Tohzara:
This has got to be the dumbest post I've read in a while. Let me show you.

Seriously? Do you know how dumb you sound now? So because it's a Nigerian forum, everything must be discussed as applicable to the Nigerian context? When did you make this buffoonish rule? So even if it's Ethopians, Indians, Europeans, Ghanians, South Africans or Americans that are discussing it, it must be as applicable to the Nigerian context? This is a really fücked up way of being stupid.

What exactly is nationalism in any Nigerian language? What exactly is communism in any Nigerian language? What exactly is feminism in any Nigerian language? You don't have any sense.

I do not know about "codes and conducts". All I do know is that chivalry as expected/applied to the male folk has got to do with being courteous and protective towards women, treating them gently and with care. That's the main idea. There are no "codes and conducts" as such, as they would be subjective.

Enough of your bullshiit. Did the mediaval knights who claimed to be beacons of chivalry cook for their women? Weren't they sexist motherfucking asholes too? Being protective of women and considering them creatures to be handled courteously is itself founded upon sexism, and subscribing to gender roles----considering women to be meant only for the kitchen---isn't incompatible with chivalry. Sexist men can be chivalrous. You just keep yarning crap.

Bullcrap. Anything can be discussed on this forum. This statement is absolutely senseless and morönic.

What is the entire point of this thread? Isn't it to discuss whether demanding for chivalry from the male folk as a matter of obligation without expecting any from the women is sexist and incompatible with feminism? Isn't that what you just confirmed right here? You answered "NO", and still senselessly believe yourself to be arguing against the point of my thread by calling it "nonsense". Olodo.

Stillfire:


[s]Absolute rubbish! Now let me show you where you shoot yourself in the foot and disgrace your lineage...



Bulls eye. None of you have the wherewithal to discuss the subject and have nothing useful and meaningful to take on the subject. Live with it! Codes and conduct of chivalry are not 'subjective'. They are organized, well laid out rules that 'polite' society lived by in the West. They are not random rules plucked out of ya asses to insinuate 'subjectivity'. Get out of here with your rubbish.



That reply was a soft-landing response, since you decided to include your 'fragile emotions' into the discussion thereby making a topic which shouldn't have been about your butterfly self about yourself - and that I should not 'stereotype' you. You had to be reminded that one man ranting that he doesn't fit into a stereotype can never be statistically significant when majority fit that stereotype in Nigeria. So once again get out of here.



Anything can be discussed by people who are WELL VERSED on the subject. Not interested in your KINDERGARTEN analysis and ZERO experiences.



Olodo rabata. You have just disgraced yourself that you don't know ANYTHING about codes and conduct. I have been PROVEN right. End of discussion! Also, what exactly is there to discuss, if feminism = gender equality, does it take astronomical science to know that chivalry should not be gender specific. I guess, unless you are an imbe.cile it has to be spelt out to you in lay language.

Stupid, irrelevant topics like this on the Nigerian blogosphere are a total distraction to the REAL, CRIMINAL, DEADLY issues that plague the Nigerian female such as punitive widowhood rites, sexual crimes and child marriages. It is only for badly behaved men to have penile erections over. Look at how you 'came' all over the thread and started throwing 'childish' insults because I alerted you to your inexperience to the subject. Get out of here!

Dead, useless thread.[/s]

monex:


she has a right to go against the gender role society has constructed for her and she is hence not oppressive.

Personally I would not deem it forward but even I did, it will not take away her right to ask a guy out first or to propose to a guy.

I have a right to think what I think about her but not to discriminate or deny her opportunities due to her belief or her going against her percieved gender role boundaries.

ReinaFarine:


You have a right to your thought doesn't make your thoughts right...
Thinking a woman is cheap or forward for proposing a relationship or marriage is sexist. It starts from the thought... One way or the other if you think it forward, you will act out in the relationship.

ReinaFarine:

Will you deem it too forward for a lady to ask you out?

