|
|
|
|
|
| How important is chivalry in an relationship to you?
Posted: 8/7/2009 7:29:07 AM |
ACP...interesting.
1. Did you do your own editing? What your interpretation was?
I'm not sure what you mean by editing. I did condense and summarize the observations of the authors. The summary contained the observations of the authors along with the historical contest of each of the transitions of American courtship from the 18th century through the 21st century. The observations and interpretations post 1960s and 70s are predominantly my own and those of colleagues in the fields of social psychology, psychology, social work, marriage and family therapy, sociology, education, and others.
In fact, I have engaged in many conversations and discussions around this topic with two colleagues in particular who conducted research a few years ago around attraction, relationships, and love. These conversations centered around male/female attractions, dating/courtship and the myriad of challenges that males in particular have faced with the disintegration of the separate spheres ideology. In a sense, without a socially accepted unified process, males have experienced a sense of lostness in several areas, one area that is quite apparent is that of dating/courtship. It was especially difficult for males born between 1950 through early 70s. Why? I'm glad you asked. 
Males born during that span were, for the most part, trained by their mothers (primarily) in the art of gentlemanly behavior, e.g. manners, etiquette, and most importantly how to treat a lady, as described in my summary as "protector" with the behavior that many have labeled "chivalry" and indirectly through the observation of their fathers and how they treated their mothers and other ladies. A second area that I have observed more often than not and is being perpetuated still confusion by males born in the post Boomers generations of manhood and the art of manliness and while there is, I believe a connection, that's another topic altogether.
Imagine for a moment how confusing and puzzled a young man must feel when everything that he was taught to practice and was told was the proper way to treat a lady in polite society was suddenly incorrect, chauvinistic, domineering, etc. and often when these behaviors were exhibited, the male was verbally rent by a female whom he was greatly interested. Suddenly the rules changed and there were no longer any unifying process.
As a result, these males became lost and are still lost. When they applied the practices they might receive a thank you or a smile and they might as easily receive severe chastisement and a scowl. Opening a door for a lady became emotional and ultimately a relationship risk. Each women was different. It was difficult to tell which female would appreciate the protecting and honoring gestures and which female would attempt to verbally emasculate him for doing what his parents drilled into him as a child. Many males in that age group have shared with me that the latter occurred more frequently than the former and when they encountered a female who was appreciative, after having a diet of the emasculating types, they pursued them with all of their power and did everything they could to marry them. Understand that this is not generalization of all males and all females, simply the predominant theme of many interviews that I have conducted with males who were born between 1950 to the very early 70s.
2. I noticed that the books/works were 1984-1989. Do you feel that at that time there was a generalized vein of thought from women who wrote books on themes like this?
I just noticed that they were all women and this was in the midst the "trendy" gender behaviour re-structuring thinking that was going on.
I absolutely believe that that these were a generalized vein of thought since, especially the historical presentation of social norms around courtship and dating. Because many a number of people in their late 30s through 40s grew up directly observing the those established norms and expected behaviors in their parent's interactions and on through the entertainment on the television. The 1950s were a popular genre throughout the 60s and into the early 70s. The television show, "Happy Days" presented many of the established and socially accepted practices surrounding courtship and dating. Even "the Fonz" had these skills and practiced them--despite his being "all that". 
Yes, they are all women. Despite the belief that there is great intellectual freedom in academia to research and publish, any foray in the area of historical gender roles, especially men and masculine studies is exceedingly dangerous to one's career if one has not yet established tenure, and even then, they must have crocodile hide for skin. I have been cautioned numerous times by supportive and caring colleagues and mentors to be extremely careful in how I approach and present any work in this area prior to attaining tenure. Of course, if I don't want to teach at any college or university prior to attaining tenure, I can have at it. The thinking behind the dearth of male authors is the political backlash and negative publicity that would likely occur as a result. Publishers want to sell books and do not want to be labeled as chauvinistic or holding an covert male bias.
3. Can you give this post at little bit more balance? Something that was written quite recently by recognized scientists in the field of human behaviour? Maybe some writings from anthropologists, biologists and other studies that encompass the behavior of people? Behaviour is not limited to "social behaviour". It is studied by the academic disciplines of evolutionary psychology, social work, sociology, economics, and anthropology.
