Yes, women want to feel protected and men want to feel appreciated for protecting.

What feminism did is say that women don’t need the protection of men and that women shouldn’t appreciate men – unless men become more like women.

I’m exaggerating a bit but this has been the tendency. Male-female relationsships and ways of interacting were broken, and women are only now starting to realize that feminism has hurt them too –– deeply.

This needs to be healed, and expressing appreciation for men the way you do is a step in the right direction.

Bottom line: chivalry and feminism are mutually exclusive.

Although it may be an excuse for laziness, I can totally understand how some men feel ’scared’ to do a simple gesture like hold a door open for a woman (though, to be fair, that should apply to anyone) or offer to carry something heavy for her if she is struggling, in fear of having his head bitten off and being called ‘chauvinistic’ or ’sexist’.

But, as surely as north poles are attracted to south poles, this is one of the deep-rooted laws of attraction. While you may be proud to be a strong independent woman, I can tell you that there isn’t a woman I don’t know who wouldn’t go weak at the knees if a man did something like, for example, pull her chair out for her on a date. It couldn’t be easier to make a good impression so soon on a date.

And I’ll tell you why it works: because, with that one simple gesture, you show or suggest that you are: romantic, kind, sensitive, attentive, unselfish, RESPECTFUL, to some extent protective (one of the most powerful magnetisms there is, at the end of the day), well brought-up, polite, and most importantly of all…THOUGHTFUL TO HER NEEDS!! Also, since chivalry is so uncommon…. YOU WILL STAND OUT FROM HER OTHER DATES IMMEDIATLEY!

There you go, lads! With one simple move you will have seriously impressed your date, and as you can see it is NOT treating her as inferior! It shows you respect her and she in turn will respect you for it!

Of course, there are feminists that may take offence to such small gestures, but we are only human and react to things differently, and this is why I really wish sometimes feminism wasnt around. But I can bet you that 9 TIMES OUT OF 10 it will impress the woman as it shows the qualities above such as being attentive to her needs, and every woman secretly wants her man to be a bit protective, defensive of her (and their children) which is why in recent forum posts I read a woman was so deeply upset when: an angry neighbour showed up at the door, she was left to deal with him as her hubby high-tailed it to the garage when he saw him coming, later saying that he “didn’t like confrontation” - which is an excuse for nothing but cowardice, as nobody really does! Surely he loved his wife more than he ‘hated confrontation’, and wanted to stand up for her and protect them both? This is also the reason why the notorious Athena ‘Man & Baby’ poster was so popular.

In conclusion, I really hope feminists who attack chivalry, an act these days born of thoughtfulness/affection, not oppression, as although women are mens equal we are still DIFFERENT with different needs from our partner, because if chivalry goes completely then I belive we will have lost something quite special.

However, there are hypocrites who call themselves feminists who want equality but only when it is to their advantage and want inequality, such as chivalry, when that is to their advantage. First, they aren’t true feminists. Second they are hypocrites and self-centered. My advice is to stay away from people like that. You will just end up miserable.

As a single male in an American city, my experience with nearly ALL women (not just feminists) is that they want equality when it’s convenient, and chivalry when it’s convenient. They insists that gender differences are a social construct, and then ten seconds later insist that we adhere to biologically dictated, evolutionary roles. The fact that in doing so they are committing an intellectual and moral about-face within a ten second time frame is completely lost on them. It’s all about what they want, when they want it. Such an attitude is venal at best, suicidal at worst.

Feminism, like most Cultural Studies subjects of the postmodern milieu, rejects fact and logical argument and elevates extreme subjectivism in their place. Linear knowledge itself is scorned as a ‘patriarchal construct’: the search for truth is deemed an impossible endeavor. Is it any wonder, then, that the ‘truth’ consists of whatever a woman wants it to be in the moment, according to her ‘feelings?’ Is it far-fetched to conclude that a woman might not be able to see the TRUTH in front of her because the truth-seeking part of the brain has atrophied in a culture of relativism?

Thomas Sowell is right when he says that life is about Trade-Offs. if you want something Here, you’re going to have to give up something There. There is no such thing as a free lunch. But contemporary western women, fed on an unachievable Utopian diet of You-Can-Have-It-All feminism, have convinced themselves that there is indeed such a thing as a Free Lunch, which is why so many western women are miserable.

Feminism argues Equality, but it does not argue against the purchase of shiny, expensive baubles (read: engagement rings) for women to make them happy. It does not argue against government legislated chivalry like alimony, welfare for single mothers, or women only scholarships. It doesn’t acknowledge that 99% of workplace deaths are male. It doesn’t acknowledge that the wide majority of suicides are male. It doesn’t acknowledge the millions of men in dangerous or monotonous jobs who keep western civilization going, nor the conspicuous lack of women who line up for these jobs when there are openings. Instead, Feminism cherry picks its way towards ‘Equality,’ relying on its Marxist ‘All women are victims, all men are oppressors’ ideology. Feminism wants government legislated equality when its convenient, and government sponsored chivalry when its convenient.

It isn’t a mystery why this wide-spread, government sponsored chivalry trickles down into personal relationships. If it walks like a duck . . . well then, it’s a feminist.

Couldn’t of said it better myself. Women are really ruining everything for themselves now a days.

Does a date have to mean dinner? Why not an activity that is very cheap or even free?

I agree that men should stop paying for dinners but we’re also individuals and we cannot sacrifice our whole life to be activists. So IMO the pragmatic thing to do is to avoid dinners altogether, until there’s a connection between you and the woman.

For me it’s never been a problem to go Dutch, but then again, I’ve never gone to dinner with a woman before we’ve kissed.

This is the obstacle that is very hard to overcome. It seems that women want men to buy their time. People often tell me that whoever asks should pay. That system is flawed because most women don’t ask men out on dates. Honestly men, how many women have invited you to dinner? How many women have initiated conversation with you? How many women have done all the work during courtship?

I’m sure I will be inundated with exceptions. I think it’s funny that there are always many exceptions on the internet. It’s much easier when the one’s providing the exceptions are cloaked in anonymity.

I will probably remain single for the rest of my life, but I don’t care. I will not buy affection and companionship. I will not be a John.