not having casual sex doesn't mean waiting until marriage or waiting a year to sleep with someone. Hell, it doesn't even require the existence of a monogamous romantic relationship. To me, non-casual sex simply requires caring and consideration from partners and rationally thought out actions. I mainly use the term to describe sleeping with people one barely (or does not) know, interacts with only for sex or random sex while one is intoxicated.

Then again, someone else using the term might mean something completely different.

whats a frat pin and whats classism?

"Sorry, ladies, everything that started in the 19th century is not necessarily sexist."
Seriously? You have never read about the knights of the Middle Ages?

When men let women sit down, they are saying, "I was raised to be a giving person," not "You're too weak to stand on your own."
Then why aren't they doing it for men? I am 22, strong, on my feet all day at work, not pregnant, not disabled, not old, and not wearing heels. Why the hell should I get a seat over an equally strong, healthy man?

'When men pay for dates, they aren't "buying" women or trying to keep them subjugated; they are saying, "I am committed to this, and, to demonstrate it, I'm going to put a personal stake into courting you."'
Do you really think you know the motovations of each and every man who buys a woman dinner? For many men, money isn't really a personal stake- they expect to spend a certain amount in entertainment every week, and this is merely one way they spend it. I would much rather have love and devotion than dinner, because I can buy a damn dinner, but I can't buy love.

"Paying for a date is like typing up your college application instead of writing it in crayon: you are saying, "This is important enough to me to expend effort. I am willing to take a risk in this, too."'
So by extention, women can write their college applications in crayon, because it is not our job to pay on dates?

"We get pissed, as a culture, when people waste our time, use us, or otherwise do not act with good manners."
Manners, of course, not being the same as chivalry.

"Old-fashioned courtship 101: take the girl on a cheap date; take her on an expensive date; ask her out; date for a while; give her a ring or similar on a necklace; give her a frat pin; get engaged."
Let's try this again: two people decide there is a mutual interest, they go dutch, they switch off paying for dates, they discuss commitment, they buy each other holiday presents, they sit down and discuss marriage as a concept, and decide if and how it would work for them. Much better- this in't about gender, this way, and everyone gets to show an interest in each other by pay for dates.

"Women knew if men were moving towards marriage."
Why the hell wouldn't they want to be part of the discussion? Shouldn't it be a mutual decision?

"Don't want to marry the guy and don't want to waste his time, either?"
Because unless a relationship ends in a ring, there is no point to dating.

"Chivalry forces them to act differently: to get to know the person before the body, to build up respect for the woman before possibly impregnanting her, and to build a relationship and not a hook-up."
You have never, ever read the Rules of Courtly Love, have you? Google it, its an eye-opener.

"Men treat women like unpaid prostitutes these days."
Maybe they do for you, but that certainly isn't my problem. Unless, of course, by "prostitute" you mean "woman with sexual agency who can decide who she sleeps with and under what circumstances" then yes, I am a hooker.

"Thank you, casual sex people: you've replaced dating with fucking like animals."
Mmmm, fucking like animals. Nothing like a good hard fuck sometimes. Oooh baby.

"These are not parallel concepts: there is an explicit supplanting of courtship with casual sex."
Fine with me. I don't want to get married, but I want to get fucked. Yay fucking!

"Women scientists are not pursuing advanced research careers because of a heavier burden of family responsibility and lower confidence compared to men"

Am I misreading this? It really sounds to me like the second part of that sentence is victim-blaming. Sort of justifies my friends working on their Masters saying "There's no sexism in science, just women who can't take it!" in arguments with my friends who are actual working botanists and deal with a lot of sexist crap every week.

Am I reading it wrong?

BTW, the BBC recently posted a few photo essays sampling various family-with-kids arrangements. It could be interesting:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7075888.stm

"His school was a magnet school so the young women were plenty smart and independent. Still they were more into the dress-up and dance thing than the guys."

Speaking of being more into the dressing up and dancing than into the guys, check out this article on Muslim proms (the schools don't run 'em, the families get together and rent event halls, and the girls invite their friends):

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/09/national/09PROM.html?ex=1370491200&en=bdafe529f48c4745&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

Abortion Doulas?! What an incredibly good idea. I really wish I'd known about, and had access to one when I was going through my abortion. The support and advocacy would have been welcome. It may not be useful for many women, especially for early, first-term abortions where the choice may be very clear, but I had one at 21 weeks after finding out that the fetus had probably fatal defects, and I was completely unprepared for the physical and emotional experience. Steuter is absolutely right that the medical staff can be cold and unkind and the procedure can be very painful and frightening. I'm glad this aspect of women's healthcare is being considered worthy more support.