I believe that the summary, including my own observations and interpretations were balanced. I wish I had the time to conduct such a study and perhaps someday, I'll write a book on the subject after attaining tenure. I think it would be interesting to conduct a meta-analysis across disciplines on the subject. If my dissertation research wasn't already set, I might have considered it myself and might conduct it later.
I know it's alot to ask, but I think these gestures are not NOT learned social behaviours that pop out every so once in awhile in generations because of some trendy thinking. I watch how males naturally guard the females from danger in every aspect of the animal kingdom....except...lol...the preying mantis or the black widow spider. JMO: Yes, it is a lot to ask. Males do not naturally guard the females from danger in every aspect of the animal kingdom, there are a great many exceptions. In fact, there seems to be a consensus that males are not protecting their females as much as they are protecting their territory. In other words, the fierceness that one might observe in a male lion attacking another predator who is attempting to attack lioness or another member of the pride, attacks just as fiercely if it observes any competitive predator enter its established territory with no lioness or pride member present. Tigers are not being protecting of the a tigress because they care, they are protecting their breeding property from other competitors and will kill their own male cubs if given the opportunity in an effort to reduce future competition. The idea of natural protection of females by males in the human species appears to be rooted primarily in toward protecting and/or defending their breeding rights over the female as a means to propagate the species. If a male holds an emotional attachment, it is reasonable to presume that protective behavior could also be exhibited. With that said, while at one time, pre-civilization, I think that any male would have defended his breeding rights from any other male as it was truly a survival instinct. In this present age, I believe that this no longer holds true and males are as apt to yield to a any danger they deem as more dominant or threatening as they are to attempt any type of protective action. Good ideas and thoughts regarding the various disciplines. Perhaps someone with more available time might look into them. Best, ACP | |
|
| How important is chivalry in an relationship to you?
Posted: 8/7/2009 12:28:00 PM |
The idea of natural protection of females by males in the human species appears to be rooted primarily in toward protecting and/or defending their breeding rights over the female as a means to propagate the species.
A more recent idea, probably because of the advent of genome research, is that we're messengers carrying and moving dna along from generation to generation. The idea is that the driving force is within our genes.
I guess I see the survival instinct and whatever drives it as the larger factor of which breeding rights may indeed be a part.
Concerning comparisons between humans and other mammals or animals in general, we would be better off following the human proof than trying to use species that protect or don't protect their mates, to decide how humans come to the emotional act of loving.
Our sociology certainly played a part. Groups tended to survive because of their ability to stylize breeding rights, after the more immediate needs of food, clothing and shelter were met.
And, now genealogy can be used to analyze human development more accurately because it either buttresses or negates what we've learned in other fields of study that have been around a little longer.
Just some ruminations about your ruminations, Argentum.
. | |
|
| How important is chivalry in an relationship to you?
Posted: 8/7/2009 12:33:29 PM | Of course it's still important. Some guys these days don't value women and they treat them however they want to. This leads many women to see less value in themselves and they lose confidence because they think they're not worth good treatment. I'm glad that it's not completely gone. Personally I love a man that can treat a woman right. I'd be more likely to see a man if he showed that he was a true gentleman. Otherwise it might not be worth it to meet them if they can't show a woman that he cares. Good for you that you understand what a woman wants! | |
|
| |
| How important is chivalry in an relationship to you?
Posted: 8/7/2009 3:10:26 PM | TopChuck,
Your posts are very enjoyable, enlightening and make a lot of sense.
A more recent idea, probably because of the advent of genome research, is that we're messengers carrying and moving dna along from generation to generation. The idea is that the driving force is within our genes.
I could never quite articulate this and you did it so well.
Instincts are our guides/drives to function within our species. What happens when a certain socialogical agenda tries to convince us that our instincts are not right? What does that do to our perception of what's real and what's not? Curious... | |
|
| How important is chivalry in an relationship to you?
Posted: 8/7/2009 6:42:08 PM | Verityone
Just so there's no ambiguity, I was being totally sarcastic.
I understood you were being sarcastic and I agreed with you in the sentiment.
