He didn't pay

[elaina]

It's not just paying for dinner. It's opening doors and they bring in love notes their men write and laught at then. Plus one of them laughed at how pathetic her husband looked after he cooked her dinner. This is what being a considerate gentlemen gets a man these days.

 

Hello Woggle,

 

I think the women you work with are definitely NOT ladies.

 

When my friends, female family members, and I talk about what the men in our lives do for us, we praise our men. We're proud of our men and are happy and thankful for them.

 

I am curious where you work (though I know this is an anonymous forum and you needn't say) but still, what kind of women don't stick up for their men and stand beside their men?

[alexlakeman]

Guys like that makes it a whole lot easier for the rest of us to date and be gentlemen.

 

What a D.ick.

[TaurusTerp]

I suppose since you're not female, you have no idea how romantic and sweet and charming it can be for a man to hold the door open for you.

 

Sigh. Sometimes it seems like some men these days have no concept of romance and treating women special just because they (the men) are gentlemen.

 

Oceangirl, yeah I think a man who doesn't pay on the first date could be stingy or poor.

 

So true!!!

 

I'm sure none of you women will admit or accept this, but the base of chivalry is that men are weaker/more fragile than men and need to be coddled, and their place is in the home with children and not working. Thats why their meals are paid for, coats placed for them to walk over, doors held for them, etc.

 

If you want men who will are men - strong, tall, aggressive, gentlemanly, and will take care of their women - you should be prepared to accept that you aren't going to be accepted as their equal. You're a doll, a pet to be taken care of and to bear his children.

 

You shouldn't complain when he cheats on you or treats you poorly - after all, the dynamic is already set. You're a paid for possession, not an equal partner.

[welikeincrowds]

I'm sure none of you women will admit or accept this, but the base of chivalry is that men are weaker/more fragile than men and need to be coddled

 

Whoa now, citation needed!

 

In fact, chivalry is from the Crusades, referring to the code knights undertook to protect the kingdom. Acts of chivalry in the modern era symbolize nobility and duty, and that signals much louder than women's deferment -- which, albeit, is there, but women have at their disposal their own unique ways of asserting themselves just as well.

[gypsy_nicky]

And my pointing out of your grammatical error was simply a passive aggressive way of jabbing back at you. :laugh:

 

is that a character flaw or something you use to 'get' people. Either way, I hope it doesn't ruin relationships for you.

 

To respond to the OP. If your feeling really disturbed by this date paying schema, you can either drop the guy or you can go with the flow and see what kind of person this guy is, regardless of being stingy with dates.

 

Its hard to see a persons character in one date alone because here is a guy demonstrating equality by doing this equal pay thingie but at the same time he lacks the chivalry women traditionally see/still want in men.

[elaina]

Seriously... I find so many guys that just do that stuff for 1 month to impress.

 

I think it means 10 times more when a guy holds the door for an elderly woman.

 

If a guy holds the door for you... he is probably just taking the opportunity to stare at your butt. If he holds the door for your grandma, he is showing kindness and respect.

 

Hello Untouchable Fire,

 

I think it depends on the guy. There are guys who have interior motives for many things they do. There are other guys who do things for no interior motives, but just because they care.

 

Yes It does mean 10 times more when a guy holds the door for an elderly lady I totally agree with you!! Since I'm not elderly though, I still appreciate it when gentlemen hold the door open for me. It makes me feel treasured. I don't know how else to explain it. Like, I'm worth taking the extra time and effort, even if I never see that man again.

 

Yes granted there are guys who check me out while opening the door, but most just simply do it to be gentlemanly and kind, I think.

[USMCHokie]

is that a character flaw or something you use to 'get' people. Either way, I hope it doesn't ruin relationships for you.

 

It was a joke.

[skydiveaddict]

you didn't have to say things like that. That's taunting. Maybe the poster was directing his comments at the other poster indirectly, relating to her choice of men or how she chooses her men, not the present one. You just had to speak up and start pointing.

 

I don't know what tours your talking about, but I'm not trying to be a tough guy. Because skydivers are supposedly daredevils, extremists. Why start taunts indirectly related to you.

