52 replies to this topic

[balloon]

I am often condemned in my school for having an archaic view of relationship. I genuinely believe that the man is the 'head' of the relationship, not so that he can domineer but so that he can cherish and nurture and love in a way that shows it is his responsibility as the man to look after the woman. I honestly believe we are the 'weaker sex'. Not that we must then stay at home and do the dishes and raise the babies, but that we are generally physically weaker and that the man is there to protect. Honestly ladies, do we really want to be 'equal' when we can be safeguarded as a true treasure? Not that the man 'possesses' us but that he is fortunate enough to look after a woman because she has put her trust in him? I see that sort of relationship as more precious.

Not that women are perfect. I'm simply saying that it's a privelige to love a woman as it is a privelige to be loved, and it is not for boys but for men. Gentlemen. By the way, has anyone seen one lately?

Maybe feminism (as in the 'burn our bra's, treat us like men' feminism, as opposed to the 'stop raping me and give me the vote' feminism)has killed all the gentlemen? Ladies, in their quest to be treated like men have left no ladies behind to whom gentlemen can be gentlemanly, thus creating a dying breed?

Please don't say my view doesn't work, because it does. I have seen it.

I am basically wondering if:

Equality is your thing.
Chivalry is dead.
Ladies/gentlemen don't exist.

What is a real gentleman anyway? Mr. Darcy?

[Ruan Chun Xian]

Spoiler

Mr Darcy, haha. He insulted the woman he was to marry, practically to her face, within 20 minutes of meeting her. He thinks that he's flattering her by telling her that he's so much better than her. I don't think Mr Darcy, as much as I adore him, embraces the idea of a traditional gentleman in half of the book. Oh yes, Elizabeth aside, I'm sure he's a little more civil and he certainly is honourable, but he's not particularly sociable, is he? Is Darcy a gentleman? Anyone would say yes, but that's because we have come to think so through his improved behaviour, but you can't deny that his behaviour in the first half of the book was far from gentlemanly. Also I think what appealed readers to Darcy is not so much the gentlemanliness but the idea of a woman changing the man who love them. I wouldn't go out and say Darcy is the typical 'bad boy' character because he's not. But it's the idea that men in love can go through so much change that makes people love him.

So that is my little take on Darcy's supposed gentlemanliness.

As for the rest of your post, I can see where you are coming from, certainly. I like the idea that women should be able to trust someone enough to protect them. However, as with all things, where is enough becoming too much? Is it possible that without "equality" for lack of better word, to be honest, protection could move towards oppression through over-protectiveness?

Also, is it not possible to be treated equal to men in all things yet still have someone to trust and protect you? I'm not entirely convinced at what you're implying here, that equality means that there is no distinction between men and women, even in a relationship. I don't see them as mutually exclusive. But it's worthy of thought, certainly.

[__inthemaking]

I kind of agree but disagree at the same time.

I know in my own relationship, my boyfriend is definitely very protective (physically) of me. He's a very chivalrous and gentlemanly type of guy by nature, even with his girl friends he holds doors, offers seats, offers rides home at night etc. So you can imagine how he's even MORE protective with me. Part of it is because of my physical size (I'm 5'2 and very petite), I'm sure. He worries when I drive home alone at night after a party and insists that I call him as soon as I home so he can see that I'm okay. If he has to leave somewhere before I do, then he'll try to stay until I leave first. Often I'll just be like "my mom's coming in 10 minutes, I'll be fine" and he'll reluctantly leave but then he'll call me in 10 minutes to see if my mom has arrived yet. When I take the 2 hour bus ride back to my university after visiting him at his, he calls me if I don't go on msn/text/call within 4 hours of leaving.

Most of the time I'm appreciative of the fact that he cares so much about my safety and my mom and friends think it's really sweet. But it does get annoying once in awhile, so that's where I kind of disagree. He's never possessive or jealous or mistrustful of me, just worried that something will happen.

