By this as you've stated it it appears that it is not the woman's need that they be protected but the need of humanity itself that women are protected. You compliment women highly in this statement, no doubt, and the reason your compliment would get overlooked by a woman is that you are thinking women deserve to be protected but such is not accurately reflected in saying that women need to be protected.

Physical strength is not all that counts a substantial amount in matters of survival. It's true that women in general are endowed with less physical stature, but in counting other significant elements of human toughness such as pain threshold, flexibility, acuity and stamina, the distribution is fairly wide and even over both genders.  Generally speaking the male advantage of being physical stronger and more invulnerable at the extremities is most significant, but it can be unfair to construe this to mean women are always physically weak in comparison.

Sorry the double negative is confusing me, could you rephrase this?

There's probably no solution that would satisfy both sides on this problem, is there. In saying this, a feminist would be thinking long term, not instinctive terms. One would not wish to be deceived by a suitor, though the suitor might wish to bend rules in his favour in the playing of the game. From a feminist point of view one would like to be able to take for granted that what is offered initially is offered indefinitely, however, while women are a prize to be won at some finite bingo moment in the near future, clearly it is more likely that the suitor is charging at the gate with the intent to graze lazily in the field afterward. Frankly, it's enough to give you the shits, but...... that's men.

Chivalroy is something I am complety against.  I am so against it, that it makes me shudder when people mention it.

Why?

Because it's sexist.  Yes, you read me right, sexist.

Doing something against someone due to their sex is considered sexist which is against current western morality, so doing something FOR that person should be considered the same.  Have you ever heard the saying "You cannot have your cake and eat it too"?  Chivalry is having the cake and eating it.  To hell with chivalry, I propose something different.  Common courtesy.

That's right, common courtesy.  Something I was brought up to believe in.  Something I see offended EVERY day, something I take offence to EVERY day. 

It's simple.  Don't care what sex the person is, just be courtious.  Sounds simple, doesn't it?  It's not as simple as you think.  Here's a list of things that offends me EVERY day. 

* If you're walking on a sidewalk, stay to the side that people in that country drive on.  In my country we drive on the left, so walk to the left.  If you're in a country that drives on the right,  walk to the right.  I was taught this in kindergarten.  How fucking hard is it?

* If you have an umbrella, keep it away from peoples eyes.  Lift the fucking thing and close it if you're under a cover.  Once again, how fucking hard is it?

* Let people exit before you enter.  This applies to lifts, trains, busses, trams, buildings, cars and rooms etc. (often mistakenly seen as chivalry and I have been abused for it despite just following courtesy rules - I would and have done the same for a male).

* In the case of doors opening towards you, let the other person go through first as it's easier for you to hold it open than for them (this one varies depending on the size of the party or number of people on either side of the door wanting passage through).

* If a door opens in your direction, hold it for those heading your way (often seen as chivalry again and I have been abused for it despite following courtesy rules - I would and have done the same for a male).

* Say please and thankyou, even if it is that persons job to do what they just did for you. (the exceptions being only for less than adequate service of that job).

Those are four simple things that would  make my life a thousand times better, the full list is a lot longer. 

I do extra things for females like you, yes ... but as I see it it's not out of chivalry, it's out of courtesy.  From your post I think you see things the same way, you're just thinking in the wrong context.  They're good actions, thoughts, and reactions, you're just seeing them in the wrong way.

Edit: In addition.  Next time you do one of these chivalrious actions, simple things at first, think about it.  What would you do if it was a guy instead.  In the example of a girl getting to a door at the same time as you, would you walk through it first or hold it open for them?  If you're a courteous person, your actions would be the same as what you currently perceive as a chivalry.  If not, you're either being sexist in a way (chivalry, cake, eating), or uncourteous.  If they are the same, you're just being courteous which is something that is in dire needs of being encouraged in society.

That's one example I didn't cover in my previuos post.  I have had similar things and I was more than happy to do so.  In fact, I think that situation just after graduating high school was what made me start thinking along the lines I do now.  I was being driven home by a mate, he dropped off someone else first and waited until that person got in their door.  From the moment that person stepped out of the car I was telling the driver friend to drive off, but he waited.  He explained after the person we just dropped off that he was ensuring that person had gotten inside first. 