Abortion Doulas?! What an incredibly good idea. I really wish I'd known about, and had access to one when I was going through my abortion. The support and advocacy would have been welcome. It may not be useful for many women, especially for early, first-term abortions where the choice may be very clear, but I had one at 21 weeks after finding out that the fetus had probably fatal defects, and I was completely unprepared for the physical and emotional experience. Steuter is absolutely right that the medical staff can be cold and unkind and the procedure can be very painful and frightening. I'm glad this aspect of women's healthcare is being considered worthy more support.

Abortion Doulas?! What an incredibly good idea. I really wish I'd known about, and had access to one when I was going through my abortion. The support and advocacy would have been welcome. It may not be useful for many women, especially for early, first-term abortions where the choice may be very clear, but I had one at 21 weeks after finding out that the fetus had probably fatal defects, and I was completely unprepared for the physical and emotional experience. Steuter is absolutely right that the medical staff can be cold and unkind and the procedure can be very painful and frightening. I'm glad this aspect of women's healthcare is being considered worthy of more support.

Hey Julianne,

A frat pin is a kind of old-fashioned American college thing. Many upper-class colleges had/have fraternities, select societies for the "right" kind of young men. Frats used to give each member a fraternity pin, kind of a symbol of membership (I don't know if they still do this).

Classism is class prejudice--in this case, class privilege, the idea that something that's actually limited to the upper classes is "normal." In this case, it's talking about an upper-class model of courtship involving only those men who got to go to college, and within that set, only those who are chosen for fraternities, as the "normal" model for the 1940s and '50s, and thus excluding poor and working-class couples.

All the people complaining that men don't offer their seat for other men-- other men react badly to being treated in such a way. Boys learn quickly not to offer seats to men who are not infirm, elderly, or juggling children because those men may respond poorly to it. That's also why many chivalrous men avoid offering their seat to women who have the "high powered career woman" look or the "butch lesbian" look-- experience teaches them that their courtesy will be taken as an insult, even if it was meant to be nice. If a man offers me his seat, I'll almost always refuse, but it's still nice to have it offered.

People on this site seem to think chivalry can never change, that it has to be the original idea of knights and the ladies they traded and sold. And yet lots of concepts change with time. The idea of voting in a democracy was once only for rich, white men, and was an oppressive and unfair system. Then it was for white men, and got a little better. Then all men. Then women. It changed with time as people changed. Chivalry can do the same thing.

Raginfem-- If you think I don't like sex, you have no idea what an incredible torture waiting a year has been. I'm doing it because we feel that it's a good idea for us in the long run, BOTH of us, not because I "dislike sex." We both have our reasons to wait.

I have no problem with the idea of people who are more casual about sex. My problem is with the religious virgin/whore dichotomy, especially the fact that as a non-religious fairly liberal college girl, I am EXPECTED to want casual sex. The movement towards casual sex rather than long-term relationships didn't free up women to make their own decisions, it just changed the decision that was made for them. Because I chose to treat sex as something deep and personal, not given to anyone who has not earned my love and respect over a long period of time, I am treated like a freak-- and yeah, people assume, as you did, that I don't like sex.

I don't want women to be ostracized for having sex (I'm not exactly waiting for marriage myself). I just don't want to be ostracized myself for waiting.

I went to college in the early 1990's/late 80's. There was plenty of casual hooking up going on. And I had no problem remaining a virgin until I had dated a guy for two years.

Nine years later I met a man who was, physically, everything I had ever wanted in a man. His wife was in the process of leaving him. I didn't screw him on our first date because I wanted to check with his wife as to her intentions. Her intentions were to be gone and have nothing to do with him, so I had sex with him on our second date.

I have only ever slept with these two men.