But I definitely appreciate his gentlemanliness. He calls when he says he's going to, walks on the side of the road closer to traffic, carries me over big puddles if need be, gives me his own coat if I'm cold. Once we went skating and my hands were so frozen I thought I was going to get frostbite and he let me put them on his bare skin on his stomach to warm them up in already -30 C weather lol. I don't know if I would've done that for him so that was pretty gentlemanly of him .

[Vvi]

I don't think women need anyone to look after them. Marriage, and any relationship, needs to be based on equality for it to work. Otherwise, there will always be an underlying resentment that one perosn is better/stronger than the other. And I definitely don't agree that women are physically weaker than men. The only reason girls do less physical things like weightlifting and carrying heavy things is because they've been conditioned to think that they should get tired easily/be worn out, and they've been taught that having muscles is "not feminine".

And I don't think lack of women to treat nicely has resulted in less gentlemen. Keep searching and you'll find nice guys.

As for safeguarding women, get a bank account and safeguard that if you want something to do is what I would say. "Safeguarding a treasure" sounds too much like "safeguarding a woman's virtue" for my liking.

The differences in your thinking and that of others may have something to do with cultural background. In Scandinavian society, men and women are seriously equals. People don't get married as much as previously, because being a "wife" to someone is not as important as being their "life partner". Partners are equal. I would never marry someone who thought he was "the head" of our relationship. You're there to share your lives, not have one person follow another.

[balloon]

Hmm. I am very stupid.

I make up my own meanings for words and that assume everyone thinks the same way as me. When I say 'equality' i'm notsaying I don't want equal treatment. I'm saying that relationship shouldn't be 'let's halve the bills' and 'It's your turn to do such and such'. Maybe that is not 'equality' so much as... well I don't know what it is. Certainly not how I like to view relationship! I see relationship not as give 50%, take 50% but as give your all to him just as he will give his all to you, to the point that when you are married, you become 'one' in that you share one bank account, one bed, one house et cetera so that 'equality' or parity of tratment isn't an issue because you are allowing your spouse to recieve more than that. He/she recieves everything you have and are because your love is so great. To me, 'equality' seems insipid in the face of the full capacity of human relationship.

Of course, that sort of relationship is so often abused, and extremely rare. I think I only believe in it because I watch my parents fall more in love with each other each day. But yes. Very interesting topic.

Oh! And about Mr. Darcy, I completely agree! You are right, he is not a 'gentleman' for the first half of the book, but.. WOO! The dark and brooding type will always pierce my heart!

[Irene]

Vvi, on Aug 01, 2009 - 22:34, said:

I don't think women need anyone to look after them. Marriage, and any relationship, needs to be based on equality for it to work. Otherwise, there will always be an underlying resentment that one perosn is better/stronger than the other. And I definitely don't agree that women are physically weaker than men. The only reason girls do less physical things like weightlifting and carrying heavy things is because they've been conditioned to think that they should get tired easily/be worn out, and they've been taught that having muscles is "not feminine".

Actually, I try not to lift boxes/other heavy items because I am lazy. Why do heavy work when you can get away with not doing it??

As for equality, some things should not be equal. Women who look like men and men who look like women, for one. Nothing wrong with this, but damnnnn, it makes things awkward.

Edit: balloon, your description of a relationship sounds more like 'trust' than 'equality'. Give 50/take 50... what is this? This isn't a self-serve service.

Edited by Irene, Aug 02, 2009 - 02:18.

[Feist]

The odd thing about equality is that we desire it, but we don't necessarily choose it.
Confusing, right?

Equality, in my opinion, is all about choice. Pushing the limits. Breaking the mould. We want to have the choice to be considered an equal in a relationship, although we may not necessarily choose it in the end. The "classic" family, if you will, is always depicted as a wife who bakes and throws little tea parties, a man who works and supports his family and a couple of children who are well-rounded; just add an apple pie. But nowadays, the woman has the choice of being the classic, the total breadwinner, or the half-loafer. So you can choose to have the classic relationship and I could choose to be a total breadwinner in mine.