ReinaFarine:
Sagamite is quite pained with the word feminism.... Well even though the word has been bastardised and used as a term to support man-hating and pseudo-abuse against the male gender, as long as the dictionary definition still reads a person who believes in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes, I AM A FEMINIST. I don't know but you can check the definition of who a Nazi is, who an Alqaeda sympathizer is or whatever, The definition of the term kind of describe who the person is and what they support. So until the term gets so bastardized that the definition changes in the dictionary, I am a feminist.

ReinaFarine:

The fact that millions use the I AM A MUSLIM FIGHTING FOR ALLAH to defend their acts of terrorism doesn't make every Muslim a terrorist. The fact that Libya is now a very big market for slave trade doesn't make every Libyan a slave trader. The fact that most Yoruba young men are known for their flirty playboy attitude doesn't make every Yoruba man unfaithful. I define true feminism and until the dictionary meaning of that word changes to a man hating (sometimes to he point of abuse), sad, depressed, lonely, old, hag of a lesbian. I AM A FEMINIST.. And you can take that to the bank. Give me another word for a person with my beliefs and I will swing that flag so high you'll see it from outer space until then, please call me a feminist.

ReinaFarine:

And for chivalry, once again I'll go with the definition of the word. I have attachrd the definition of the word that i can find in a picture to this text. I'll appreciate my partner (not a random male figure) to treat me kindly. Why? Because he loves me. Not because I am weak but taking care of me is his utmost priority and he will strive to do anything to put a smile on my face. And I will do likewise. Anything to put a smile on my face. It becomes misogyny if the reason he is taking care of me is because he considers me fragile and incompetent of doing little things like opening my car doors or zipping up my gown or pulling out a chair on a date or any other perceived form of chivalry. Similarly it will be insulting if the reason I pack his lunches, fix his cufflinks, and all are because I consider him too stupid to handle such task. Note he is not doing all these because I am a woman. He is doing it because I am his soulmate. Kisses.

MissWrite:
Male chivalry? No. I think it would be unfair to insist on male chivalry alone; there's always an imbalance/inequality when you say "male this" or "female that". And this kind of inequality doesn't agree with the general feminist philosophy. Chivalry has a non-gender-specific definition, and it simply means showing kindness, respect and loyalty to people around you. Chivalry and feminism aren't mutually exclusive. The fact that women are (and want to be) self-determining creatures in society doesn't impede chivalrous behavior in any way. We give it and we take it.

MissWrite:

We all deserve a little consideration from others, and that is exactly how we should all be with people: considerate. When I walk through a door in a public building, I hold it open for the person coming behind me (whether it's a man or a woman or a child) so it doesn't slam in their face. When someone drops their stuff and it falls at my feet, I pick it up for them (whether it's a man or a woman). When someone I'm with is trying to lift something heavy, I give them a hand. When I see someone who is greatly inconvenienced by standing (for whatever obvious condition: pregnancy, amputation, fatigue....), I give them my seat (whether it's a man or a woman).

It's nice when people are kind and courteous. But the vagina doesn't require more consideration than the penis in society (and vise-versa; Seun, kindly address this issue of biased censorship )so don't give your seat to someone simply because she's a woman.

However, in relationships, people tend to baby each other to make each other feel special, and that's okay. It's not anti-equality; it's a way to show affection. These little things are indicative of how much the other person cares and a mark of their attentiveness (and sometimes: possessiveness) towards their significant other. I would definitely sit myself down before my date has had the chance to pull up a chair for me; but if he sits down without an eye out to be sure that I've got a seat too, I would hold it against him. Bigly . And I would give equal consideration to him. I won't just sit down before I've made sure he's sorted out as well (even if I won't be the one hauling a chair over my head).

Men would want feminists to believe now that the old-fashioned male chivalry was all about women, but ugly lowly girls would remember history differently. And we know better too. Most guys wouldn't even have contemplated giving a lift, or giving up their seat, to a four-hundred pound woman even if she desperately needed to get off her feet. But that's okay, women are also less inclined to give favors to un-hot men; we live in a superficial world.

Tohzara:
MissWrite and ReinaFarine, I agree with you guys 100%. Like you said, It shouldn't be gender-specific (as that would make it sexist), but I WAS gender-specific in my question because that's exactly what I wanted to talk about. I've edited the topic to make that clear. And I appreciate your responses.