If a woman doesn't want to have sex with a guy, she doesn't have to (presuming he's not a rapist, at least). "Hook-up culture" is not forcing anyone to have sex. If you don't want sex, don't have it. The attitude that women should be passive and accept men making advances on them, or reject them, but never make any of their own, or else they must be whores who'll sleep with any man... bah. I am not an unpaid prostitute. I have sex with men I want, when I want them, and I get an orgasm if I want it. When I wanted a guy bad enough to sleep with him on the second date, I did it. I am not anyone's prostitute or anyone's conquest. And I have never regretted the sex I had, except in the sense that my ex-boyfriend turned out to be a cobag.

The idea that it was a *good* thing that women should be passively sitting still while men do all the dating work around them is insane. If you see what you want, you should ask for it! Waiting for him to ask you is stupid. As for chivalry, I want people to be polite and kind to me because I am a human, and I will be polite and kind back. But I don't want a guy to offer his seat to me unless I am pregnant or burdened with small children or on crutches, because otherwise he's saying he's more able-bodied and stronger than I am. I don't want a man to open my car door for me, because why the fuck do I want to wait for that? I can open it myself and shut it myself faster. I don't want a man to push my chair in because he doesn't know how close I want to be to the table to be comfortable. I want him to hold open the door because he's not a dickwad, and I'll hold the door open for him. If I'm visibly disabled, pregnant, carrying a lot of heavy bags, or toting children, then people should accomodate me to a certain extent because under those circumstances I'm not quite as able-bodied as them. And I'll do it for them. But for it to be a male to female thing is fucking stupid. And leads to bullshit like people giving me crap because my husband isn't helping me carry heavy boxes to a moving van, due to the fact that he was working at the time, as if I'm so small and fragile I can't carry a box of books without a big strong man to help me.

I hope chivalry is dead because I want to dance on its grave. Let's have gender-neutral politeness instead, ok?

You know how people say they want to keep their current job that they hate until they know for sure that the new, good job that they know they'll love? The old job is terrible and they hate it, but it's better than no job so they put up with it until the new job is secured.

People who want "gender-neutral politeness" are like the people who are looking for a new job, only it seems most of them quit the old job (chivalry) a bit too soon, so now they have apathy, blatant misogyny, and downright rudeness.

That analogy doesn't make sense, Basiorana. Those of us advocating for gender-neutral politeness aren't the ones complaining about the lack of chivalry. We're kind of happy to see it gone. And honestly, if you think times past were lacking in either blatant misogyny or downright rudeness, you're thinking about a BBC fantasy of times past, not the reality.

Actually, think about it. You hated the old scenario (chivalry) so you quit it hoping for a new, better scenario (gender-neutral politeness) but that scenario doesn't actuall exist yet. So you are left with apathy and downright rudeness with no alternative. Some people being treated with manners is better than no one, in my opinion.

Jill Sobule's song is funny, and it does nail the fact that most "sexy" costumes are just plain uncreative. I just wish she had managed to do it without the slut-shaming. :(

Tooting my own horn here: I wrote a piece on my blog about the problems with the "racy Hallowe'en" trend, without referring to anyone as "slutty", "whore", etc.

Basriona: I have, in fact, thought about it. My opinion differs from yours. Pretty manners always are a piss-poor substitute for genuine respect.

"I've heard of ppl participating in this 'hook-up' culture but I don't know anyone personally. That's the problem with anecdotal evidence, there isn't any."

Okay. I didn't read every single post hear. I just wanted to respond here. I have attended two colleges where a hook-up culture was prevalent. I have participated a limited amount in this hookup culture myself.

I have some shocking news to report: there are good hookups, and bad hookups. there are hookups where feelings are mutual and you will feel better about yourself, and hookups that will make you feel shitty. There are hookups where both parties were equally enthused, and hookups where some desire to fit in (i.e. peer pressure) may have been involved. All of these are experiences people learn and grow from, and generally getter better as a person gets older.

What does this remind me of... wait for it... teenage and college relationships! Some are bad, some are good. Sometimes the girl wants the sex, sometimes she doesn't. Sometimes people remain friends afterwards, sometimes they don't and one or more may feel shitty about it.

I've known guys who felt rejected after a hookup they were really into didn't want to see them again, just as girls are sometimes in the same situation.

Something I'm always surprised a lot of adults don't get is that "casual sex" isn't actually emotionaless a lot of the time. Sex rarely is, I think, for either party. Sometimes two people feel warmly towards each other, and want to get together, but simply don't want a relationship. And once again, sometimes a guy will be less emotionally involved and more manipulative, but again that happens in more traditional relationships just as much.

