There are so many young men and boys without a father or with a corrupt father. By nature, boys often follow in the footsteps of their fathers, or the male figure they admire most. If boys could see more men in public practicing chivalry toward women, wouldn't it better provide for these boys an example they are not recieving at home? In affect, wouldn't it benefit women by raising a society in which men care for women, rather than abuse them?
2006-09-26 15:46:35 · 14 answers · asked by woman_of_tomorrow 2 in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
I love your question!!! The crappy part of my answer is that IT'S OUR OWN FAULT!!!! Now, I'm not talking from my view point, I'm talking from women's stand point. We wanted to be EQUAL. We wanted to be treated the same as men. We could open our own doors, pay for our own meals, walk our own selves home from school, burn our bras, whatever. What happened to men being the bread winners in our families? THAT'S OUR FAULT TOO!!! We took all that away from them! It makes them feel less important when they do not HAVE to do it!!!! I'm a "stay-home-mom", and God bless my husband for ALLOWING me to do it. And yes, I said allowing because of the feminist movement discouraging women to stay home with their kids, and get out in the work place. I know that I can work, I am quite capable of bringing home a check just as big, if not bigger, then my husbands. But thank God, he didn't follow suit. He said that it's my choice, and that he was going to support whatever decision no matter how scatter brained it might be. Screw women's lib. Maybe that's what's wrong with the world today. Not enough women taking care of their kids, and letting complete strangers fill their kids heads with their morals and values. But I tell ya, this saying still holds strong: The hand that rocks the cradle, is the hand that rules the world.
2006-09-26 16:14:27 · answer #1 · answered by frigidx 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
John D has a good point. I have witnessed more verbal abuse by women than men. I think this is a point the blame question. But it IS a hard problem to pin down.
I am for an equal opportunity in the work place. I will give two examples of my experience with women in the work place.
First I am in the military, and was in a job that had NO women. I was still in a company that had women. My group (all guys) were routinely picked to do all dirty jobs and labor jobs and women were left out of the responsibility (even though it was their job duty). This occured in two different countries (duty stations).
Second. I am in a new job with females. Here the females work as hard as the guys, no difference. however, no females were present in my office when I first arrived. 3 months later about 5 to 6 of them arrived. Now there are problems concerning office politics and rumors abound. It has affected the workplace and job performance, not to mention relationships.
So my point is this chivalry statement could promote preferential treatment, over equal treatment. (indeed I have experienced more than my fair share of it).
Support fair treatment to both sexes, it does seem males are needing the most in learning how to treat others, not excluding themselves.
2006-09-27 11:41:12 · answer #2 · answered by elliott 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You would think so, but so many women are out of the home working two or three jobs to make up for the absent or useless father, so do not have time to teach them the manners. These children will then turn to their friends or older siblings who are forced to raise them as a role model. And, being kids themselves do not know how to treat women or people with respect. I think some of it could be taught in our schools, but our schools are so hands off outside of basic subjects in fear of law suits and other legal problems>
2006-09-26 22:57:36 · answer #3 · answered by Belle 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it would, in my opinion. It doesn't mean what it originated as though:
Chivalry was in essence a warrior code that was later appropriated and propagated by the Church, which added a Christian aspect. The Church even allowed warrior monks to create orders of chivalry, organisations of Christian knights who would protect the church and society.
In war, the chivalrous knight was idealized as brave in battle, loyal to his king and God, and willing to sacrifice himself for the lord or king. Towards his fellow Christians and countrymen, the knight was to be merciful, humble, and courteous. Towards noble ladies above all, the knight was to be gracious and gentle. The idealized relationship between knight and lady was that of courtly love.
Today, chivalry is interpreted as courteous behavior, especially towards women. A quotation often associated with this idea comes from Edmund Burke: "The age of chivalry is gone.", often misquoted as "The age of chivalry is dead."
2006-09-26 22:48:47 · answer #4 · answered by Justsyd 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely. I don't think chivalry ever hurt anyone. I don't think there is enough of it anymore. So many men don't know how to treat a lady anymore. It's just a sign of the times we're in.
2006-09-26 22:51:15 · answer #5 · answered by HSK's mama 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It would be an ideal one. I used to worry that I cut my son off from his dad because of his multiple drug problems. I worried that I denied him some "male" influence. But I have to say that at 12, I am more proud of him than a parent has a right to be. A+ student, thoughtful, intelliegent, tolerant of all. Strange.
2006-09-26 22:56:01 · answer #6 · answered by trishopesisters 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes. I completely agree.
Both my husband and I grew up w/ out a father in our lives.
But our children will grow up w/ both loving parents.
2006-09-26 23:02:34 · answer #7 · answered by Q. 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
M'lady, if you are interested in Chivalry, please feel free to check out the Society of Creative Anachronisms, a world wide organization that believes in chivalry, and re-enact the middle age as we wish they might have been. To your answer....what we call Chivalry today is pretty different than what was a code of conduct for their time...
From Chivalry by Leon Gautier
Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches, and shalt observe all its directions.
Thou shalt defend the Church.
Thou shalt repect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.
Thou shalt love the country in the which thou wast born.
Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy.
Thou shalt make war against the Infidel without cessation, and without mercy.
Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they be not contrary to the laws of God.
Thou shalt never lie, and shall remain faithful to thy pledged word.
Thou shalt be generous, and give largess to everyone.
Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.
This is just one version. There are many. What you are looking for is not so much chivalry, but a code of noble conduct. The problem with that, is no two people agree on what that conduct should be (much like religion). The best thing that could happen is that women develop a code of conduct, regardless of what men do, and teach their children to live it. It will be the only true and effective way to pass this on. In this way, women will practice what they preach, and be an inspiration to their male colleagues. Sadly, in most of the mundane dealings I've seen, Women do tend to be better citizens, and honest in financial ways. But in emotional and spiritual matters, it is a whole different ball game, and I've seen one decent man after another brutally used by women in the U.S. IMHO, Women of the US really need to get their collective house in order.
2006-09-26 23:24:30 · answer #8 · answered by Sad-Dad 3 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Yeah, that's what started virginia slims, the right to vote, and the rest. Because some men did abuse them and there wasn't much a woman could do at that time but take it.
2006-09-26 22:51:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Chivalry benefits both men and women, short and long run...
2006-09-27 01:36:30 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