I consider it hypocritical for a feminist to place emphasis on male chivalry and consider it a one-sided OBLIGATION. And I'm glad none of you tried making a case for it. There are "feminists" who consider this normal, and claim those of us who have problems with it are "petty". I think it's a normal thing to do, but it should be RECIPROCATED.

Sagamite, I think you should focus on the ACTUAL definition of feminism, and not the ideologies of shitty clowns and rats that have hijacked the tag. It remains valid for those who stay true to the actual objective of the movement and recognize its boundaries----and there's still a significant number of them, so you can't lump them into a basket with these other "feminists", or ask them to abandon their movement for these cretins.

Having said that, I think the answer you gave in your last statement isn't really precise. Do you mean MALE CHIVALRY (note the emphasis) and "sane" feminism are compatible, or are you talking about chivalry in itself, without gender obligations attached?

Stillfire:
I find it absolutely absurd Nigerians talking about 'chivalry'. Does Chivalry exist in the Nigerian context? Are Nigerian men 'chivalrous' to Nigerian women? The origins of this word which has medieval knightly symbolism has absolutely nothing to do with Africans. Modern western applications of the word like 'holding the car door for women', "offering" your jackets when it's "cold", has absolutely nothing to do with us.

Nigerian men were/are NEVER chivalrous. Nigerian women have never benefited from this 'chivalry' culture. Where we come from women SERVE men and not the other way round. This topic is dead on arrival and not applicable in our context. It should be 'debated' on a Western board. They are the ones that know what they mean by their 'chivalry'.

However, The FEMINIST language is to give courtesy to everybody, i.e to show politeness in one's attitude and behavior toward others. Holding the doors for people (no gender specificity) is polite. That is the FEMINIST view. Very simple and clear.

And Sagamite, the word FEMINIST is a very good tool to weed off badly behaved Nigerian males from ones life. Very, very effective and less stressful. As long as evil customs engineered by the patriarchy exists and parades itself as culture, religion and tradition, feminism MUST co-exist with it. Yes, it's been a long while, just remembered this site exists, thought Seun would have killed this nuisance site eons ago. I am back to torment your soul.

Stillfire:
I find it absolutely absurd Nigerians talking about 'chivalry'. Does Chivalry exist in the Nigerian context? Are Nigerian men 'chivalrous' to Nigerian women? The origins of this word which has medieval knightly symbolism has absolutely nothing to do with Africans. Modern western applications of the word like 'holding the car door for women', "offering" your jackets when it's "cold", has absolutely nothing to do with us.

Nigerian men were/are NEVER chivalrous. Nigerian women have never benefited from this 'chivalry' culture. Where we come from women SERVE men and not the other way round. This topic is dead on arrival and not applicable in our context. It should be 'debated' on a Western board. They are the ones that know what they mean by their 'chivalry'.

However, The FEMINIST language is to give courtesy to everybody, i.e to show politeness in one's attitude and behavior toward others. Holding the doors for people (no gender specificity) is polite. That is the FEMINIST view. Very simple and clear.

And Sagamite, the word FEMINIST is a very good tool to weed off badly behaved Nigerian males from ones life. Very, very effective and less stressful. As long as evil customs engineered by the patriarchy exists and parades itself as culture, religion and tradition, feminism MUST co-exist with it. Yes, it's been a long while, just remembered this site exists, thought Seun would have killed this nuisance site eons ago. I am back to torment your soul.


I remember being asked whether I was a feminist. I answered, “No.”

The girl who’d asked the question almost took my head off, “Do you have sisters?! A mother?! How can you live in this world and not be a feminist?”

She’d asked me the wrong question and assumed that because I didn’t define myself according to the “ism” known as feminism, I didn’t support the ideas of wellbeing, equality and progress for women.

She thought I dissociated myself from feminism because it was about the empowerment of women — in fact, I’m not a feminist because it’s an ism.

Isms often turn into breeding grounds for hate, propaganda and worst of all, dogma.

When you commit to an ism, you become chained not only to the idea you believe in, but also the ideas adopted by those driving the agenda of that ism.

