that is, regardless of matriarchal and feminist female behavior, you should be a simple knight just because it is your innate "masculine" duty. see how in no post did she mention how women should change their petty behavior, this doesn't matter to trads, so, is the male obligation unilateral towards the woman? simply because she has a vagina between her legs? damn, I love being trad.

>>510338582 (OP)
>hold open the door
I DON'T NEED YOU TO HOLD THE DOOR OPEN
>say "have a good day ma'am
I'M NOT A MA'AM
Who cares what whores, roasties, or women want

>>510338714
by the way, let's not forget the feminist roots of European "chivalry." It first began as a movement of virility and honor, then a Neolithic cult of the fertility goddess

>>510338582 (OP)
Every generalization is a loss of nuance and at the same time an attempt to establish an expected baseline.
Men shouldn't want either. Not every woman deserves chivalry, and creating a standard where they feel entitled to it doesn't serve men either. Rather, scarcity creates value, so it makes more sense to be chivalrous to only the few women who deserve it (which, as a prerequisite forced men to learn how to tell instead of becoming door-holding tools).

Chivalry had expectations on both parties and when one side has made it clear that they have every intent of using and abusing the other without ever trying to be good or noble themselves, then to be chivalrous towards them rewards bad behavior.

>>510338963
I'm already against chivalry in itself, especially when you study it from a historical perspective. Anyway, I understood your post and see that this roast opinion is quite common among women, especially when they talk about how the gentleman died and other things.
>These women don't deserve it
>But I certainly do.

>>510339110
Disgusting

>>510338582 (OP)
You want me to be chivalrous but you haven't given me a horse, a suit of armor, or a holdfast. Hold up your end of the bargain.

Furthermore, see a dynamic where when chivalry is demanded of men, it is usually accompanied by semantics based on how men actually misunderstand chivalry and must learn how to be gentlemen again, but the more pertinent question would be
and who exactly would teach this "chivalry"? or rather, be chivalrous in the precepts of whom?
I'll let you answer me haha

>>510339204
Yea, that's the old "but I get you" gambit where they pretend to understand your perspective to ingratiate themselves. Kinda what Pearl, that female manosphere chick, does.

>>510339609
>Pearl
This
By the way, if you want to take a look at how chivalry was destroyed and transformed by medieval proto-femoidnist women, read this article:
https://gynocentrism.com/2016/04/15/articles-about-chivalry/

>>510339876
>And even when a quota includes her in the decision-making process, she still feels angry at the “male dominated government” because she feels both the condescension of being given “equality” and the contradiction of being given equality. She is still “the other.”
From Warren Farell (quoted on that site). Quite the insightful comment. ("the other" in the context meaning the dependent, spoiled child who expects to be catered to)

>>510338582 (OP)
We live in an economic zone where the only requirement to be a woman is to call yourself one. There is a group of educated doctors and grown adults who can’t even tell you what a woman is. What sense does chivalry make in that situation?

>>510338582 (OP)
>You should be nice to horrid awful whores... because!
How about no?

No

>>510338582 (OP)
Lol

>>510338582 (OP)
I think I should have a cake and eat it too

>>510338582 (OP)
I'll uphold my end of the social contract when holes do theirs.

>>510338582 (OP)
If women are chaste and virtuous for the sake of it, I’ll consider being chivalrous

>>510338582 (OP)
I feel the masculine need to protect women not because they're womem, but because they're weak. But that's something an average pussy ass demoralised poltard would never understand since they're in the same strength department as well XD Also most of our woman are still normal compared to western fatridden disgenic abominations so that help to remain civil too.

>>510338582 (OP)
She just misunderstood something. Chivalry is for ladies, princesses, women of worth. Not prostitutes, whores, witches and other abominations. Those got killed and burned by knights.

>>510338582 (OP) What if the man is a fag like me? Why would I hold doors open for women or go out my way to be nice to them? I find pussy totally repulsive and I'm not attracted to women.

There's a good reason why I'm gay. Men are much more fun. But also, as a gay man, I seriously don't understand the whole chivalry thing. Why are straight men expected to simp around women and do nice things for them while the woman just sits there and judges his performance?

I've never dated women, so it straight people dating dynamics are really fucking confusing to me? I don't get why one person in the relationship (the woman) feels entitled to receive everything (flowers, gifts, acts of chivalry, having dates paid for) while the other person (the man) just has to give give give. It strikes me as a really shitty deal. It's like girl, you agreed to go out with him. Make some fucking effort, show him you like him as well. That's like the whole point of dating someone

>>510343310
Kek get lost
>>510342005
Correction:
Our women are third-wave feminists and American women are fifth-wave feminists.