I would say that, at the colleges I have attended (which are similar in their student body to the ivy leagues -largely liberal, very smart and ambitious types) the average student experiences both some "hook-ups" or one-night stands, and some relationships. The two aren't mutually exclusive, and they are both ways for a person to get to know themselves and others more.

So I don't think it's a bad thing. That's just my perspective.

Also UCLABodyImage:

I can't find a link to that particular study right now. But I can tell you that I've seen it cited twice in different information sources on rape. So that might give you some kind of a lead, if you're really bent on finding it...

People on this site seem to think chivalry can never change, that it has to be the original idea of knights and the ladies they traded and sold.

The problem is that Chivalry, as envisioned by almost every article I've ever read by someone lamenting a lack of it, doesn't look different from the Hollywood vision of historic chivalry. Most of the codes of chivalry that I've seen aren't terrible, excepting the high emphasis placed on religion. But the code and the application are very different, and you rarely hear about someone wanting chivalry for the sake of chivalry- what they want is a return to the days when Men were Men and Women knew their place. They want a return to a glory day that never really existed.

If you want some new version of chivalry... do it. There's nothing stopping you.

Here's a pretty standard code of chivalry that's pretty free of the terrible classist, racist, and sexist bullshit that tend to be associated with them.

For all that I think that's a pretty solid code of behavior, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to jump on board, given the pretty shitty history of chivalry, and the pretty obvious biases of those who write articles decrying the "death of chivalry" while they rant about how evil women have become.

And yet lots of concepts change with time. The idea of voting in a democracy was once only for rich, white men, and was an oppressive and unfair system. Then it was for white men, and got a little better. Then all men. Then women. It changed with time as people changed. Chivalry can do the same thing.

People on this site seem to think chivalry can never change, that it has to be the original idea of knights and the ladies they traded and sold.

The problem is that Chivalry, as envisioned by almost every article I've ever read by someone lamenting a lack of it, doesn't look different from the Hollywood vision of historic chivalry. Most of the codes of chivalry that I've seen aren't terrible, excepting the high emphasis placed on religion. But the code and the application are very different, and you rarely hear about someone wanting chivalry for the sake of chivalry- what they want is a return to the days when Men were Men and Women knew their place. They want a return to a glory day that never really existed.

If you want some new version of chivalry... do it. There's nothing stopping you.

Here's a pretty standard code of chivalry that's pretty free of the terrible classist, racist, and sexist bullshit that tend to be associated with them.

For all that I think that's a pretty solid code of behavior, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to jump on board, given the pretty shitty history of chivalry, and the pretty obvious biases of those who write articles decrying the "death of chivalry" while they rant about how evil women have become.

please stop calling it burma, the country is now known as myanmar.

Posted by: apple blossom

I was under the impression that since the military junta changed the official name of the country to Myanmar, people who were against the junta and pro-Burmese freedom called the country Burma. (For example, most of the Amnesty International folks I know refuse to call it Myanmar.) Is this wrong?

Peepers: You're allowed to disagree, and I am allowed to disagree with you as well. If people prefer the modern system, they're allowed, as long as they don't yell at my brother for holding a door open for them. I have heard of several cases of polite people getting accused of sexual harassment merely because someone disagreed with their methods.

roymacIII: I'm saying the new code already exists, but it's getting so confused with the old version that people treat chivalrous men like assholes for being nice.

Basiorana, you are clueless about nearly every issue you've commented on here.

A "code" that treats men as active and women as passive is SEXIST. Why can't you see that?!?!?

I happen to be polite and courteous to people, regardless of gender. If I get to a door first, I'll hold it open for whomever is behind me. If someone's struggling with bags or whatever, I'll help them out. I work full-time and earn money, thankyouverymuch, so I don't need anyone to pay for my meals or movie tickets in an effort to court me. Gah, it's soooo retro. What if a woman wants to court a man? Not all men enjoy these sexist expecations placed upon them, either. My boyfriend makes less money than I do (GASP!) so we pay our fair share towards everything we do together. He is not courting me. We are dating each other. To insist otherwise is to say I'm a passive object in *his* world, which is not true.

I have heard of several cases of polite people getting accused of sexual harassment merely because someone disagreed with their methods.

I'm calling shenanigans.