When I was younger, I’d always considered myself a feminist. I’m a man who was raised by women — a mother and four sisters — how could I make sense of not being a feminist?

As well as feminism, I defined myself (at various times) as being an adherent of Afrocentrism, liberalism, atheism… a longer list of isms than my very long list of Nigerian names.

Then I got tired. Tired of keeping up with all the things I was “supposed” to be if I were to remain a part of these isms. Things that were defined for and forced on me. Things that were more about propaganda than the truth.

If I wanted to be afrocentric, I needed to believe in the idea of the “white devil” (I don’t). If I wanted to be a feminist, I needed to believe in the idea of the “man devil” (I don’t). If I wanted to be an atheist, I needed to believe in the idea of the “theist devil” (I don’t).

With isms, there’s always an “Other” and this “Other” is always to blame.

Sagamite:


Dictionary definitions are not concrete, they are sometimes disputable.

They are based on prominent and extant definitions, that are not necessarily right.

For example, someone against some homosexual pressure group wishes is termed "homophobic" by these lunatic groups.

The last time I checked the meaning of phobia in a dictionary, then the definition of homophobia is not representative of phobias.

There is nowhere I mentioned "Muslims". I used Al Qaeda member/supporter. That does not imply all Muslims.

Just like I used Nazi, not Germans

And used colonialists, not Caucasians.

So you point is not valid

The point I made was that calling your self a discredited tag would raise and objection to you, no matter the alternate ideals you claim to espouse.

You OWN dictionary definition makes your point meaningless.

See definition 5.

Chivalry is about how MEN behave towards 'women', not how your established/selected lover behave towards you.

Don't mix up 'Loving' with 'Chivalry'.

monex:


to add to my earlier point:

thinking that a woman should do a particular role does not logically translate to discriminating against those who do not fit those role expectations.

Freedom of religion allows me to practice my religion. However, believing in one religion makes you think in your head that those practicing other religions are wrong. does this translate to discrimination? No

If i were to refuse them work or public entry on basis of their religion, would it now be discrimination? Yes

ReinaFarine:


My role most times determines my respect. If you think of a woman as a weak, fish-brained, aesthetic vessel for childbearing and nothing more, you will never accord her the respect she deserves as a smart, strong, problem solving human. If you think of her as cheap for proposing relationship, you will definitely act differently towards her than if she had let you propose.

ReinaFarine:

If the dictionary can no longer be trusted to give meaning to words, then what book is universally accepted to do that? Everyone has a definition to fit the word depending on the situation and if we can't trust the dictionary yo give us one standard then where will we get standard from.
If I am not to use the dictionary to define feminism, then please tell me, in your own words, what is feminism? And by what authority do you define the word for it to be acceptable as more accurate than the Oxford Dictionary?

ReinaFarine:

I don't know where you got that definition but I'm gonna attach the dictionary definition of homophobia.

ReinaFarine:

Who is an Al Qaeda Member?

ReinaFarine:

No dictionary confuses it for peace loving Muslims in service to their God. Dictionary honey. The fact that most terrorist hide under the umbrella of Islam Jihad doesn't make them the true Muslim. Most times, there is discrimination almost to the point of abuse against the true Muslim because of this boisterous few tarnishing the image of Islam (not alqaeda) doesn't change the dictionary definition of Islam. Everyone know who an alqaeda member is there is no twist in the definition.

ReinaFarine:

I also attached the dictionary definition of A Nazi.

Check your Dictionary honey.

ReinaFarine:

Don't confuse misandry for feminism. No matter how much some Misandrist (terrorist/Nazi/slave traders/colonialist) try to hide under the umbrella of Feminism (Islam/German/Libyan/Caucasian) to express and portray their vile wicked acts, as long as the dictionary definitions of this words have not changed, I am still a feminist. Until the word feminism no longer supports the social, political and economical equality of the sexes, I am a feminist. Until the word because synonymous to Male slavery and abuse, I am a feminist. You don't get my point fine. Give me a word from your beautiful non dictionary book to call a person Like me and I promise to have it tattooed on my forehead in bright pink.

ReinaFarine:


Courteous behavior, especially that of men towards women
. This is the fifth definition true?