 

 

Don't try to hide behind your words. Don't accuse me of taunting you. Tours are combat assignments. I've been in plenty of battles. Both in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't need Hokie or anyone else to hide behind. But that's what you said. Don't expect me to let it go unchallenged. If you want to open your big mouth and start spouting insults then be prepared for the appropriate response.

[TaurusTerp]

Whoa now, citation needed!

 

In fact, chivalry is from the Crusades, referring to the code knights undertook to protect the kingdom. Acts of chivalry in the modern era symbolize nobility and duty, and that signals much louder than women's deferment -- which, albeit, is there, but women have at their disposal their own unique ways of asserting themselves just as well.

 

Of course, you are correct about the Crusades. However, the definition is to protect the honor of WOMEN, not the kingdom. Unless you disagree with this?

 

And if you accept this, then the knight's duty to defend the women inherently presumes the women can't do it themselves - because they are weaker, lesser.

 

I don't see how women having their own methods of asserting themselves is relevant - it's outside the definition of chivalry, which we're talking about.

[TaurusTerp]

I know Ocean often never comes back to these threads, but I got to say she's probably my favorite poster - her threads always spark so much controversy.

[gypsy_nicky]

Don't try to hide behind your words. Don't accuse me of taunting you. Tours are combat assignments. I've been in plenty of battles. Both in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't need Hokie or anyone else to hide behind. But that's what you said. Don't expect me to let it go unchallenged. If you want to open your big mouth and start spouting insults then be prepared for the appropriate response.

 

yeah whatever tough guy. I wasn't hiding behind my words. I wasn't saying you were taunting me but by pointing out hokie to one of the posters. Re-read my post again.

 

I dont care if you were in Nam, WW2, or what else??!! MMA, Knife fighting, green berets etc etc. (so really, who wants to be tough?? you or me??)

 

The point I was trying to make, and let me say it again, the poster did not intend to single out hokie. You pointed it out.

[elaina]

I'm sure none of you women will admit or accept this, but the base of chivalry is that men are weaker/more fragile than men and need to be coddled, and their place is in the home with children and not working. Thats why their meals are paid for, coats placed for them to walk over, doors held for them, etc.

 

If you want men who will are men - strong, tall, aggressive, gentlemanly, and will take care of their women - you should be prepared to accept that you aren't going to be accepted as their equal. You're a doll, a pet to be taken care of and to bear his children.

 

You shouldn't complain when he cheats on you or treats you poorly - after all, the dynamic is already set. You're a paid for possession, not an equal partner.

 

Lol

 

Sorry, I was just so amused by the above!!!

 

Taurus, we must live in 2 different worlds. I think the reason why I consider gentlemen to be an important trait for a man is because of the following:

 

1. I was raised to be a lady by my parents, and my Dad is very much a gentlemen. He and my Mom have been married for 35 years and love each other immensely, and I have seen my Dad be a gentlemen all my life. I am sure it's difficult sometimes to be one (I don't know, since I have no experience) but I do really admire men who strive to be caring to others, and be extra kind, you could say, to women.

 

2. Where I live, gentlemen are not a rare occurrence. I see them everywhere, ages 4 and up. Here, many mothers teach their boys to hold the door open for people, to help people with packages, to not hit girls, to stand up for girls if they are in trouble, and so forth. Elderly men, too, open the door for people. My Papaw (grandpa) always opens the door for women.

 

3. When I do get married, yes I would like a strong, aggressive husband, but I also want him to be caring. A strong, aggressive husband who is not kind or caring or gentlmenaly is not what I want. Gentlemanly to me means being kind and helpful to the opposite gender.

[welikeincrowds]

Of course, you are correct about the Crusades. However, the definition is to protect the honor of WOMEN, not the kingdom. Unless you disagree with this?

 

I do disagree. Chivalry was a knight's status, or the knight's code in serving the king. What makes it gendered is that only men could be knights; thus to swear to protect the kingdom is inherently to swear to protect the women and children.

 

Hence my statement: acts of chivalry symbolize more the character of the man than they do the deferment of women.

 

However, deferment of women is undoubtedly a part of it, and you can see that played out in the acts themselves (men opening a door, for example). But there's nothing stopping a man from opening a door for another man, or paying for a meal for another man, either; those acts are equally as chivalrous, and just as well represent positive qualities like duty and nobility, and a willingness to go out of one's way, however symbolically, to make someone else feel cared for.