Argentum Crinis Philogus
I understand that in the context of general modern perception many of our specific habbits and assumptions about courting have Victorian origins as you point out (and in fact, I have already stated this as well in this conversation). However, I don't think the history you present here is entirely accurate when it comes to the relationship between courting and chivalry. The idea (and the word itself) that one would "court" their romantic interests was most definately a major, even primary, aspect of one of the three forms of historical Chivalry. I think we can easily and safely push the date you offer back to the 1100s, and can equally say that the idea of "courting" was heavily grounded in this early movement as a function of the philosohpical and literary base (a genre also termed "Romance")
Let me add some sources to the ones you offer in order to illustrate what I mean. These are both primary and secondary sources;
Baldesar Castiglione , The book of the Courtier (early 1500s)
Andreas Capellanus , The Art of Courly Love (late 1100s)
Steaphen Jaeger , Ennobling Love or Origins of Courtliness (modern)
French Chivalry , Sidney Painter (modern)
Handbook of the Troubadours , ed F.R.P. Akehurst and Judith M. Davis (modern) | |
|
| How important is chivalry in an relationship to you?
Posted: 8/7/2009 7:38:20 PM | | Call it Chivalry. It's only a 15th century term which evolved to mean respect, honor, and kindness toward women. I'm old school that way and in my opinion, it's a rose by any other name. In other words, call it what you want but it means the same thing today that it did in the 15th century. | |
|
| |
| |
| How important is chivalry in an relationship to you?
Posted: 8/8/2009 9:41:16 AM | I may be old fashioned or perhaps it's my upbringing. I love having the door opened for me or my chair being pulled back for me to sit when out dining. To me it shows the considerate and caring way a man would be towards a woman, especially if she is in a relationshsip with him. Saying that I also like a man to be 'manly' strong, adventurous and protective of me. Sadly some women of today will never experience the chivalry and gentlenss of a man. Some women will perhaps not like my post but I love being treated as a woman......
Kathy | |
|
| How important is chivalry in an relationship to you?
Posted: 8/8/2009 9:51:33 AM | ^^^Umm first off get your head outa your a**, then get off your high horse. Its not always about the vajayjay. Thtas not our fault if crybabys like you lose self confidence. chics like you expect the red carpet treatment from some stranger, but what do we get in return? Oh no, we don't want red carpet. We want the stranger to take off his cashmere coat and lay at the ground for us to walk on.
What becomes evident on a thread like this are those that don't know how to treat others with respect period. Those that have issues. Yet am sure some that comment about not opening doors are the same as those that will complain that a woman doesn't do all the cooking, cleaning, etc.
The question was about chivalry IN A RELATIONSHIP. It isn't about complete strangers, but at the same time. If you can't treat a fellow human being with the decency that you expect in return, you know why you are sitting alone.
Some of these posts probably are more suited for creative writing.
EDIT TO BELOW: Oh no, read the thread about women still cooking. My bf is a wonderful cook, he is a butcher to boot! He will give me full fledged showers and doesn't like bj's. Life is good!) | |
|
| How important is chivalry in an relationship to you?
Posted: 8/8/2009 10:55:01 AM | For those who have been following the thread I would further my point. I read a study that one who is not given the tools for emotional intelligence at a very young age will never have it. The lack of being exposed at this primary formative juncture literally prevents growth in some key physical aspects of the brain. While this is not innate in the sense of genes the way some others here were talking about, it is still a physical defect. The person who lacks this will forever be unable to fully grasp some aspects of social interaction above a base level. Exempli gratia:
And lemme guess, at the end of the day you also want him to give you a nice back rub while feeding you strawberries with whipped cream too? But still, what do we get in return? a sandwich?, a BJ?
Is that behavior just a lack of having been taught simple human respect? Can one be taught grace, refinement and manners even having failed to grasp it at an advanced age? Or is chivalry innate the way some here have suggested.
Just a thought. | |
|
| How important is chivalry in an relationship to you?
Posted: 8/8/2009 10:58:40 AM |
Well if all the bitterness and cruelty is eating away at that precious soul of yours, maybe you might wanna try a more sensitive site like E.harmony.com..
I wouldn't say anything here on POF was eating away at my soul. Just wish if I'm going to read the forums I wouldn't come across immature, angry, stupid posts like yours, but unfortunately there's always the bad with the good. Better off not commenting, I know, so as to give you feed for your fodder. moooooooooo | |
|
| How important is chivalry in an relationship to you?
Posted: 8/8/2009 11:13:28 AM | cdbergerac, I agree.
Unfortunately some on here have no manners at all, and berate and condemn and punish every female, (every person, really,) they come across.