Chivalry means Courteous behaviour. It never makes the female excluded from showing this form of courtesy. It says especially that of men towards women
Not
Courteous behaviour of men towards women. There is a difference honey. And if you can't see it, I'm too tired to point it out.

Especially is different from specifically.

ReinaFarine:

Another thing you seem to be confusing is the OP's question. Should a feminist expect male chivalry? From my Lover, I expect courtesy and respect. From random strangers, feminism teaches that bothe gender should learn to respect and show courtesy to strangers. Any questions?

ICEMAN:
Male Chivalry and feminism are mutually exclusive. Here in the States feminism has made it that men don't give a bleep about women. If you are my equal then you should be able to open your own damn doors yourself. You should be able to go to Sambisa and be on the front lines and not in the camp taking selfies with AK 47's. Feminism destroys societies. It has consumed and destroyed the family unit in the United States and if Nigerians do not take time it will consume Nigeria next.

For all the women it is a fact that men marry less in countries where there is a strong presence of feminist ideology. There are also much more divorces in such situations. If you are crying there are no good husbands in Naija just wait till the feminist movement takes off and you will wish for these days to return. In the US feminists are denouncing feminism and trying to bond back with men because they have seen that they cannot function without men. The result is that there is difficulty for men to accept them because most men already have a preconceived notion about feminists and believe that a leopard can never change its spots.

A word of advise to the bunch of ignorant and western value copying women out there. If you want to destroy your family,become a feminist. If you want to be successful maintain your culture.

Sagamite:


They both didn't claim it "shouldn't" be gender-specific.

They tried to claim it is not.

Chivalry is!

Chivalry in non-war situation is about men recognising the weakness of women and being obliged to treat them gently and with care.

It is not about women reversing this towards men, and not about men applying the same philosophy to other men ......................(except to effeminate ones in a Gay village).

Tohzara:
Treating people gently and with care because they're women is sexist and incompatible with feminism.

A lady therefore CANNOT claim to be a feminist, and demand that she be treated in such manner BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMAN. That's tantamount to having one's cake and eating it.

greiboy:


Many people believe fairness in all situations is the best way to deal with issues in relationships and the society in general as against equality for equality sake.

Sagamite:


On the other hand, a woman who's ideals are to be treated with equity.

That is, her fight is for a female to have the freedom, liberties and rights to make choices about her individual lives and the direction of her future irrespective of the expected gender social norms, but yet is conscious of (and accepts) gender differences and her evolutionary and biological limitations; these kind of female's ideals is compatible with chivalry.

That kind of woman I am happy to be chivalrous towards.

.

ReinaFarine:
Sagamite is quite pained with the word feminism.... Well even though the word has been bastardised and used as a term to support man-hating and pseudo-abuse against the male gender, as long as the dictionary definition still reads a person who believes in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes, I AM A FEMINIST. I don't know but you can check the definition of who a Nazi is, who an Alqaeda sympathizer is or whatever, The definition of the term kind of describe who the person is and what they support. So until the term gets so bastardized that the definition changes in the dictionary, I am a feminist.

The fact that millions use the I AM A MUSLIM FIGHTING FOR ALLAH to defend their acts of terrorism doesn't make every Muslim a terrorist. The fact that Libya is now a very big market for slave trade doesn't make every Libyan a slave trader. The fact that most Yoruba young men are known for their flirty playboy attitude doesn't make every Yoruba man unfaithful. I define true feminism and until the dictionary meaning of that word changes to a man hating (sometimes to he point of abuse), sad, depressed, lonely, old, hag of a lesbian. I AM A FEMINIST.. And you can take that to the bank.

Give me another word for a person with my beliefs and I will swing that flag so high you'll see it from outer space until then, please call me a feminist.