That's when I realised ... I had been doing the exact same thing for women to that point but not for men I had been driving home.  Since then I've conciously treated both in the same way from dropping people off to opening the car's door for them even when I'm the driver.  Common courtesy, it IS the right thing to do no matter the sex of the purson.  If the sex makes a difference, then whether the actions are good or bad you're still being sexist. 

It's the whole reason as to why these days I am against chivalry, it is why I'm for homosexual equality in marraige etc.  I don't see why anything should be different depending on sex.  This simple act is what taught me that what is referred to as "sexuality" is nothing more than a matter of taste in my opinion, a guy liking a guy or a girl liking a girl to me is no different to a guy liking the colour red rather than green.  I may not agree but in the end it means as much as me loving rare steak and them being a vegitarian. 

Care to actually acknowledge the positions I mentioned, rather than making the generalized attack on chivalry without backing it up, thingy?

Since I'm fast becoming the guy who says what nobody wants to acknowledge, and then confounds the problem by being scientifically accurate, I might as well jump into this one...

In the species, women need to be protected.  That's why most armies don't have women on the front lines.  Women can pull triggers just fine, after all.  Individual women don't often need to be protected because they live in societies with police and double locks and coded entry keypads.  Most women are attracted to men who give them a feeling of safety.

It's tempting to say that this is an evolutionary adaptation that has outlived its usefulness, but think of the alternative.  If women didn't like to be protected, men would stop protecting them.  If that started happening species-wide, women would start joining armies and getting killed in droves, and there really would be a shortage.  When there's a shortage, you know what the men do, right?  They kill each other to get to the women.

In other words, we need the instinct, even though it annoys some feminists.

"In humans, the average male is 10 percent taller, 20 percent heavier, 50 percent stronger in the upper body, and 100 percent stronger in the hands than the average female.  By primate standards, that is a moderate sex difference in body size."

-- Geoffrey Miller, The Mating Mind, Anchor Books, 2001

Where do you want to begin?  Yes.  Men are inherently more aggressive than women.  Traditionally, testosterone has been blamed, and there seems to be a lot of good reasons to continue to do so.  The stats are so clear that I'm not going to waste time digging for them.  Just do any search for stats on violent crime, anywhere in the world.

Yes.  Females are a prize to be won, biologically.  Our instincts have programmed us (males) to pursue and try to win the affection of females.  Most men do this, and most women like it.  There are women who believe they are playing outside the system, but in most cases, they're just after a different type of male who pursues in a different way than most men.

What a lot of feminists I've known have objected to is being treated like a prize after being won.  They don't like when their man "shows them off" or treats them like they're a second class citizen compared to the guy friends.  Though every behavior is rooted in biology, this is certainly one that is highly influenced by social norms, and is much easier to change than the basic dynamics of males pursuing and winning females.

 Chivalry, by definition, is sexist. Before you start jumping on your soapbox, let me explain. Chivalry is rooted in the medieval concept of courtly love; wherein a knight or otherwise honorable man may win the affections of a courtier, always female. He does this by doing gentlemanly deeds directed at the woman he aims to win. He might hold doors open for her, might win competitions in her honor. He probably doesn't engage in intellectual or scholarly conversation with her, nor does he treat her as though she were one of his male friends. She is special, revered, and put on a pedestal. She is the 'object of his affections', and only that - an object. She will eventually become impregnated by him, and bear him children. Quite possibly she is impressed by his deeds, and rewards him with her virginity. The culture they live in is patriarchal - ruled by a religious monarch, and quite often violent. The wealthy women who are 'lucky' enough to be courtiers are treated as dolls - not allowed to run about or go to school.

In feudal systems, however, women worked alongside men in the fields, and while they were discouraged or barred from entering into some professions, they pulled their own weight in the community. A peasant family did not have the luxuries that the leisure class did. They, as a result, did not have chivalry. That was confined to courtiers.

But let's fast forward a bit.

Not all women want to be treated in a chivalrous manner. Quite a lot of women would like to be treated as equals. What do I mean when I say 'equals'? You'd be quite an idiot if you thought that I believed that there are no differences between men and women. Yes, of course there are. No one is saying that there aren't. What we're trying to say is that we have reached a point in our evolution as a species where being physically stronger and taller are not advantages anymore. One does not climb to the top of a business ladder by being more aggressive or by being able to lift heavy shit. One does it, hopefully, by being assertive and with good communication skills - as well as prowess in the chosen field, be it business or art. 