I'm tired of hearing the stories about how "so-and-so got accused of sexual harassment just because he held open a door!!!" If you're walking through a door and you hold it for the person coming behind you, you're not going to get accused of sexual harassment. You might get a dirty look if the person thinks you did it for sexist reasons, but I'd love to see proof that there's an epidemic of people being accused of sexual harassment for holding doors.

roymacIII: I'm saying the new code already exists, but it's getting so confused with the old version that people treat chivalrous men like assholes for being nice.

And I'm saying that a person who is actually nice and doing things because they're the right thing to do won't write a tirade in the local paper about how shitty it is that women don't appreciate just how nice he is. See, that makes it sound more like "I'm doing nice things because I think it'll get me laid", and that's not actually nice at all.

And, yeah, things change. If I'm on the bus or train, and I see someone who looks tired or is carrying a lot of things, etc, I'll stand and offer my seat- but, no, I don't offer my seat to every woman that gets on. I don't think that's a sign of apathy or sexism, though. I don't think that polite behavior should depend on the gonads of the person you're being polite to.

Hey, I wasn't the one who was talking about courtship rituals. I pay half on every single date I go on and sometimes I pay for all of it. I'm mostly talking about dealings with acquaintances or strangers.

I have only two problems with the decline of chivalry: one, that there are no "gender-neutral" manners and no romantic wooing to replace it, and two, that some feminists assume that anyone who does traditional, chivalrous things must be a misogynist.

I guess I think of chivalry as something different, because I was raised to veiw it as a way for men to be romantic and kind to others in a way that many women could appreciate. The chivalry I was taught was about is not the same as the chivalry you are talking about. I was taught that just because a man is romantic and kind doesn't mean that women have to be passive, just that men are romantic and kind.

And I'm not clueless. I've talked to people, I've read articles by both sides. Am I influenced by my upbringing and the beliefs of the people around me? Sure. But don't for one second think that you are not. You simply have different influences. I'm okay with disagreeing with people, but I'm not okay with them attempting personal attacks as you have done often. Please allow me my opinion as I am allowing you yours, and do not assume that I am "clueless" or "stupid" or "misogynistic" just because I have a different opinion than you do on a controversial topic.

"You hated the old scenario (chivalry) so you quit it hoping for a new, better scenario (gender-neutral politeness) but that scenario doesn't actually exist yet."

Define 'exist'. It sounds like people should wait for others to develop it so they can jump in the bandwagon - that's quite passive don't you think? How about just being kind (and thereby taking some initiative? How about forgetting it's a woman or man behind you and holding the door open for them so it doesn't slam in their face? Basionara, I simply don't understand why you insist (on so many threads) on defending gender roles that are strict, by which I mean having women be passive/taken care of or men be stoic creatures. As for sexual harassment due to "methods" - whatever that means, I'll give you an anecdote of mine that clearly shows the difference between disinterested kindness versus an action every woman should vocally object: There is a huge difference between men (or women) who hold the door for me, smile, maybe say hello, and keep on going compared to men who hold the door, possibly smirk, and check me out up and down, and possible whistle/say something to me/comment to another passerby or buddy. I hope I don't have to explain why the second instance would elicit a defensive reaction than the first one.

No, we're thinking of the same "chivalry," Basiorana. You just view benevolent sexism as nice and I view it as, um, sexism.
And if men are jerks when they're not being forced to act chivalrous, what makes you think the chivalrous ones from "the good old days" weren't jerks as well? They were *acting* romantic and kind (towards attractive women, of course).
If you're only kind to women you're not that kind.

roymacIII: "And I'm saying that a person who is actually nice and doing things because they're the right thing to do won't write a tirade in the local paper about how shitty it is that women don't appreciate just how nice he is."

Okay, I will give you that. I concede that this guy is probably doing it for the wrong reasons and maybe is a bit of a jerk.

And while it's never anything that gets written up, many men are accused of sexual harrassment for, say, offering to help a woman at work who is carrying a heavy load. It does happen. It's more of a "NO I DON'T NEED YOUR HELP I AM PERFECTLY CAPABLE YOU SEXIST PIG" issue than a "Here, have a harrassment lawsuit and I'll see you in court" issue. I've actually seen it happen a couple of times. I've heard people talk about that kind of thing happening to them. Is it an epidemic? No. But I'd say that having it happen at all is a bit ridiculous and unfair, and is more likely to encourage men to BECOME sexist pigs than make them appreciate women because they are people.