Being safeguarded as a true treasure is nice, but what happens when things go wrong? What if we lose our jobs to take care of our children and one day we get a nasty divorce? By then we'll have no money (unless we take half the dough), old, jobless and bearing children. By considering ourselves a weaker sex, we put ourselves in a weak position.

One equality that must always exist in a relationship, however, is respect.
I can surely see your point of view so I hope this gives you a little enlightenment.

[biochem]

I think the most important thing is talking to your partner about the things you agree disagree with.

It can be as simple as, there are no rules, and we work off of our own ideas through communication.

the dangerous thing to say is that there are no rules, and then mentally, you are trying to work off of them because you are stuck in a rut thinking of what you observed your whole childhood.

I think most kids growing up now dont really think, or day dream about coming home to a pie that their wife cooked. At least not around me. The concept is that there is someone you come home to or with from work, both contributing to the household income.

[Jordy]

I personally like the idea that my boy will occasionally pay for my movie ticket or give me his coat when I'm cold and I like to think that chivalry isn't dead. But I think (and I really want to be proved wrong) that you can't have true chivalry and true equality together. A guy can't help you lift a box out of courtesy if you value true equality.

Maybe I'll add in an amusing little story right here (ignore the rather illegal aspect of it and it will be all the more amusing   )
So here we were, my boy and two of his friends driving to the ice skating rink. Two hours later we emerged, slightly more bruised than when we entered (at least in my case) and realized that two more people needed a ride bringing the total amount of people to fit in the car up to six. This was a bit of problem considering the car only fit five and was quite small at that so one of the friends came to the conclusion that someone had to go in the boot, it being Saturday night and us driving through the main road was quite risky so it did make sense. This is about the time the boys (all four of them) started arguing over who would get into the boot. It was quite amusing but also in some ways enlightening that they were all deciding who would get in the boot when it was obviously far more logical that one of us girls (there were two of us, the other one seemed much less interested in solving the conflict) would get into the boot as we were considerably shorter. Finally, I decided to end the debate and said I would get into the boot. The amusing thing was that at this idea all the boys seemed not just slightly shocked but completely against the idea. In fact it was at this point they started asking each other "where the chivalry was."
I guess the point of the story was that human's have evolved since the 18th century and though some forms of chivalry are still welcome and in some ways expected from our males, others, like putting themselves through physical pain to prove themselves to us is completely obsolete.
We've moved on from absolute chivalry into a almost half way point. Hopefully however, we never move to an absolute way of equality as even though a bit more equality would be nice in some cases, I'm quite happy how we are.

[~Lc~]

balloon, on Aug 01, 2009 - 05:59, said:

Please don't say my view doesn't work, because it does. I have seen it.

I am basically wondering if:

Equality is your thing.
Chivalry is dead.
Ladies/gentlemen don't exist.

What is a real gentleman anyway? Mr. Darcy?

ok firstly the Mr. Darcy comment, I think he's far from a gentleman as possible. He's arrogant, self absorbed little **** and no I don't love him!

Spoiler

mind you I'm still in the part of the book where Jane is ill in Mr. Bingley's house, Hien I read the spoiler pooo I didn't now they got married!   my fault for clicking it

as for gender roles. well it's a very interesting topic with quite a few angles, it's important to isolate the issues from each angle to be able to discuss it properly, otherwise it'll turn into one big ball of yarn with too many idea to retort to.
In the sense of a relationship, I think doing things for each other is nice. This does not mean that the female should be the cook/cleaner all the time nor the man the bread earner. But it should be worked out according to what each enjoy. For example I love cooking, so would not mind my significant other to be sitting on the couch while I make lunch/dinner and he does nothing. Because I enjoy it! who pays the bill should be determined by who has the money! who works depends on who has the qualifications/can get a good job. who gets pregnant, well unfortunately that can't take a logical turn, as it would be defying nature. But hey Arnold shchwatz did it!

in the work place, this includes professional athletes/dancers who require physical capabilities. I see no reason why men and women can not be equal. this is in the sense of a work ethic. It is, again dependent on the individual. There are some very skinny men who can not build muscle, and equally there are very big women who have the built to grow a lot. So it id logically dependent on the situation. Of course if best of both worlds compete (subjective as we don't know who is actually truthfully the best) there could not possibly be a winner, as circumstance will vary the results.

that's my two cents anyway

[Vvi]

Jordy, on Aug 03, 2009 - 08:16, said:

I personally like the idea that my boy will occasionally pay for my movie ticket or give me his coat when I'm cold and I like to think that chivalry isn't dead. But I think (and I really want to be proved wrong) that you can't have true chivalry and true equality together. A guy can't help you lift a box out of courtesy if you value true equality.