 

For what it's worth, this has been a topic of discussion in feminism since the 60s, and there are some compelling arguments in favor of the notion that these behaviors reinforce certain constraints our society places on men and women and the interactions between them. But that argument is part of a framework of many small things that form a larger, more complicated confinement for women (the birdcage metaphor). When talking about just "chivalrous" acts, and just in the context of dating, I argue that it would be unfair to single these behaviors out as oppressive in themselves, when they do signal more than that.

[Untouchable_Fire]

Acts of chivalry in the modern era symbolize nobility and duty, and that signals much louder than women's deferment -- which, albeit, is there, but women have at their disposal their own unique ways of asserting themselves just as well.

 

Please expound on this!

[TaurusTerp]

Lol

 

Sorry, I was just so amused by the above!!!

 

Taurus, we must live in 2 different worlds. I think the reason why I consider gentlemen to be an important trait for a man is because of the following:

 

1. I was raised to be a lady by my parents, and my Dad is very much a gentlemen. He and my Mom have been married for 35 years and love each other immensely, and I have seen my Dad be a gentlemen all my life. I am sure it's difficult sometimes to be one (I don't know, since I have no experience) but I do really admire men who strive to be caring to others, and be extra kind, you could say, to women.

 

2. Where I live, gentlemen are not a rare occurrence. I see them everywhere, ages 4 and up. Here, many mothers teach their boys to hold the door open for people, to help people with packages, to not hit girls, to stand up for girls if they are in trouble, and so forth. Elderly men, too, open the door for people. My Papaw (grandpa) always opens the door for women.

 

3. When I do get married, yes I would like a strong, aggressive husband, but I also want him to be caring. A strong, aggressive husband who is not kind or caring or gentlmenaly is not what I want. Gentlemanly to me means being kind and helpful to the opposite gender.

 

Elaina, I don't see how any of what you said is contrary to what I said. The men are taking care of women. I don't disagree with anything you've said.

[welikeincrowds]

Please expound on this!

 

Feminine wiles, bro.

 

I dunno, ask a woman.

[TaurusTerp]

I do disagree. Chivalry was a knight's status, or the knight's code in serving the king. What makes it gendered is that only men could be knights; thus to swear to protect the kingdom is inherently to swear to protect the women and children.

 

Hence my statement: acts of chivalry symbolize more the character of the man than they do the deferment of women.

 

However, deferment of women is undoubtedly a part of it, and you can see that played out in the acts themselves (men opening a door, for example). But there's nothing stopping a man from opening a door for another man, or paying for a meal for another man, either; those acts are equally as chivalrous, and just as well represent positive qualities like duty and nobility, and a willingness to go out of one's way, however symbolically, to make someone else feel cared for.

 

For what it's worth, this has been a topic of discussion in feminism since the 60s, and there are some compelling arguments in favor of the notion that these behaviors reinforce certain constraints our society places on men and women and the interactions between them. But that argument is part of a framework of many small things that form a larger, more complicated confinement for women (the birdcage metaphor). When talking about just "chivalrous" acts, and just in the context of dating, I argue that it would be unfair to single these behaviors out as oppressive in themselves, when they do signal more than that.

 

I dont think anyone uses chivalry outside of male-female interaction, though, and as you said it is central to chivalry and we might as well focus on that. I really don't think you could find anyone off the street to call a male-male act of kindness "chivalry".

 

For your last paragraph - I feel that you articulated why I feel chivalry reinforces male superiority better than I could. And as you say, it's not that these behaviors are oppressive or sexist in and of themselves, but even you seem to agree that they contribute, no? And thus should not be encouraged?

[elaina]

Elaina, I don't see how any of what you said is contrary to what I said. The men are taking care of women. I don't disagree with anything you've said.

 

Taurus , so how though can people translate men being gentlemen to men owning women? I translate men being gentlemen to men being extra kind and helpful to women. Do you see what I mean?

 

There are men who are not gentlemen. I have seen that too. I have seen men hit women and be cruel. I have also seen men be uncaring and have seen men allow a door to slam shut right in front of a woman's face.