And Jem, of course the second scenario is sexist. That's not how I define chivalry.

My problem is that many feminists do not understand that some women do not want to live gender-neutrally. Some of us like our femininity and like our partners to be traditionally masculine. Should everyone have to live like that? No, of course not. But by abolishing it all together, you are removing freedoms, not providing them.

Most guys I know, if I ask them why they don't treat men like they treat women, say, "Because too many men would be jerks about it and take it as some kind of threat to their manhood." They'd treat men like that if they thought it would be well-received.

Wait, did I miss something? I am serious, maybe I did - I didn't see anything about not appreciating a romantic partner just because some of us support gender-neutral kindness...I like romance - so long as I get to be romantic as well, rather than always be the recipient of a man's actions. See, romance can (and SHOULD) also be gender-neutral.

I have to object, belatedly, to Basiorana's continuing assertion that there are no "gender-neutral manners" that have replaced chivalry. I think I'm relatively well-mannered, I know plenty of people who are as well. I was taught manners by my parents and grandparents all my life. That some people are ill-mannered is no fault of "manners", and I'm positive that these same people would not be better mannered if chivalry was still a dominating virtue. And if it were, they'd probably be better mannered for sexist reasons, since today good manners can be in part about respect for *people*, rather than a false ideal of gender relations.

"Because too many men would be jerks about it and take it as some kind of threat to their manhood."

*headdesk*

And you still can't make the connection. It's BECAUSE of strictly-enforced gender roles that men would feel that way? Can't you see that this sentiment means men feel superior to women? The men interpret another man holding a door for them as being treated like a woman and they're OFFENDED by it. I don't know how much simpler we can make it.

It's BECAUSE of stupid notions like chivalry that men feel this way.

I think it's unlikely that my mind will change on this issue. People pushed gender-neutrality on me a lot in high school and I've found that I prefer to have people notice that I am female, and to act traditionally female myself; I also find men who are traditionally masculine to be more appealing to me. Because of where and how I've been forced to live, I will probably wind up as the primary breadwinner, completely equal to the men in my life. And I will hate it, but I will put up with it. That doesn't mean I can't wish things worked out differently, or wish I had a choice in the matter.

I think I will bow out of this particular debate, because I'm not going to change your minds and I doubt I'm even making you think about your positions. We're clearly approaching this topic from completely different backgrounds with completely different goals. I wish I could say that I had at least made you think about how the policies you are promoting can hurt women too, but I doubt it.

But don't worry. I will still fight for legal and economic equality, even if I disagree about this one issue, and I would never, as someone implied in another thread, force my beliefs on other people or on other people's children.

Baisonara, you know what you're doing here? You're redefning the term "chivalry" to mean something completely different than the way it is used by society and the rest of us and then yelling: "What do you have against chivalry?! It just means being nice to each other!!" No, that's NOT what it means. Chivalry, as practiced in the 20th and 21st centuries, means men treating women like fragile little flowers, and the women on this site don't want to be treated that way. Because we are not delicate flowers, we are strong and capable women. You keep saying: "Why we change chivalry?" Well, I suppose we could, but why should we? Why not just replace it with gender neutral politeness and respect?

Okay, I just noticed your most recent post: "Because of where and how I've been forced to live, I will probably wind up as the primary breadwinner, completely equal to the men in my life. And I will hate it, but I will put up with it."
If you hate being treated as completely equal to the men in your life, what are you doing on a feminist website in the first place? In case you haven't noticed, that's what we're fighting for. To be treated equally.

there are no "gender-neutral" manners and no romantic wooing to replace [chivalry]

That's patently untrue. That's like when people argue that you need religion to teach morals. It's simply not true. If someone needs chivalry to understand how to act like a good person, than they're not likely to be the sort of person who follows a code of chivalry anyway.

Chivalry isn't a guide for standard behavior, and it never was. A chivalrous person was, historically, a paragon of virtue and goodness- most people were not chivalrous. Being a chivalrous person was supposed to be hard- you're not doing the minimum standard of "not bad" you're going above and beyond what people expect.