Just the line "But still, what do we get in return? a sandwich?, a BJ? " tells fathoms about the character. Everything is put down to sex, and their getting it. Even nature knows you collect more flies with honey. Lot of lazy people who dont want to make any effort in relationships anymore. Yet expect women to drop to their knees for them. It will be the man offering respect that gets the girl, not the one expecting a BJ for any kindness he puts out. He is just hurting himself with that attitude.
I, as a female, have done lots of things for the opposite that I didnt get "paid" for. And really didnt expect any compensation for doing them. Who thinks when they are pouring an extra cup of coffee, or turning over the remote control, or eating at a specific place, not of their choosing, or making that pot of soup for a sick friend, attending funerals with them, that they will be reimbursed? Everything we do with other people stems from common courtesies and respect. Shouldnt it be more so, if it is someone you actually care about? | |
|
| How important is chivalry in an relationship to you?
Posted: 8/8/2009 11:30:10 AM | | Chivalry ,,, opening doors,,, standing when you get up from the table,,, pulling your chair out for you,,, lighting your cigarette,,, are all signs of chivalry in today's society. How important is it to me,,, its shows he is paying attention to the way you move,,, so yes of course it is important. | |
|
| |
| How important is chivalry in an relationship to you?
Posted: 8/8/2009 1:37:16 PM | | chivalry is something that's positive. I'm sure there are more women who prefer it than not, i guess especially the women with the more romantic nature (not all women are romantic by nature... ever seen stunning beautiful women who don't come across beautiful since they lack graceful demeanor? e.g) i think some women prefer it ( i do to a certain degree) and some don't. it's like believing in god. some people need to know if there is god or not otherwise they feel very unsettling, and some people can just go on with their life without having to be convinved by it either ways e.g. what's my point? i think chivalry is not a 'must have' in a relationship, but a 'good to have' in a relationship. | |
|
| How important is chivalry in an relationship to you? Escape from POF Purgatory!!!
Posted: 8/8/2009 4:22:22 PM | Thanks for your kind words (post 442), daisypetals001. Then you said:
Instincts are our guides/drives to function within our species. What happens when a certain socialogical agenda tries to convince us that our instincts are not right? What does that do to our perception of what's real and what's not? Curious...
I sense you know the answer, because you knew the question. The advent of chivalry may have been for the same reason you posed your question; sociology trying to recapture the facts of genealogy.
Sociology moves so quickly and our genes can take many generations to catch up. Social engineering describes humans as they should behave according to our abilities to fulfill our physical needs. When women no longer needed the protection of males during gestation and child rearing, when it became possible to vary the time within which to bear and rear children, it put women on a level that changed their social status in the reproductive partnership of humans.
Women, technically, no longer need men to provide their physical needs and to protect them and their children until maturation. Men are becoming obsolete in some areas where we were very necessary, before our modernity. We're reaching a time of equality between the genders, at least as far as the physical needs are concerned.
Society has created ways of providing for a woman's physical needs and the protective advantages that a male used to provide.
However, the genders haven't adapted physiologically to those changes - yet. To make those changes may take many generations, probably because this 'human nature' took so long to establish in the first place. That physiology is very complex, because our makeup tends to be interwoven with other aspects of our nature that are more remote than our emotional being - boxes within boxes that are hard to dissociate.
One of the things we've learned and a problem of our genealogical makeup is that single dna doesn't control our physiology, but systems of dna interacting determine how we react to extraneous stimuli. Thus we can't just change one gene and eliminate epilepsy, for instance.
Darwin recognized some species changes in a few generations, because the adaptations weren't as complex.
And, maybe the changes won't be made. It may be that the physiological makeup of humans as we are will be just as conducive to species survival as making a physiological adaptation to equality of the genders. There may be no change that requires a dna adaptation.
Also, since the sociological change seeks to define relationships as equal, if it were the case that the old paradigm produces balance, if not equality, would there be a physiological need to upgrade our human nature?
The point of all this and much of the discussion in this thread is that the human emotional system is different for men than it is for women. The gender differences are from ages gone by that occurred over hundreds of thousands of years. Without the emotional symbiosis created to establish the survival of the species, the complexities of that human nature won't be reversed in the short period of time that the species has learned to fulfill physical needs independent of gender differences.
That begs the question of how to deal with the gap between what we are and what we could be in a state of gender equality. How do we deal with emotional differences in an age where those differences are only important on an emotional level?
First is recognition of the gap and what it has caused. Chivalry was a recognition of that gap in a different age. Many have cited times when there was that same recognition under different names. We've created another gap and need another recognition of our nature, as opposed to our sociology.