Maybe I'll add in an amusing little story right here (ignore the rather illegal aspect of it and it will be all the more amusing   )
So here we were, my boy and two of his friends driving to the ice skating rink. Two hours later we emerged, slightly more bruised than when we entered (at least in my case) and realized that two more people needed a ride bringing the total amount of people to fit in the car up to six. This was a bit of problem considering the car only fit five and was quite small at that so one of the friends came to the conclusion that someone had to go in the boot, it being Saturday night and us driving through the main road was quite risky so it did make sense. This is about the time the boys (all four of them) started arguing over who would get into the boot. It was quite amusing but also in some ways enlightening that they were all deciding who would get in the boot when it was obviously far more logical that one of us girls (there were two of us, the other one seemed much less interested in solving the conflict) would get into the boot as we were considerably shorter. Finally, I decided to end the debate and said I would get into the boot. The amusing thing was that at this idea all the boys seemed not just slightly shocked but completely against the idea. In fact it was at this point they started asking each other "where the chivalry was."
I guess the point of the story was that human's have evolved since the 18th century and though some forms of chivalry are still welcome and in some ways expected from our males, others, like putting themselves through physical pain to prove themselves to us is completely obsolete.
We've moved on from absolute chivalry into a almost half way point. Hopefully however, we never move to an absolute way of equality as even though a bit more equality would be nice in some cases, I'm quite happy how we are.

Same situation happened to me (people deciding who was going in the boot) and it was me who ended up in the boot. I didn't offer, but had to go. It sucked, rolling from side to side around curves and being bumped back and forth. Plus I was afraid I'd run out of air.

[Tilia]

balloon, on Aug 01, 2009 - 05:59, said:

I honestly believe we are the 'weaker sex'. Not that we must then stay at home and do the dishes and raise the babies, but that we are generally physically weaker and that the man is there to protect.

Protect against what? Dangerous animals coming and eating us? Of course it's nice with chilvalrous guys, but why shouldn't girls be chilvalrous as well?

What do you really mean? I don't see how your view is shown in practice. Could you give an example of a real life situation where the "man should protect" or "the woman chould be guarded as a treaure" or "you shouldn't give 50% and take 50"?

[ivanthegiant]

balloon, on Aug 01, 2009 - 05:59, said:

I am often condemned in my school for having an archaic view of relationship. I genuinely believe that the man is the 'head' of the relationship, not so that he can domineer but so that he can cherish and nurture and love in a way that shows it is his responsibility as the man to look after the woman. I honestly believe we are the 'weaker sex'. Not that we must then stay at home and do the dishes and raise the babies, but that we are generally physically weaker and that the man is there to protect. Honestly ladies, do we really want to be 'equal' when we can be safeguarded as a true treasure? Not that the man 'possesses' us but that he is fortunate enough to look after a woman because she has put her trust in him? I see that sort of relationship as more precious.

Not that women are perfect. I'm simply saying that it's a privelige to love a woman as it is a privelige to be loved, and it is not for boys but for men. Gentlemen. By the way, has anyone seen one lately?

Maybe feminism (as in the 'burn our bra's, treat us like men' feminism, as opposed to the 'stop raping me and give me the vote' feminism)has killed all the gentlemen? Ladies, in their quest to be treated like men have left no ladies behind to whom gentlemen can be gentlemanly, thus creating a dying breed?

Please don't say my view doesn't work, because it does. I have seen it.

I am basically wondering if:

Equality is your thing.
Chivalry is dead.
Ladies/gentlemen don't exist.