(The military is quite a different story, where men are conditioned to be manly symbols of machismo and aggression. Of course, you're about to go and kill people, to be subjected to rigorous conditions and possibly killed yourself. A certain amount of stoicism and well-directed aggression is necessary. Levelheadedness and cool logic are also vital. These attributes are not restricted to males. Drill sarge may tell you that the opposite of girly is manly. (You're not a bunch of frilly girls in frou-frou skirts, are you? NO! So quit your girly whining and drop and give me twenty!)

This is sexist. This is sexism in one of its purer forms. The equation that someone uses when they call a group of men 'girls' is that woman=bad. They are substituting the ideas of weakness and immaturity with the words 'girl' and 'sissy'. Why doesn't drill sarge call you weaklings and immature boys for being weak and whining? 

Now stop me if they don't do this in the military anymore, but I know a Special Forces medic currently serving in Iraq. I've known him since I was 7 years old and I'd like to think that he painted an accurate picture of what a drill sergeant is like. 

 The belief that women are weaker, in need of protection, and a bunch of sissy girls, is sexist and has no foundation in modern day social interactions. The military is not the real world - it is a place where you are heavily socially conditioned to conform to a patriarchal and hierarchical, quite primitive system of respect, honor, obedience and shame.  

Aggression and physical strength are _not_ desired skills in the modern day workplace or social situation. Aggression has connotations with violence and anger - ie, not desirable. Physical strength is only good for throwing, lifting, hauling and fighting, ie not the only form of power. It's my belief that humans should be able to run a mile without collapsing, do some pushups, and be able to lift their body weight (as in a pull-up). I can't think of any day-to-day situation where much more than that would be necessary. Of course, if you want to body-build to the extent that you can't hold your own penis on the off-chance that you might some day have to lift a car off your friend, then be my guest. 

I think it's a waste of time.

At one point in our evolution, it was quite advantageous for men and women to be able to physically protect pregnant women and children. Just as it may have been advantageous for those same men and women to be religious - to draw hasty conclusions and to believe in something rather than nothing. These were the morals of nomadic tribes. These were the morals of uncivilized people, people without technological advances we have today. Now, we don't have to fear lions and tigers and the onslaught of a neighboring tribe's pillaging. Pregnant women are capable of riding bikes, driving cars, shooting guns and performing judo throws up until their last trimester. Women no longer need male protection. Chivalry is outdated. Sexism is as unnecessary as religion. Yet sexism, like religion, still has modern day practicioners. We still have a long way to go. And there are differences between moderate sexism and fundamentalist sexism - just as there are differences between moderate religion and fundamentalist religion. Strangely, though, the two seem to go hand in hand.

Doing anything for a woman _because_ she is a woman is sexist. At least admit it. 

Chivalry is sexist and quite often unwelcome. And we're not bitches, rude or vain if we don't appreciate your sexist advances. 

Kevin, please don't think I'm lumping you into the group with all the women-hating sexist pigs of the world. I'm not. I'm sure you're a very nice guy and the fact that you consider yourself to be chivalrous shows that you have the best of intentions. 

I probably shouldn't have jumped on you for calling those guys 'pussies'. I should learn to choose my battles more wisely. 

Also, as a side note, just because some women are sexist also, and demand that you hold doors open for them, etc, does not mean that it's okay to be sexist to everyone. Quite a lot of Islamic women have been quoted saying that they 'want to obey their husbands', and that they love being submissive and perfect little virgins. It's still sexist. Men and women are both capable of being sexist.

But do what you want - I'm not censoring your freedom of speech. But using words like 'girly-man' and 'sissy' and 'pussy' to mean weak and immature is offensive to men and women.

I'm not an ultra-feminist. I'm just a feminist, plain and simple. I advocate equal sharing of power between men and women. I advocate economic, social and political equality. Notice there how I didn't say 'biological equality'.

Call me an idealist, but I think we're lacking in idealism these days. 

 I did rebut your points:

1. Women don't need to be protected _anymore_.

2. Women _are_ physically weaker than men, yes. However, some studies have shown that pound-for-pound, women are just as strong, if not sometimes stronger than men. I don't remember what study it was, but it involved the gold-medalists in the olympic heavylifting categories, male and female. The woman was able to lift more weight per pound of her bodyweight. It seems that being naturally smaller is the only major disadvantage women have to physically prowess. Of course, brute force is not the only kind of strength. There's intellectual strength, emotional strength, agility, speed, balance, coordination... c

3. Women do have less testosterone, yes. No one's trying to argue with you on that. But the human mind is capable of all sorts of rank sadism and aggression. These may be directly linked to testosterone levels, but may also have more complex explanations. 

