• Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Chivalry and Gender Equality in Democracy

woot21

super noob
Aren't there laws about not helping someone, or least not calling the police, in a situation involving a crime like a rape that you have active knowledge of and are in a position to help the victim?

As for the actual topic on hand, no they cannot, at least under current definitions. Chivalry is defined to be a male quality, simple as that. Yet it also just to happen that being chivalrous to a lady can get you sued. I've heard stories of men being sued for doing things as simple as holding the door open for a female co-worker. Yet if that same person doesn't do that others will view him as an *******. Part of the problem is that women want it both ways. They want their man to be a kind caring person, who holds the door open for them, or open the pickle jar, yet they also want to do things in their own and feel a man catering to them to make their job easier is being sexist.

Really the main problem is that their are some women who want their cake and to eat it too. While others want one or the other. Besides how are us guys suppose to know which situation is it appropriate for us to help or not without the female saying? And don't say common sense, because that is not the correct answer.

One last thing, if the "oppressed" White Male thing is still being discussed, I will lay the truth down if asked.
 

Teshub

Banned
One last thing, if the "oppressed" White Male thing is still being discussed, I will lay the truth down if asked.

White males have been oppressed just as everyone else. We had WWII/WWI, feudalism, religious fundamentalism in Europe, and tyrannical rule by oligarchs/monarchies that were responsible for the bondage and death of many white males in history.
Simply because the ruling class is mostly white in the US and Europe, does not mean everyone else is sharing the wealth or benefits.

As for women, I believe its best to treat everyone equally but then observe how the person reacts. Not all women are the same.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
woot21 said:
One last thing, if the "oppressed" White Male thing is still being discussed, I will lay the truth down if asked.
GET IT AWWNNNNNNNN.

Teshub said:
White males have been oppressed just as everyone else. We had WWII/WWI, feudalism, religious fundamentalism in Europe, and tyrannical rule by oligarchs/monarchies that were responsible for the bondage and death of many white males in history.
Guess who they were oppressed by?

Also, I don't know what you mean by World Wars.. unless you're talking about drafts maybe? The other things you mentioned were oppression outside of race. Bad things happened to white males, but it wasn't because they were white males for sure.

Obviously, not every single white male enjoys the wealth of the stereotypical "the man" power. That can be agreed upon by everybody, but to say they suffered as much oppression.. is definitely debatable.
 

woot21

super noob
I know college was brought up to help feed Shaum earlier, so I'll return to that.

Colleges in Michigan accept people on a points system. Said system is affected by GPA, SAT scores, the usual stuff. You know what else is considered in the points system race. 10 points for being an Africian American or other minority race. It also factors in location, 10 points if you went to a school district in certain areas in Michigan, like the Upper Pensuluia (all areas that are predominately white). Also lineage, another 10 points if a parent went to school there. As well as wealth, lower class students get an additional 10 points. That's all well and good, it seems like 20-30 points extra for poor minorities and 20-30 extra points for poor white families. Except there's one problem, if you are eligible for the 10 points a minority gets you can't get the 10 points for being poor. Now it is 10-20 to 20-30. Well except the current generation is the first one to have a large number of African-Americans going to college. So odds are most minorities don't have a parent that went to college at MSU, or anywhere else for that matter. So it is now 10 points minorities to 20-30 extra points for white students. So if that black student got in over you at your school of choice he/she was most likely much better suited. And don't get me started on the fact that school districts that are mainly black get less funding on average, meaning they are also coming from worse school districts, where students test bad. Which leads to lost funding. I could go on, but I have made self clear.

Now for the WW 1 & 2 comment, guess who started those wars. Three guesses, and first two don't count. That's right it was
white males!
What a twist! Yes it was mainly white males who fought in the wars, except for Japan, since most people who lived in those countries were white males.

I'm done here, since I am way off topic. Now to find a woman and make her make me a sandwich. j/k ;)
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
I'm trying to analyze this point system and it sounds too complicated but from what I can understand, it doesn't truly favor either side when it all comes to it?
 

woot21

super noob
No it gives extra benefits to white students. Odds are more white students had a parent go to college. Odds are more white students live in the areas that get the bonus. And only white students can get the bonus for being poor. That means that they are eligible for 20-30 bonus points for something they can't control, where as a minority is much more likely be eligible for only 10. It favors white students, without mentioning the whole underfunded school districts thing.
 