 

If I were to choose between a man who is a gentleman or a man who wasn't, guess who I'd pick? I do appreciate men who are kind. like my Dad and Papaw and male friends and the random gentlemen I encounter every day.

[Untouchable_Fire]

Feminine wiles, bro.

I dunno, ask a woman.

 

You are a guy?

[TaurusTerp]

Taurus , so how though can people translate men being gentlemen to men owning women? I translate men being gentlemen to men being extra kind and helpful to women. Do you see what I mean?

 

There are men who are not gentlemen. I have seen that too. I have seen men hit women and be cruel. I have also seen men be uncaring and have seen men allow a door to slam shut right in front of a woman's face.

 

If I were to choose between a man who is a gentleman or a man who wasn't, guess who I'd pick? I do appreciate men who are kind. like my Dad and Papaw and male friends and the random gentlemen I encounter every day.

 

I am making up an analogy by the seat of my pants here, but I hope you will bear with me. Let us say you have a mentally handicapped brother. He can't hold a job, can barely feed himself, needs help all the time. So you pay for his meals, you clean up after him, and baby him. It's not that you don't love him and don't want to shower him with kindness, but you obviously consider yourself above him. He is weaker than you are, and needs to be taken care of. Does that make sense? You do not consider him your equal.

 

Yes, I just compared all women to a retard. No, I did not mean all women are retards.

[MrNate]

Leftfordead2 posted the wisest thing in this thread. I agree with her 100%. Things turn ugly when we try to win others over to our train of thought, instead of simply acknowledging difference of opinion. I think a lot of times, ugliness arises because of that simple fact.

 

Props to you, Leftfordead2.

[welikeincrowds]

I dont think anyone uses chivalry outside of male-female interaction, though, and as you said it is central to chivalry and we might as well focus on that. I really don't think you could find anyone off the street to call a male-male act of kindness "chivalry".

 

Maybe not, but that doesn't take away from it symbolically. Remember, if you go back to the etymology (which, I admit, is less relevant in 2010, but it is relevant), to be a knight is to protect the kingdom, which means to protect not just the women/children, but your fellow man, your king, your religion, your ideals and your beliefs -- everything you stand for. To be chivalrous is to act in the service of something fundamentally important. That aspect of the definition is what allows a chivalrous act to be interpreted independently of the gender for whom the act was performed.

 

And you're right, I agree that they do contribute, and I'd be willing to listen to an argument as to why they should not be encouraged because of this. But I do argue that what they signal positively is more relevant than what they signal negatively, especially in the context of dating.

 

You'll find that this is all in line with another argument in this thread: that not paying for dates reflects poorly on the man's character, and results in a stronger, clearer negative than the one you're pointing out, the unfair oppression of women through small acts. Chivalry is better seen as a reflection of a man's character than a reflection of woman's deferment, and to make a decision based on the latter interpretation is to completely sacrifice any chance of upholding the former, which results in maybe 0.00000000000001% in the way of progress for more equal interactions between men and women, and no second date.

Edited October 6, 2010 by welikeincrowds

[TaurusTerp]

And you're right, I agree that they do contribute, and I'd be willing to listen to an argument as to why they should not be encouraged because of this. But I do argue that what they signal positively is more relevant than what they signal negatively, especially in the context of dating.

 

You'll find that this is all in line with another argument in this thread: that not paying for dates reflects poorly on the man's character, and results in a stronger, clearer negative than the one you're pointing out, the unfair oppression of women through small acts. That chivalry is better seen as a reflection of a man's character than a reflection of woman's deferment, and to make a decision based on the latter interpretation is to completely sacrifice any chance of upholding the former, which results in maybe 0.00000000000001% in the way of progress for more equal interactions between men and women, and no second date.

 

I suppose the argument is that the end goal should be for men and women to be on equal ground in society, not a one gender paying and the other gender providing....whatever. Tradition is not necessarily (not often, even) the best way to do things.

 

As for your last paragraph, I completely agree. That's why I pay for the first three dates at least, at all times. But that is because I see no point in screwing up my own love life to prove a point. I play the game, but I don't think it's right.

 

I'm saying WOMEN should not want the current male-female dynamic, as in the bigger picture I think it is shooting the feminist movement in the foot.