4. No one should be a "prize"! What a terrible way of thinking of someone! It's degrading to think of another human being as a prize to be won, imho. I'm delving into ethics here, but shouldn't a potential mate be someone with whom you are cooperating and sharing visions for the future? Not necessarily parading them about on your arm like a trophy. I mean, by all means be proud if you think you've scored the hottest woman in the room as your girlfriend, but chances are someone doesn't think she's that hot. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We should be judging our mates by compatibility and shared interest, not by whether we think they're a great prize to be compared to other peoples' mates. That demeans the intricacy of human relations. 

YES! Chivalry is a medieval concept! Oh my fucking lord, of COURSE a concept can be based in a culture... not everything is fricking genetic. If everything was genetic, then there would be few cultural and ideological differences in the world. But different people come up with different ideas. Chivalry is a medieval concept for fuck's sake. Knights and Courtiers didn't exist until medieval times. Therefore, self-identification as chivalrous could not have occured until the social conditions for it arose. 

 .... folklore says bible John , the only apostle to survive to old age , had only these words to say, "Love one another" .....

Sorry Kevin  , nothing more to add, at this time  ....     

Kevin - from your posts, I can answer your original question: Yes. You are sexist.

But don't worry. You're in the majority. Everywhere you go, you will be backed up by people who have the same views as you. That doesn't mean you're right, of course.

And you have good intentions - you honestly think you're helping the species by sticking to your guns, defending your dogmatic position with what you consider to be 'scientific evidence'.

You're contributing to the same sexism that allows Islamic women to be beaten and raped, to have their virginities protected with stitches. You're permitting the same sexism that fuels pay discrepancies. You're practicing a moderate form of sexism though - I don't think you beat your girlfriends or rape random women. But you're still moderately sexist.

Feminists - real feminists - are a minority. We don't think that men and women are exactly the same. We just realize that the differences we have are minimal - we have more in common than we have to separate us.

As a feminist, I hold these positions:

1. Women should have equal economic power. (equal pay, no discrimination in the workplace, pregnant couples should be treated as that, couples, and be allowed both maternity and paternity leave, about 3-6 months. places of work, or the government should always offer childcare and allow women to breastfeed in public)

2. Women should not be subjected to unwanted sexual advances (catcalling, the same guy asking you out over and over again, sexual harrassment, rape)

3. Women and Men should share domestic duties and power - that means equal power sharing in the household. Cleaning the kitchen is not womens work. Raising children is not womens work. These are shared duties, they need to be equally shared between men and women.

4. Physical strength is not the only form of power. There are many ways to be powerful that do not involve being strong, tall, fast, etc. In primate communities, the most successful leaders are those that are benevolent, not aggressive. (see Mark Reimers, phD, lecture on secular roots of morality. I know somewhere on facebook there is a recording of the lecture, i'll post it here if you like later)

5. Men and Women are different - and those differences are complimentary. They do not make one superior or inferior. We are equals in the respect that we are all animals on this planet.

6. Human sexuality is complex, and we can't control peoples' fantasies. Therefore I am NOT anti-pornography, anti-strip club, or whatever. I'm not conservative, I'm not a prude. There are many ways of expressing healthy sexuality. Men are NOT inherently evil. Men are NOT all rapists. I'm not the late Andrea Dworkin (anti-porn feminist) here, I'm a level-headed, rational feminist who has thought through her position on this matter.

It takes an epiphany to become a feminist. For some of us it happens gradually, for others there is a distinct "aha" moment. I'd liken it to the journey a theist takes to becoming an atheist.

I chose not to ridicule you for what I consider antiquated and sexist beliefs - but the RRS ridicules theists all the time. Would you have appreciated it had I made fun of you with dismissive condescension?

You're not a feminist. You're sexist. But lucky for you, so are most people.

When you're ready to join yet another hated minority, pm me and I'll give you the titles to some feminist books that might help you become enlightened.

Dramatizing, without backing-up your claim.

More of the same, condescending genuine scientific literature (like Game Theory) without actually presenting an argument. Otherwise known as an Ad Hominem fallacy.