I don't need a code of chivalry to tell me that I ought to hold the door for the person behind me, or to say "please" and "thank you" or anything like that. It's not that hard to figure out how to be a fairly nice person, but most of the people who lament the loss of chivalry and how unappreciated their chivalry is? They're not nice people to begin with. .

What "policies" are we promoting? We're not advocating for legal reform here, we're advocating for social change.

Ay ay ay.

If someone needs chivalry to understand how to act like a good person, than they're not likely to be the sort of person who follows a code of chivalry anyway.

Bingo.

under_zenith: I want the LAW and EMPLOYERS to treat women the same as men. I want women to have the freedom to chose the life they want. I can want options for other people that I do not want to take advantage of myself. Unlike SarahMC, I care only about reforming the government and protecting women who need protection, and I figure society will work itself out on it's own, if it is meant to.

Basically, I want you to be able to live the life you want to live, and I want to live the life I want to live, and I don't want either of us to be judged for it unless we are actively hurting someone.

And I'm sorry that you think I'm redefining chivalry. I didn't do that. That's honestly what I was raised to interpret chivalry as. Blame my parents, teachers, and peers for redefining it, not me.

Basiorana, gender equality will never be accomplished legally until it's accomplished socially. As long as women are viewed as mentally inferior members of the Sex Class, we're not going to be treated justly by law.

"All the people complaining that men don't offer their seat for other men-- other men react badly to being treated in such a way."

"I'm saying the new code already exists, but it's getting so confused with the old version that people treat chivalrous men like assholes for being nice."

Based on these two statements I have to conclude that you only think it's unacceptable for women to take offense at men being "nice" to them in this manner. A man has every right to take offense at being treated as if he's weak and helpless, but a woman should smile and accept the "compliment" with good grace. Funny, but that smells like sexism to me.

If you're treating someone with consideration because you were raised to be polite, respectful of others, and feel you should treat everyone the way you'd like to be treated, that's basic courtesy, and it can be applied irrespective of gender. If you're doing it to bolster your own ego, impress onlookers with how well-mannered you are, or increase your chances of getting laid, your actions are being motivated by your own self-interest, no matter how "nice" they might appear on the surface. And if your actions are motivated by selfishness they are not courteous, by definition. What they are is manipulative. People, as a rule, don't like being manipulated. This is why flattery and insincerity are so rarely welcome.

Let's not confuse "chivalry" with "courtesy." Chivalry is a left-handed compliment that serves to remind the recipient that they are inferior. The chivalrous individual is being "nice" by choosing not to demonstrate their superiority in a more overt manner. It's just a more sugarcoated form of disrespect, comparable to gloating over a victory.

In other words, it's not nice at all.

Vervain, you've had a lot of smart posts lately. I think i'm developing an internet-crush *blush*

SarahMC: As a middle-class educated white woman in New England, I and other women I know have never been discriminated against by an employer or the government due to our sex, unless you count the Moral Majority laws. I am not considered identical to a man on a social level but I do not have to worry about laws that target me specifically due to my gender or employers paying me less because of it. I think that the way women like myself are treated is attainable for everyone, through laws and regulations.

And not being seen as identical to men does not have to mean being seen as mentally inferior. Most people accept that while I am a woman and not the same as a man in many ways, but that I am still every bit as intelligent as a man. That is what I'm hoping will happen for other women.

Using the phrase "identical to men" signals to me that you're attacking a straw-feminist, which is no surprise considering how earnestly you've been defending sexism for the past couple days.

You're very naive.

Perhaps it was the wrong choice of words. I merely meant that I am not forced to stop acting traditionally feminine and yes, passive and delicate just because of "equality." I can, but I don't have to.

I acknowledge I am naive; I go on sites like this to become less so.

And while I seem to defend sexism to you, I have often been accused of defending feminism. I am middle of the road, honestly, and I value freedom to chose the life one wants to lead over all else. I merely have seen that some parts of feminism do not want people to be free, just to be put into a different cage, and that concerns me.

Oh, not that there's anything wrong with defending feminism. I hadn't meant to imply that. Just that they think of it as wrong so they say it in an accusatory manner.

I merely have seen that some parts of feminism do not want people to be free, just to be put into a different cage, and that concerns me.

As long as we live under patriarchy (and capitalism, etc.) we are not really free. Are our "free choices" ever truly free? Absolutely free from outside pressures and expectations?

Dismantling patriarchy is the only hope we women have of existing freely.