7 tyranitars

Well-Known Member
No it gives extra benefits to white students. Odds are more white students had a parent go to college. Odds are more white students live in the areas that get the bonus. And only white students can get the bonus for being poor. That means that they are eligible for 20-30 bonus points for something they can't control, where as a minority is much more likely be eligible for only 10. It favors white students, without mentioning the whole underfunded school districts thing.

it is total bullshit it should not be based by parents at that school, or minority or if someon is poor or rich it should be based on their inteligence, the marks they get for subjects prominent in that certain college/what job you want to get later and the schooling the school provides that can help you fullfill that role
 

dragoniteKnight

Pose as a team
Why is she unable to be conscripted?

chivarly and gender equality cannot coexist, but really in todays society, there wont ever be a way to actually have gender equality.

i actually had to google what conscripted meant (damn my tiny vocabulary)
women cant be conscripted for an obvious reason. someone has to stay home and watch the kids/house/maintain jobs back home. if we just sent every person of age that leaves a ton of kids by themselves, aswell as a giant age gap of missing people in the econemy. which is a nono.
 

AzukanAsimbu

Petal Paladin
chivarly and gender equality cannot coexist, but really in todays society, there wont ever be a way to actually have gender equality.

i actually had to google what conscripted meant (damn my tiny vocabulary)
women cant be conscripted for an obvious reason. someone has to stay home and watch the kids/house/maintain jobs back home. if we just sent every person of age that leaves a ton of kids by themselves, aswell as a giant age gap of missing people in the econemy. which is a nono.

well, its entirely ok to be a stay at home dad. some women want to be out of thehouse and some men want to stay at home
 

SasakiThePikachu

like pepsi cola
Feminism isn't about equality! It's about choices!!

I choose to believe that my gender is inherently inferior, and that my sparkly vampire douchebaggio boyfriend should tell me how to live my life, 'coz my life revolves around him and I'm too passive to make intelligent choices for myself! And it's my choice, so I'm a feminist! Durrr!!

No, wait. I'm not Bella Swan. (Sorry. Couldn't resist).

Seriously, I'm so curious - what do you guys make of the simple question: A guy opens a door for a girl; is that just a pleasant, chivalrous gesture, or does it also carry the implication that the girl can't do it herself? I heard this debate once in college...thought it was utter bollocks and silly feminazi propoganda at the time, but it's really bugged me ever since. I certainly don't think the guy would mean it to be some kind of 'you helpless woman me big strong man' gesture at all, but doesn't that kind of make it worse, that we're all so ingrained to expect the men to look after the women that we don't even question basic behaviours like this?

It kind of depresses me because I'm a fan of chivalry, but is it possible for chivalry and true equality to exist? I'm not sure it is...
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
7 tyranitars said:
or if someon is poor or rich
Actually.. it should if you're poor; not even intelligent people can attend college if they can't afford it.
 

Zazie

So 1991
Seriously, I'm so curious - what do you guys make of the simple question: A guy opens a door for a girl; is that just a pleasant, chivalrous gesture, or does it also carry the implication that the girl can't do it herself? I heard this debate once in college...thought it was utter bollocks and silly feminazi propoganda at the time, but it's really bugged me ever since. I certainly don't think the guy would mean it to be some kind of 'you helpless woman me big strong man' gesture at all, but doesn't that kind of make it worse, that we're all so ingrained to expect the men to look after the women that we don't even question basic behaviours like this?

I hold open the door for everyone, its what I consider to be polite and sex has nothing to do with it. It kind of bugs me when people say its sexist because I don't do it on the basis of sex.
 