And for chivalry, once again I'll go with the definition of the word. I have attached the definition of the word that i can find in a picture to this text. I'll appreciate my partner (not a random male figure) to treat me kindly. Why? Because he loves me. Not because I am weak but taking care of me is his utmost priority and he will strive to do anything to put a smile on my face. And I will do likewise. Anything to put a smile on his face. It becomes misogyny if the reason he is taking care of me is because he considers me fragile and incompetent of doing little things like opening my car doors or zipping up my gown or pulling out a chair on a date or any other perceived form of chivalry. Similarly it will be insulting if the reason I pack his lunches, fix his cufflinks, and all are because I consider him too stupid to handle such task. Note he is not doing all these because I am a woman. He is doing it because I am his soulmate. Kisses.

AnonyNymous:
Tohzara (the newest incarnation of your ever changing name ) you misspelled my username! That's why I didn't see this

What happened, did you get banned?

Tohzara:
Lol. Sorry about that. I guess I mispelled quite a number of monikers.

Hahaha. Yes o. I was banned. I'm still looking for the mod that did it.

AnonyNymous:

You and your bad mouth ehn

Some of your replies on that other thread really cracked me up lmao. Needed something to laugh about while still in this hospital

Tohzara:
Some people need the flogging.

Lol.

What are you doing in a hospital? I hope it's all good?

AnonyNymous:

Yeah, I did mention I was dealing with some health issues. I'll probably be discharged on Wednesday.

Sagamite:


Chivalry originated from war situations and from Knights.

The former is from a period where women did not participate in wars, the latter was a position women could not attain.

So, sorry, Chivalry is gender-specific. A woman cannot be "chivalrous". They can have or demonstrate the behaviours but the tag is not attributable to them in general.

Feminism cannot be compatible with chivalry.

Apart from war situations where the definition of chivalry is about mercy, the other definition of chivalry is premised on acknowledging the weakness of the other sex, which modern feminism would not accept.

The latter definition is not demonstrated by men towards other men except they are poofs (homosexuals).

MissWrite:


I've been looking at this for a while........ Sagamite, if you want to limit your definition of chivalry to chivalry as it relates to knights (which indeed is the origin of the word), then you're going to have to accept that chivalry is not even a male-thing. It is not gender-specific; it is vocation-specific. It's an esoteric culture or code of conduct which applies only to knights, but not to men in general. And it would interest you to know that there have been female Knights throughout history. Whereas I'm sure you're familiar with females in battle (like Joan d'Arc, or the samurai Nakano Takeko), it's (maybe) a less well-known fact that "The Order of the Hatchet" was a military order of knighthood for women. And this isn't the only example, there were several militissas in the middle-ages.

How can it, therefore, even be taken for granted that men who aren't knights would abide by that code? What right do they have? This is just a residual deposit of all the fairy-tales we were told as children: Cinderella, sleeping beauty, Rapunzel..............the white knight in shining armor; a purely romantic notion which conveniently disregards the existence of female knights because it's bent on creating a pretty picture. It's fantastic (not........I mean fantasy).We don't necessarily remember much of history; but we cannot forget these stories that have immortalized the knight in shining armor. Feminism doesn't think much of these misogynistic fairy-tales where women are often depicted as the prize to reward a man's valor: if you slay the dragon, you can have your pick from my array of beautiful daughters. And somehow, we know, he'll pick the youngest, who's sweet and coy. Not only are these tales sexist, but they're agist as well. Remember how Cordelia was more virtuous than Regan and Goneril? Some of these fairy-tales need to be stood on their heads. Shrek has been great in addressing our obsession with beauty, but we've got a lot more thinking to do in order to shake people out of this dream.

The truth is, chivalry has a much wider application. When knights no longer hogged the word for themselves, and extended it towards en (in the age of Romanticism or idealism), why would it suddenly lose its fluidity now, when women are claiming it too in this age of Realism? Even after the accommodation has been made in the dictionary. When a man gives a woman his handkerchief to dry her tears; it's considered chivalrous, is it not? If a woman dips into her massive handbag to hand a man her handkerchief, why should it be considered anything less than chivalrous? Even if he's only using it to wipe his seat. Is chivalry not in the "thoughtfulness" of the gesture? (I think that it most definitely is) Or must there be a tearful, helpless creature at the receiving end (not just a needful one), a position men just won't be associated with out of their own free-will. And a position which, naturally, clashes with the portrayal of the strong feminist woman.

But.....