[Untouchable_Fire]

Maybe not, but that doesn't take away from it symbolically. Remember, if you go back to the etymology (which, I admit, is less relevant in 2010, but it is relevant), to be a knight is to protect the kingdom, which means to protect not just the women/children, but your fellow man, your king, your religion, your ideals and your beliefs -- everything you stand for. To be chivalrous is to act in the service of something fundamentally important. That aspect of the definition is what allows a chivalrous act to be interpreted independently of the gender for whom the act was performed.

 

It's because everything you say here is true that the current acts of chivalry expressed in our culture are pointless and meaningless symbols.

 

Your essentially postulating that to be chivalrous is to "protect" a woman from exerting effort, or from paying a bill.

 

I think these customs have a more modern source, and that is a courtship system which has been widely discarded.

 

You'll find that this is all in line with another argument in this thread: that not paying for dates reflects poorly on the man's character, and results in a stronger, clearer negative than the one you're pointing out, the unfair oppression of women through small acts. Chivalry is better seen as a reflection of a man's character than a reflection of woman's deferment, and to make a decision based on the latter interpretation is to completely sacrifice any chance of upholding the former, which results in maybe 0.00000000000001% in the way of progress for more equal interactions between men and women, and no second date.

 

This is exactly it. Paying is expected, therefore provides no clear benefit. However, not paying often has a strong negative attached.

 

In the end this is just something that has been traditionally seen as a gender role. Each person gets to decide to what extent they choose to embrace these roles.

 

For women who expect me to pay for her date... I in return have gender based expectations of her which will decide how willing I am to move forward with her.

[elaina]

I am making up an analogy by the seat of my pants here, but I hope you will bear with me. Let us say you have a mentally handicapped brother. He can't hold a job, can barely feed himself, needs help all the time. So you pay for his meals, you clean up after him, and baby him. It's not that you don't love him and don't want to shower him with kindness, but you obviously consider yourself above him. He is weaker than you are, and needs to be taken care of. Does that make sense? You do not consider him your equal.

 

Yes, I just compared all women to a retard. No, I did not mean all women are retards.

 

 

First of all, a person, whether male or female, who cares for a mentally challenged person in a good, caring way, is awesome. I very much admire people who care for them and treat them very well.

 

Second, I personally do not consider a person mentally challenged to be inferior to me. They are people too just like me. I have worked with some mentally challenged people who are wonderful people!!!

 

Just because I wasn't born with mental issues does NOT make me better than they are at all!!!

 

Life on this earth is tough. Some people are born with disabilities. Other people get into accidents or are hurt some way. People get diseases, but nobody is better than anybody else if they don't have a disability or have not been in an accident or gotten hurt somehow or gotten a disease!!!

 

Concerning comparing a mentally challenged person who needs to be taken care of with how men care for women, I do not see the correlation. Women are able to do things for themselves and for others. Many of the women in my family (not me cause I'm a horrible cook!) cook awesome meals and make sure the men are well fed. Many of the women I know, including me, clean and make sure the house is pretty, while the man only helps or takes out the garbage and does the outside chores. All the mothers I know work hard taking care of their children, changing diapers, feeding hungry little kids, teaching them how to share and solving problems and buying groceries and paying bills and running errands and working in outside jobs and on and on and on.

 

Men and women are different. I don't remember when exactly, when I was a girl, that I realized that boys were stronger than me. I think I was around 13 and boy was I mad!

 

Even now, sometimes when I try to do something, like paddle a lil boat faster than my male friends, I know I'm not going to beat them, and they know it too. And they think I'm darn cute. Maybe to you, this sounds like I'm a pet, but I know they would never in a million years hurt me, that they would protect me (and have... from spiders) and that they care for me. My boyfriend, who is long-distance, is my boyfriend one reason being that i also trust him to protect and not hurt me.

 

Being gentlemanly is not just opening doors or being courteous. It's a mentality of men who care for and do not want to hurt women. It doesn't men that men look down on women or see them as pets, but rather that they acknowledge there is a difference (not inequality as in one gender is better than the other!) but that they care to show kindness to women and help them, no matter the woman's age, appearance, or character.

 

Even though I am not stronger than my male friends, they know that I always have a smile for them (unless i"m unhappy lol), that I care about them and want the best for them, and that I am for them, not against them.