Faye Priestley has rounded up the last of the sales bargains for guys
Introducing Modern Man's new columnist, who goes by the name of John Smith...
Nathan Blades shares his tips for successful Christmas shopping
James Tompkinson shares his experience of the all important Christmas shopping.
What I don’t think chivalry means is paying for everything. I don’t think one person paying for the majority of stuff is a great grounding for a relationship. If you always buy her drinks, all she does is come to expect it. However, if you just pay equal shares you can afford to treat her occasionally, which she’ll give you a lot of credit for! Now if you invite a girl out for a drink, you should buy the first round: that’s just the polite thing to do. Usually what happens is the girl offers to buy the 2nd round, or interrupts when you go to. If she doesn’t do this I don’t make a big deal out of it, but she’s lost some points with me. Whether you’re paying for something, or letting her pay though, never make a big deal out of it. You either look stingy, or a dick.
Some great chivalry things you might not have thought of:
The sad thing is a lot of guys who are still chivalrous often also hold some unattractive qualities. You never want to act needy, supplicating, or generally seem as though you’re trying to impress the girl too much. A lot of boy-meets-girl conversations involve one member teasing and gently taking the piss out of the other. While I don’t think this is necessary at all, it is a lot of fun, and when you combine it with some good old-fashioned chivalry, it’s a powerful mix.
Any girls reading this, if you think chivalry is sexist and don’t want your man to take care of you in this way don’t go on a massive feminist rant about it. Recognise it’s not really an objective thing as different girls like to be treated in different ways and just politely tell him it’s not how you personally like to be treated.
Also, being a gentleman doesn’t stop you from going all caveman in the bedroom.
But it's all historical; women are looked after because we child bear, and we were physically weaker and more defenseless. Chivalry is the natural way, it continues with the human tradition! I do polite and kind things for my boyfriend, and would definitely get in there with a punch if someone was starting on him, but he looks after me and protects me most. Not only do I like this,but he does, it's a big part of why we love each other! We enjoy the traditional gender roles, and it's good.
seriously? that last line bleurgh haha
I think the basic rule is everybody treats everybody else with common courtesy and if men want to do a bit more, given that there's an inequality of capability in this area between the sexes, then they should go for it and more power to them, so long as they don't come over as demeaning or imply that women are incapable of looking after themselves.
As for women, if they want to embrace this above-and-beyond attitude or not then it's up to them as a matter of personal preference. But, however you look at it, it's not a bad thing. Most women are far from helpless, but there are plenty of situations where they're at a natural disadvantage, and I tend to think it's right for the stronger to protect the less strong as a general principle, irrespective of whether or not it's a man/woman thing. (And women are generally less physically strong - it's not a matter of perception.)
However, I would say, in the coat-giving example, that if I were to offer my coat to a girl who was clearly freezing and she refused, I would take this to mean that either a) she detested me and would rather freeze to death than have my coat wrapped around her, or b) she was too proud for her own good and incapable of accepting help. Responsibility is fine, but we all make mistakes, and accepting a guy's chivalric gesture isn't a sign of weakness.
Some people won't be happy until university life goes back to the early 80s, with overweight lesbians forcing apart straight amorous couples in the union bar and haranguing the girl and threatening the guy! So my mother tells me! Can't people just be left alone? Why the sour ridicule? It just makes you sound unhappy and you're not convincing anyone. I love my girlfriend very much, she's highly intelligent and capable. This does not stop me from being chivalrous or our settling into some traditional gender roles. It would be pretty hard to convince most people that this was funny, weird or wrong in some way. Some people are just bigots.
I'd hate it if my boyfriend was chivalrous. I get a kick out of pushing him around, dopey, timid, metrosexual half-man that he is. 
I agree with you #22, it's really disgusting that a couple can be happy and enjoy a traditional relationship with the boy looking after the girl, in fact it's offensive. Oh, wait... no.
P.S I heart anonymous 25
Come on, clearly I was talking about the last line of the article and how cheesy it was?! not really sure what you've taken offense to #26 but ok, glad you've got that out of your system
#21 and #24, what are 'traditional gender roles'?
Well, I'm guessing it means the woman handles the domestic side of things and gets to spend more time with the kids, and the man goes out to toil in the field all day to earn the bread. Or something. Although in a university boyfriend/girlfriend setting this seems a bit unhelpful.
comment deleted by the author OOh, soz, Gillian. I meant 'traditional' gender roles. All sorted for you now? #24
Gillian, your name suggests you are not from Mars, so I presume you have been socialised into a society. Therefore you are already adequately versed on the traditions of society, and know very well what I mean by 'traditional gender roles'. I refuse to engage in pointless debate like that you seem to have enjoyed starting with earlier commenters of this article, on other terms that you know the meanings of.