NimhShambler

Fighting Type Prof.
Same here. I'm a woman and I open doors for MEN and WOMEN. It's just the way I was raised. Treat everyone with respect and honor. Aid anyone who needs it, even if it puts you in danger (I really don't care about myself. I feel that everyone else is more important than I. Inferiority complex for the win! lol). I pull out chairs, and I help in any way I can. Even if I hate the person more than anything in the whole world, I still help them.
 
Seriously, I'm so curious - what do you guys make of the simple question: A guy opens a door for a girl; is that just a pleasant, chivalrous gesture, or does it also carry the implication that the girl can't do it herself?

When a person is courteous to you and your first thought is, "Is that an insult?" You need to rethink your conceptions of equality. I guarantee you that 99%, if not all, males opening a door for you are doing so because they were raised to hold doors for people. They were taught to be polite and kind to others. None of them were taught women couldn't open doors, so they should. It's completely ridiculous when actually given some thought. When chivalry is construed by your mind as an insulting gesture, there's a problem.
 

GilligBoi

Well-Known Member
I admit I do pratice chivalry to a degree. I don't think women are weak, I am just naturally protective. I do things like walk on the outside of the side walk if I see a woman or a child. When it comes to other things like holding doors I do it for everyone. Being a girl doesn't mean you can't push a door open and being a guy does not mean I get to slam it in your face. I modeled myself after my grandpa, who was big on being a gentleman and helping others, so I don't really think about doing stuff like this. It is natural to me now because I wanted to grow up to be a polite person.
 
Last edited:
I hold open the door for everyone, its what I consider to be polite and sex has nothing to do with it. It kind of bugs me when people say its sexist because I don't do it on the basis of sex.

This is what everyone should to to begin with, but opening the door for women only is still sexist.


If you're a fan of equal opportunity, you practice common courtesy. If you're a fan of sexism, you practice chivalry.
 

Profesco

gone gently
This is what everyone should to to begin with, but opening the door for women only is still sexist.

If you're a fan of equal opportunity, you practice common courtesy. If you're a fan of sexism, you practice chivalry.

This is more or less reasonable, but the way you set the two (common courtesy and chivalry) at odds here seems a little glib, even unfair. If there is a drastic bent in one's actions towards females versus actions towards males, it's understandable to describe the difference as sexist, but that isn't always and only the case. There are some non-sexist forms of treating genders differently.

Giving up your seat on the train to a pregnant woman is the epitome of chivalrous action, but it is also common courtesy - and it is a courtesy that cannot be extended to a man. To label a guy who performs that courteous, chivalrous action a fan of sexism unjustly casts him in a negative light that his actions most certainly don't warrant.

It's also fairly common for children to relate/communicate with their mothers and fathers differently, without showing either less or more affection than the other. Behaving in a different way towards mom than towards dad can't really be called sexism on the child's part, can it?

The generalization and labeling, really, inspired my response.
 
This is more or less reasonable, but the way you set the two (common courtesy and chivalry) at odds here seems a little glib, even unfair. If there is a drastic bent in one's actions towards females versus actions towards males, it's understandable to describe the difference as sexist, but that isn't always and only the case. There are some non-sexist forms of treating genders differently.

Giving up your seat on the train to a pregnant woman is the epitome of chivalrous action, but it is also common courtesy - and it is a courtesy that cannot be extended to a man. To label a guy who performs that courteous, chivalrous action a fan of sexism unjustly casts him in a negative light that his actions most certainly don't warrant.
I don't know if I would consider that necessarily a form of chivalry, since it's not like women shouldn't also be expected to give up their train seats to pregnant women. The reason you give up your seat to a pregnant woman is because she has reduced mobility, and able-bodied men and women alike should do the same for men and women with any physical disability or heavy burden. Should it be courteous when a woman does it, but chivalrous when a man does it? Such a distinction would still be sexist in nature, even though men cannot be pregnant.

It's also fairly common for children to relate/communicate with their mothers and fathers differently, without showing either less or more affection than the other. Behaving in a different way towards mom than towards dad can't really be called sexism on the child's part, can it?
That's not necessarily out of the question, either, as it depends on how the children are being conditioned and how their behaviour toward their parents develops as a result of that conditioning. Children can relate to their same-sex parents differently, too.
 
Top