I'm not saying we're free now. I'm saying that what you are arguing for-- forcing women to choose the lifestyle you want for them-- is also not freedom.

But then again, I also believe that capitalism is pretty much the best possible economic system (something that I am NOT suggesting I debate with you, you are entitled to your opinion and I will keep mine, so don't lecture me on how I am wrong on that subject) so clearly we should agree to disagree.

You keep attacking strawfeminists!!! Don't accuse me of arguing for things I've never argued for (forcing women to choose the lifestyle you want for them)!

This is so bizarre!

I'm not saying we're free now. I'm saying that what you are arguing for-- forcing women to choose the lifestyle you want for them-- is also not freedom.

Erm, who is forcing? Do you mean this?

I merely meant that I am not forced to stop acting traditionally feminine and yes, passive and delicate just because of "equality." I can, but I don't have to.

Because nobody is trying to take that choice away from you. We're just saying, those of us who aren't passive and delicate would prefer not to be treated as such.

Many here say they want to abolish gender roles. They would then be forcing women (and men) to be gender-neutral. Some of us like our gender roles. They want to change society to meet their desires, and yet there are people who disagree with them. If feminists change society to be exactly the way they want it to be, those people who do not agree with that society will be ostracized for clinging to the old way of life.

I am reminded of an argument in another thread, the high heels one: "Does anyone else have an issue with reducing feminism to just having a choice? Because I thought feminism was about equality..." SarahMC, you didn't make it, but someone else did, and you agreed. Thus, you don't want freedom, you want forced equality. Think of how people viewed African-Americans who were freed from slavery but remained with their masters-- they were looked down upon by their peers and thought of as stupid just because they didn't like the new "equal" system. I expect something similar to happen to more traditional women if the goal of feminist equality is ever obtained-- history proves it.

Abolishing gender roles mean people could be whoever they wanted to be. They wouldn't be forced to conform to a certain role like they do now. A woman could still be passive and wait for a man to make the first move, but she wouldn't be expected to or considered unwomanly if she didn't. Alternately, the man could be passive and wait for the woman to make the first move, without being called a pussy or some such insult. That's what abolishing gender role means. It means leaving men and women free to choose what they want to be instead of forced to conform based on gender.

And YES feminism is about achieving equality. That is the WHOLE POINT. If you don't believe in that, I don't understand how you could consider yourself a feminist.

I pointed out that quote not because it mentioned equality, but it places equality on a higher level than freedom.

The thing is, in practice, when parents try to raise their kids without gender roles they do so by saying things like "Here, son, play with this dolly, you don't want that truck." I worked in childcare. I saw parents doing that to their kids. Admittedly the "No, son, you can't play with that doll because boys like trucks" parenting style was more common, but neither is constructive.

Grand ideals are always better in theory than in practice, and I see feminism having that problem.

Many here say they want to abolish gender roles. They would then be forcing women (and men) to be gender-neutral.

Um, no. It wouldn't be forcing anything. We want to abolish COMPULSORY gender roles. If that were to happen, people would be free to be however they WANT to be. If you, as a woman, want to be "feminine," be "feminine." And if a man wanted to be "feminine" HE could be that way too, without judgement.

when parents try to raise their kids without gender roles they do so by saying things like "Here, son, play with this dolly, you don't want that truck."

Here you go again, attacking strawfeminism. I've pointed this out a number of times but you keep doing it.
The scenario you're describing is not gender neutrality. Gender neutrality would be allowing the little boy to play with whatever he WANTS to play with, whether it be a truck or a doll. NOT pushing him to play with whatever's considered appropriate for boys. NOT stopping him from playing with trucks if he wants to play with trucks.
You keep describing opposite gender roles in your arguments against gender neutrality.

RE: LIVING APART TOGETHER. This was such an interesting article, I'm surprised it received so little attention in the comments thread. There are three or four interesting comments about it, though, and I agree with most of the points they make. I personally had a kind of mental WTF? moment reading about the dad who cannot relinquish his Wagner music even when it upsets his kids, and about the mum who deals with vomit, late nights and early mornings but smiles contentedly at the sight of dad tucking the boys in. He's not exactly a hands-on dad, is he? Plus, is it me, or does the whole article sound terribly defensive in a Frida-Kahlo-and-Simone-de-Beauvoir -did-it-first kind of way?