I was just hoping you would spell them out so that we could see what outdated expectations you hold about gender roles. But instead you assume everyone agrees that women are traditionally the caregivers and homemakers, and men are traditionally the workers and protecters (assuming these are what you meant).
Asking for you to explain terms you use isn't pointless, it's supposed to highlight exactly what outdated assumptions you're using.
#24/31, Hilaaaaarious!
Gillian,
1) fetch yourself a dictionary and look up traditional.
2) get off your feminist high horse and stop trying to start arguments.
3) lighten up.
All of that would be more convincing if you didn't post anonymously.
My high horse has never expressed feminist ideas, but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt.
#24 might wish to come back and do battle with you himself but I agree with him quite strongly so I hope he'll forgive me for stepping in.
I confess to being almost in awe of a sort of...how can I put this politely...curiosity in how other people live mixed with an assuredness that you hold a monopoly on what is right, outdated etc that you seem to have. You judge very speedily, do you not? And impressively dispassionately!
Like #24, I consider my girlfriend to be an enormously talented person. I have a higher opinion of her character, intellectual prowess, resilience, inner strength and humanity than those of any other person I have encountered. I recognise in our relationship what #24 calls 'some traditional gender roles'. I am quite happy with his terminology and feel that I understand it well. Rather like your problem with the use of the word normal, you feel that you need clarification and find the word traditional troublesome.
I would imagine that when #24 speaks of 'some traditional gender roles', most of us would understand him to mean gender roles which correspond to that which it is generally held to have been long established. However, the word we have perhaps used wrongly is not traditional, but roles. In my case, and from what he says about his high opinion of the independence of his girlfriend, his, I would be more keen to stress traditional gender behaviours.
I'm sure you will need some further help with what I mean here. I'm not sure the gender roles in my relationship are that traditional. My girlfriend is likely to out-earn me in the future and will probably have a job of more significant worth. She is unlikely to want to spend more than a fairly short time being a home-maker and at-home mother. You seem to suspect that #24 would allow his girlfriend to, perhaps, be a little shop girl or something but generally wait around for him to bring back the bacon. I doubt this is what he means. In my relationship, we enjoy a measure of tradition (remember: that which is commonly held to be a long-term established attribute or characteristic) in terms of my acting in a chivalrous way, of going out of my way to offer comfort, security, making sure that she never walks home alone, defending her in public and some of the other behaviours mentioned in the article. She enjoys this and feels that it corresponds to her preferred model of masculinity. It's not about chaining her to the cooker and using her as a baby factory.
The thing that I am keen for you to try to get your head around is that in the opinion of very many millions of people, there is nothing reprehensible, odd, unusual or worthy of mockery here. And if there were, I am starting to suspect that it is unlikely that it would be you who was best placed to point it out.
You do seem to be rather on a high horse. As the writer and contributors explain their views on relationships to you, you seem to wish to sit in judgement, as arbiter of what is out-dated or politically faulty. That is not a power or a skill I would encourage you to feel you had.
Your assumptions about your own importance in moral arbitration, and your pedantry, make me think that you are not at all the sort of person I would wish to be in a relationship with. But I would not want to comment on or judge whatever sort of relationship you aspire to, no matter how daft or distasteful it might be to me privately. Aren't we allowed the freedom to live and let live in Gillianworld? We are in mine.
#28 Gillian...what on earth do you mean by 'are'?
Mr Spelling, I did not state at any point that I thought #24 had a wish of 'chaining her to the cooker and using her as a baby factory.' Instead, I asked if the gender roles they meant were 'that women are traditionally the caregivers and homemakers, and men are traditionally the workers and protecters.' This seems precisely your definition of traditional - 'that which is commonly held to be a long-term established attribute or characteristic.' So I would appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth.
Rather than judging anyone for the way they conduct their relationships, I wished to express my distaste for Mr Hitchens' penultimate paragraph, and then to genuinely provoke a discussion on what we mean by 'normal girls like it', or 'traditional gender roles.' Or indeed 'behaviours.' Pedantry to you, but an interesting and important discussion for someone studying gender and, further, reading recent studies and critiques of gendered behaviour and psychology.
Telling me to 'get off my feminist high horse' is neither explaining a view nor adding to a discussion. You say that I should not get an inflated sense of my own importance, yet you scoff at any attempt to question things that seem common sense to you, and dismiss my questions as pedantic. You are indeed in no position to comment on your distaste or otherwise for my aspirations in relationships; if I have at any point done that to another person in this discussion, call me up on it.
"and would definitely get in there with a punch if someone was starting on him"
Please don't do this - unless, obviously, it's a girl.
Haha, the comments about the penultimate paragraph being immature are hilarious if you know what nearly went into the article.
That paragraph was there precisely to prevent this argument from breaking out. I know...... epic fail apparently. These articles are about practical advice, not whatever the hell it is that this argument has devolved into.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report