Chivalry

. . .This is largely in reaction to a blogpost I read regarding chivalry. He shared his two cents and now I'm sharing mine. It is important to note that I'm only continuing from what my friend has blogged, and therefore won't bother myself with a technical definition of my terms, as would be required, were this technical/legal writing. Sufficed to say, it should be fairly obviously what is meant when the term 'chivalry' is used.
. . .Chivalry, in my mind, is a good thing. But I feel it's important to make a distinction between men who act chivalrous for the sake of seeming chivalrous as opposed to the other group of men who are chivalrous as a side effect of caring for others' well-being.
. . .Those first group of men, in my opinion, are usually dolts(for lack of a better term), gauche individuals who're generally in math or computers, etc. They think that by blindly/rigidly following the 'rules of chivalry' they can somehow successfully integrate themselves into a mix-gendered society. Unfortunately for them, they can't skip steps like that. One must first be clean (sanitary). Then one must be considerate. (This actually takes some brain-power.) Then one must be polite to everybody out of respect to each and every individual as an individual. It is only at this point where this accomplished men have the ability and the faculties to properly learn and utilyze 'chivalry'.
. . .Otherwise, it's just hollow actions; words without meaning. What good is it for somebody to do something if he doesn't mean it? I mean, there's supposed to be honour in chivalry. If some base, despicable creature (i.e. a guy) copies the gestures and actions characteristic of chivalry, most members of society can easily see through such cheap imitations. Where's the honour in that?
. . .Of the gentleman, it should be obvious why such qualities of honour and chivalry exude from his very presence. Chivalry, then, isn't so much of a practised skill, but rather his respect and honour made manifest.
. . .And for some *ick* guy to come along and claim to be chivalrous when he lacks the most basic of human interaction ability, one is seriously forced to question just exactly where his honour lies.
. . .Having now articulated what I feel to be true chivalry, there begins another question of its social implications. Many have allured that chivalry is indicative of the social oppression and reminder of the unjust mentality of a male-dominant society. However, I would argue that a truely chivalrous individual isn't prejuduced for women, but rather, have more of a 'the strong should protect the weak' sort of thing.
. . .However, I personally think that this level of respect shouldn't be restricted to females for two reasons:
1. females aren't as weak as they used to.
2. with all those permutable sexual identities, it's just safer to be nice to everybody. =)