MissWrite:

Feminism isn't about denying weakness; it is a human thing after all. Real-life situations are unique, and so are real-life people; we all have various strengths that can compliment the weaknesses of others regardless of gender. Feminism, however, is against casting women, as a gender, as helpless damsels in distress and, therefore, limiting chivalry to the self-serving, ego-boosting frivolities which men accord the DID. Isn't that a slap in the face of knighthood, though?

Sagamite:


No, darling, I am not limiting it to knights.

As I said earlier, the word chivalry has metamophise into two different premises based as demonstrated in all dictionaries:

a) Knights (in war situations)

b) Men (in their specific, considerate behaviour towards women)

Two or ten female "knights" out of over probably over 100,000 knights in history is not really a strong argument.

I would not even accept black people as academic based on two or ten of them winning Nobel Prizes out of the over 200 Laurettes in history. So that knight one is really extremely weak.

Again, the bigger emphasise is that the word is almost never used for women or attributed to women's behaviour towards men.

You have a better chance of convincing me "pretty" is used for men. And the chance for this in itself is virtually zero.

Chivalry is a word for, and expectation of, men.



Well, the leading voices in feminism would disagree with you.

In their warped mind, apart from physical strength, they argue that men and women are virtually the same naturally. No difference.

That:

- Women have equal intelligence as men.

- Women have same type of intelligence as men.

- Women love sex as much as men do.

- Women are as promiscuous as men.

- Women are as logical as men.

- Women are as good and interested in STEM subjects as men.

- Women have the same career aspirations and drive as men.

- Women want the same things in life as men.

etc.

They argue that the difference we see is only because of "patriarchical" society's nurturing. "It is all about nurture, not nature".

And if you disagree with them, you are a "sexist" or a "misorgynist" who just does not want women to be equal.

You see that they are mad?

Some of the other feminists might not agree with this leading voices except when they are engaging with a man in an argument and they see that taking this position can lead to some kind of beneficial advantage. ..................Well, trust a woman; as illogical as fck in an argument.

MissWrite:

Okay then. If you are accepting the morphed version of the word, why are you not willing to accept that chivalry ALSO means:

1. Very polite, honest, and kind behaviour, especially by men towards women (Cambridge dictionary).

2. Courteous behaviour, especially that of a man towards women (Oxford)

3. Polite, kind, and unselfish behaviour, especially by men towards women (Collins).

4. The qualities of being polite and honest and having honour that were expected of a knight (Macmillan)

MissWrite:

And as Reina as already pointed out: “especially” does not mean “specifically” or “exclusively”. So you cannot claim that the word chivalry CANNOT apply to women as well.

MissWrite:

I don’t expect you to conclude on the academic prowess of black people based on two (or even ten) Nobel prizes, no. I, however, would expect you to see that Nobel prizes aren’t exclusively given to non-black people; and that black people can also have a chance to win Nobel prizes when they excel in their fields. In the same way, I would expect you to see that women were not excluded from knighthood, even if there were only two examples to make that point. But you would find that there were quite a number. The example I gave you earlier was a whole order of knighthood for women.

MissWrite:

I think you misunderstand the concept of equality which feminism advocates. We cannot say women have equal intelligence as men, when one man doesn’t even have the same intelligence as the next man. Same goes for sex drive, logic and a host of other subjective variables. It’s just simply ridiculous to make such suppositions.

MissWrite:

https://www.nairaland.com/4198664/feminism-relevant-time-place-emancipation

Yes, I agree that society suppresses women with culture and religion. Here’s the difference in the nature/nurture argument: If a woman is tasked with child birth, it is as a result of nature (she has the hardware for it). If a woman is tasked with cooking and cleaning (which are both acquired skills), that’s because she’s nurtured to do so. And because society has certain expectations of men and women, both aren’t entirely free to choose where they want to fit in. Most women are ready to break out of their boxes because they’ve become unsuitable and incompatible with our desires. It should be our right to do so too; and it in no way means that we want to become men.

And as far as your shot on logic goes: No be who first call police dey win case.

Sagamite:


Can you show me where you have seen the term used for female behaviour?

Feel free to go ahead.