Chivalry isn't something to be exchanged for chivalry, as I'll explain in a moment.
We, who are assigned to the purgatory of 'POF' must determine if the theory that men and women are different animals within the same species is correct. If it is, then we should try to describe the way each gender is programmed to behave.
The shortcut once the premise of gender differences is accepted is to determine for ourselves individually, what it is that makes us feel loved. I've asked this question of hundreds of women and the answer I get is usually the same.
Next answer the question of what makes the opposite gender feel loved.
Then think of a way to provide the other gender with their criteria in exchange for your criteria. Can you give them what they want, while still getting what you want? An important adjunct question is can it be done so that there is fairness. Don't forget that the scream for change of paradigm involves the accusation that loving between men and women isn't a fair exchange.
On an individual basis, determine if your love interest is someone who qualifies to make this exchange with you. Is it someone who lights that spark in you that makes you want to make that exchange? Even if they light that spark, are they capable of entering a relationship with you that involves that exchange?
There will always be those who aren't willing to, or capable of, exchanging love criteria with others. They will be forever assigned to POF Purgatory.
I truly believe that chivalry is something that is exchanged for a reward. Other posts asked the question, "What's in it for me?"
Chivalry is a manifestation of respect. The pay off is the appreciation of the woman to whom that respect is extended. (If you don't think that's the exchange count the number of women you see changing tires on the cars of men on the freeway. Then count how many times men do things for women just to reap some appreciation.)
So, my answer to the question is that we have to deal with our human nature the way it is, even though there are those who believe that it should be otherwise.
We can also try to convince those who believe we have to change our nature to accommodate the new fairness, that human loving can remain as it has been for the past two hundred thousand years, while we welcome the new fairness in providing for human physical needs.
After all, if the loving exchange really is fair, as I argue it is, more fairness isn't going to destroy it. It's going to enhance and strengthen it.
Therein lies the path out of POF Purgatory.
. | |
|
| How important is chivalry in an relationship to you? Escape from POF Purgatory!!!
Posted: 8/8/2009 6:16:04 PM | Mr Jacob808
Its called sarcasm pops. Just so you know
Ah! Well since it is sarcasm that means that in fact you support the notion of respect and dignity and were making fun of people who think it is ONLY about "what do I get". In that case you actually have a pretty developed sense of humor, but one that is hard to express in a written format. You can surely understand, then, why your answer to Ms Leona could be seen as disrespectful and immature since that is exactly what you were pretending to be.... for the sake of "sarcasm".
I am glad to learn that you actually don't really feel that way.
On a very different note (without sarcasm)....
Mr TopChuck
Therein lies the path out of POF Purgatory.
And your words surely are worthy of our POF Virgil leading our Pilgrims to think about the issue in an intelligent way.
I have to admit that it is my personal view that civilization is much more fragile than most would like to think, and for that reason I have doubts that we will breed traditional animal roles out of our species any time soon. Even though in theory we are a race of beings that could consciously pick a direction for our own evolution since we are aware of the fact that our mating habbits have implications in the future, I don't see people using that notion in their choice of mates anytime soon.
Thinking of it purely in that balanced crossover between the social and the biological that I believe you are driving at, I think it could be reasonably argued that the notion of "chivalry" (at least this specific form, since the other forms don't promote romance or mating habbits) is an intentional attempt to provide the best of both worlds for both sides. Whether or not it succeeds may be another conversation, but I think the point is there.
I only would like to add that chivalry of this sort can't be reduced to ONLY mating habbits, since there are also chivalric demands between men, for instance. You may still be right that the function has an expectation of reward, but it is not only the reward that the sexes provide each other. Men are expected to be chivalrous to each other, and women "courtly" (since Ms Nina didn't like my use of the term chivalry for the female side) to each other. I just throw this in to lend some weight to the social side of the debate since the biological side seems rather well attested. ;) | |
|
| How important is chivalry in an relationship to you? Escape from POF Purgatory!!!
Posted: 8/8/2009 6:53:56 PM | Why is it that now that I'm older, I can actually feel myself becoming more old-fashioned? When I was younger I never even thought about this stuff.