What is a real gentleman anyway? Mr. Darcy?

i believe the chivalry died when women said they wan to be equal. would it be equal if guys continued chivaly? and is it even equal today? i know there are things about unequal pay but what about the counter arguement? what about maternity leave? last time i checked, guys dont have maternity leave.Neistzche would say that there is no equality because no one is created equal. some food for thought

[sweetnsimple786]

From what little I know about the US government, I hope to draw somewhat of an analogy.

Does 'equal' equate to 'same'?
The way that the US judicial branch has worked it, no--of course not. Same might mean that there's no 'English as a Second Language' program at schools for students who don't know English but are taught only in it. Equal, on the other hand, is having the ESL class so that while the students aren't treated in the same manner, they are allowed equivalent opportunities.

Anyways, in that respect, I think it's a mistake to blame feminism for the death of chivalry, if you think it has, indeed, died. Some women are disgusted when a man holds open a door or pays for the meal. That's their perspective. The thing is most guys are reared by a maternal figure. This is going to have the biggest effect, I'd think.

However, I think the term gentleman has certain connotations that haven't changed while everything else has. Why haven't they changed?!
For me they have. For many of us they have. So we have these different views of a gentleman and gentlewoman, and when we compare notes, they can be really different, so we're all like "what the heck? Because everyone else doesn't think like me, this concept must not exist anymore." Bull. In my opinion.

[Bandev]

First of all paternity leave does exist.

Also I think that balloon's view of feminism is a bit out of date. The third wave feminism of these days is less about women and more about gender in general. It recognises that both men and women feel repressed by their places in society. Many men would much prefer adopting a more traditionally feminine role and vice versa. It recognises that gender isn't made up of two mutually exclusive camp but a more fluid expanse of gender identity with unfixed boundaries. All of this enables a variety of healthy relationships that may not make sense to those not involved, but is much more successful for those involved.

I think that chivalry is more of a personality characteristic that a gender assigned one. This longing for chivalry is the result of gender ascribed hegemonic social norm which is only a characteristic available to some.

I think while sex is a undeniable constant, gender is an identity influence by far more that what is between your legs. As such roles in relationship can't be the same for everyone, in fact it is unwise.

[bLub]

I sometimes wished I'd live in a time where gender roles where still (more) there; not having to work, doing the household etc... but on the other hand I'm glad that I've got the opportunity to work, which I might not have had back then. Also, this way, you're not depending on someone. You can really live your own life...

[hannah.mb]

I (as a girl)am always taken by surprise at some American guys'/men's chivalry (note I said SOME), i.e. opening the door for you, escorting you to class 0_o etc. but somehow it feels nice, like....you're respected and not "possible hot stuff", you know?
I personally as a Christian think that society has got some fundamental views on marriage & gender roles wrong and completely messed up; also I think they have quite a few misconceptions about Christianity's views on marriage and gender roles.
I think that the beauty of a man lies in his strong muscled arms and his steadfastness and common sense, and the beauty of a woman in the way she looks, the clothes she wears, the things she does, but most of all, what is inside of her (like integrity, honesty, compassion, etc.)
ya. Those are my views

[RBST]

I think I agree with balloon. Men and women are equal, but they're not the same, and they'll never be. We can't do the work men do (at least I can't) and they can't do what we do. The relationship is not a race to know who's the strongest, it's complementary.

[Tilia]

RBST, on Jun 12, 2010 - 12:40, said:

I think I agree with balloon. Men and women are equal, but they're not the same, and they'll never be. We can't do the work men do (at least I can't) and they can't do what we do. The relationship is not a race to know who's the strongest, it's complementary.

To an extent, yes. Men and women have different strengths, but there are many jobs which require skills that both men and women have. So to say that "we can't do what they do and vice versa" is a big exaggeration, in my opinion.

[Austin Glau]

Women have a higher center of mass or something so they are more suited for jobs that require arobics like being an actress for a ninja or bieng one of those SWAT guys who has to go through the lasers to disarm the bomb.