I find it hard to ever imagine both genders being totally equal. In my mind it's physically impossible as long as women are the child-bearers. At some point during the time of pregnancy and child-bearing, giving birth and nurturing a baby a woman needs to sacrifice time that most men don't have to. True, most men care for their young and help after it's born but they have no idea the physical and emotional toll this can take on a woman, and women have not understood the pressures a man may feel being a provider/protector. However, I do believe we are all equal as human beings, regardless of gender or race, which is quite different. We all have brains and intelligence and emotions and I believe it's been proven most men are stronger physically and women may be more intuitive... I'm no expert that's for sure. But I'll never be one to say we are equal, that doesn't mean I'm saying one is better than the other, I believe we're meant to complement and help each other and unfortunately from my observance of today's society that is not happening, it is going by the wayside. Traditional values and home life have lost their appeal for many as we focus on the differences, independent lifestyles and understandably not willing to put up with the dysfunction that permeates many relationships. In one sense that's good, healthy individuality as opposed to dependence or co-dependence, but we (including me) need to get back to inter-dependence and being there for someone other than ourselves. I think the young have seen too many divorces, and the older have experienced too many divorces, and attitudes are just as the young man said "Why should I? What's in it for me?" Yes it all boils down to getting past the blame, the hurt, and tit-for-tat mentality.
How this applies to gay/lesbian couples I have no idea being that they are the same gender, but they must assume roles that complement and enhance each others' lives, and not worry about silly things like good manners and respectful behavior.
Maybe this all sounds naive because there's good and bad in all people, men or women, but that's just my thoughts on this topic this evening. Obviously there's all kinds of terrible abuse and dysfunction going on in our world, so opening a car door sounds trivial in relation to guys beating up their wives and neglecting their children, and women being users, cheaters, bad moms, etc. Our society today is not helping these people, some are just struggling to survive.
So will it upset me if my date doesn't hold the door? Most people when out on a date don't think about stuff like that, they just notice bad manners or disrespectful attitudes and yes, will assume a first impression from that, do you want a future relationship with someone who obviously doesn't have basic courtesies? No, but it all has to be in perspective, the individual and the situation and how well you know the person, etc. Sometimes people are very nervous on a first date (I know I am) and have momentary lapses in judgment just because of that. A little sensitivity and understanding from both sides can go a long way. | |
|
| How important is chivalry in an relationship to you? Escape from POF Purgatory!!!
Posted: 8/8/2009 7:48:33 PM |
Umm first off get your head outa your a**, then get off your high horse. Its not always about the vajayjay. Thtas not our fault if crybabys like you lose self confidence. chics like you expect the red carpet treatment from some stranger, but what do we get in return?
your answer to Ms Leona could be seen as disrespectful and immature since that is exactly what you were pretending to be.... for the sake of "sarcasm".
Thank you cd, what bothers me the most is assuming that just because a woman wants to be treated with manners and respect this has something to do with the "vajayjay." This term is not something any men I know have ever used around me and I find it so derogatory. | |
|
| How important is chivalry in an relationship to you? Escape from POF Purgatory!!!
Posted: 8/9/2009 12:12:05 AM | Nice posts Topchuck...ms leona & cd...personally, I'd like to see us all accomadate each other...so, it isn't one sided either way...and in the past, I always thought that is what good relationships were about...needs being met in both sides..not dismissing one or the other because you don't understand it, or can't relate to it..
As a woman in today's society I find myself constantly in conflict between what I feel, and what is being said to me I should feel..and being a reasonably intelligent and self reflective person, this dichotomy is getting really frustrating...
The fact is..it's a turn on when men are nice to me, or do nice things for me..that is something that can't be changed...and, yes, their motive makes a difference...if it's to impress with false pretenses, or because they expect something in return...it loses it's value..however, I do not like it because I think I deserve it or it is owed to me, I like it because it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling...men have things that give them those feelings, or ones like them, and personally, I try to keep that in mind with someone I profess to care about..and sometimes I don't understand why some resist doing nice things for someone they profess to care about..things that make them smile or feel appreciated or valued...because, the truth is, regardless of gender, everyone responds better to being treated nicely and with care...and are far more likely to return in kind...
And why they think there is nothing in it for them ( besides the fact that kindness and care should be given freely by anyone), I don't get...in my relationships I would say that I gave more, and cared more about what made him happy than vice versa...I find it hard to believe that most women think that it's all about them, or that they don't reciprocate or even give back more...I don't think most are saying it should be one sided..they are just commenting on what behaviors from men appeal to them...men certainly have said the same about themselves...and , for myself, I always listen...
It's really discouraging to be bombarded with constant disapproval or disrespect ..and being told that how you feel is irrelevant, because what counts is what we think is the proper behavior or feelings...
I certainly don't want any man to be nice to me because he thinks he has to, but because he wants to..and I certainly would both show and speak my appreciation for his consideration..
I keep trying, really I do...but, I just really can not convince myself that wanting a little romance in my life is a bad thing,,,or that men and women are totally the same, and should behave that way... | |
|
| How important is chivalry in an relationship to you? Escape from POF Purgatory!!!
Posted: 8/9/2009 2:27:30 AM | Thank you, TopChuck!
I had these thoughts about human behavior, instincts, drives that collected in a file somewhere in my brain for a long time. Then the file got bigger and bigger ( like a shoebox of receipts) and I needed to sort it out.
You have gone along way towards validating my thoughts.
I am so looking forward to what genome research is going to bring out. Fascinating field.
As far as POF Purgatory...lol...you are right. I am a woman. I was born female, I think like a female, act like a female and like being female. Sure I am smart and capable, but I also would like a partner to drive the bus, too. I like men who are men. I don't want to think like them, act like them or fully understand them. I just us to resonate off each other like a perfect harmony. A flutest may never learn to play a euphonium, but it can play well together in a song. | |
|
| How important is chivalry in an relationship to you? Escape from POF Purgatory!!!
Posted: 8/9/2009 8:54:41 AM |
In all seriousness, I try not to come across as imature and angry but sometimes one does tend to lose control when they speak. But I agree, sometimes its better to not comment at all. Of course at times you do have that urge to reply to others comments.
LOL Please refer to my last comment, which was replied to cdberg. Hope that helps..
Jacob, actually your response to me above helped, thanks. | |
|
| How important is chivalry in an relationship to you?
Posted: 8/9/2009 10:57:49 AM | For those who have been following the thread I would further my point. I read a study that one who is not given the tools for emotional intelligence at a very young age will never have it
Emotional intelligence is a euphemism for a derisive.
Meaning if you aren't behaving in a predetermined pattern, you aren't cultured in etiquette.
Women in certain cultures were "taught" to "behave" a certain way. All the silly things like walking with a book on her head, to lifting her pinky when she sipped her tea.
These are not "innate", as had been proven with all the "grace schools" and such. If it was "innate" it wouldn't have to be taught.
Which is why I personally cringe at the whole chivalry thing. It's like role playing.
Till the corset goes flying off. Then it's back to "nature", and what is really "innate".
Everybody "knows" what really goes on behind closed doors. Why the need to disguise that?
Simple.
Fear.
All throughout history, societies and cultures strive to have"sheeple", not individuals. "Sheeple" are easier to lead due to "herd mentality".
Never mind the DNA and genome research. One needs to look no further than centuries of empirical evidence.
History and Sociology proves that different cultures embrace sexuality differently. Some embrace it, some try and suppress the truth by trying to put "lipstick on a pig", so that it won't appear as "dirty".
The "romantics" simply don't want to acknowledge it.
Social conditioning has been around for centuries.
Polyphony was not practiced till a certain era due to the church. Gregorian chants were all in unison. Only when the church allowed polyphony was there any "harmony" in choirs.
Prior to the "Baroque" period, in music, it was against the rules of the church to end a piece of church music on a minor chord. Music composition followed the rigid ABACABA formula for many years, as was dictated by the church.
The 4th mode of the C Major scale, Lydian, was considered blasphemous because the "flat" 4 of that scale was said to invoke the "devil".
The 'Harmonic Minor" with it's "sharp" 7, and the "Dimished 7" modes were also treading on thin ground in the medieval era, as evidenced historically in later eras.
Chromaticism was also frowned upon till much later in the "Expressionist" and "Impressionist" eras in Classical music.
Ravel's "Bolero" was one of the most singlemost controversial pieces of music in Classical history, simply because of the blasphemy of breaking convention of the ABACABA rules by repeating the main theme "A" with no secondary theme "B" and no development "C".
Indian music is based on a 24 note chromatic row, and is the reason why it sounds so dissonant to "Westerners" and "Europeans". The human ear becomes rigidly "tempered" to the diatonic scale and the 12 note chromatic row that European Classical music is entirely based on.
Some people just do as they please.
And rules are meant to be broken.... | |
|
|
| Page 18 of 21
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 |
|
Home
login 