More Ad Hominem attacking.

No True Scotsman fallacy, followed by an unsupported claim.

You hold mutually exclusive beliefs? That's rather interesting.

I agree. Nobody should. It so happens that these things happen more to women than they do men.

Refer back to when I said, 'Women should be protected'.

Now we get into uncomfortable truths:

Who has better nurturing, child-rearing instincts? The child-bearing member of the species, of course.

I agree that women should have the freedom to do whatever they like, and men should not be able to unreasonably excuse themselves from domestic responsibilities. That said - why do you think the behavior pattern of men going-off to work while the women raise the children has persisted? The answer you're not likely to like is a genetic one - we're programmed to do this. Women are more effective, and have better biological tools, when it comes to nursing their offspring than males do. So they take to the task. Men, on the other hand (being more aggressive) strike-out to find the resources to support the family.

No, it doesn't 'have to' be this way. There are exceptions. The key word is 'exceptions', however. We do it this way because that's how our genes operate.

Backpedalling on your argument.

I wasn't discussing 'power' as an arbitrary term. I'll take this as your concession that males are more physically powerful than females (on average).

Correct. Males are not superior to females. But that wasn't my argument, was it? Mine was that females are the more valuable gender, and as a result, we've (rightly) come to protect them.

You're committing what's known as a Non Sequitor logical fallacy.

Your statements seem to betray this as a lie.

Then it probably isn't a rational position.

Again, you've stated mutually exclusive claims. On one hand, it requires an epiphany to become a feminist. On the other, sometimes it can happen gradually.

Which one is true? It can't be both.

I'd liken it to the 'journey' of opening oneself up to the metaphysical, myself.

WHAT!?

You lying piece of shit.

Perhaps I should paste the Skype chatlog here, then, so you can be exposed for the fraud you are? The instance when you brazenly dismissed me as just another chauvinistic pig? The time last night when you offered a faux apology in an attempt to get a concession from me or embarass me, only to immediately reneg on said apology and link to your rebuttal of my argument here immediately afterward?

You're like every other feminist I've ever met: a self-centered, dishonest and sensationalistic bitch.

While we're getting all lovey-dovey, here's what I think of you:

You're an attention-seeker and drama queen. You explode at every little thing you think could be construed as 'sexist', because it's an excellent way for you to get in the center of the spotlight.

Here's my personal opinion regarding the feminist movement, projected from personal experience:

It's far more about physical appearance than it is any kind of principle. A 'feminist' is typically someone who sees an unattractive male, but cannot admit to themselves that they're making a judgement of that person based on appearance (because it threatens their worldview), so invents criteria in their head based on that person's behavior that allows them to tell themselves that they aren't attracted to the person not because of physical qualities but because of more 'meaningful' ones.

When I was a year out of high school, a friend and I would play a game with women we suspected were feminists (he was a very attractive guy - still is - who regularly picked-up 10s) at a billiards hall we frequented. I would introduce myself, do the things I normally do (bow my head on greeting, hold doors when the opportunity was presented, pull out chairs, etc), and be greeted with the typical feminist disgust / eye-rolling. How dare I. Then my friend would introduce himself, and act outrageously chauvinistic. He wouldn't get a single complaint - every single time, the 'feminist' suddenly just played right along. If they were in a close demogrpah, and he thought they were attractive enough, they often went home with him for the night.

Your 'feminism' can get fucked. It's nothing but smoke and mirrors; a refusal to admit that you, like everyone else, judge people by some unfair criteria, and that's just the way the world works.

I've had my epiphany. I am no longer a sexist male.  Men and women are equals and deserve to be treated as such.  Theoretically speaking, if any female should ever physically slap my face over some perceived grievance I shall treat her as my equal and respond likewise by delivering a sharp blow to her face as well.

   Such is the true nature of equality.

Kevin,

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a feminist when DEATH is on the line...

In all seriousness, wow... this is one of the most heated arguments I've seen in a while... and that's including me pissing off everyone in the world by saying that it's equally good or possibly better to not have children.   (What an outrageous thing for me to say!!)

Carry on, folks.

Wow heated discussion. Can I just say, I think Chivalry is sweet, I thoroughly disagree with taking offence to it, there are MUCH better ways of showing your mate what you are capable of doing for yourself than shouting guys down for offering a mere gesture of concern or interest. Shouting guys down for every minor courtesy doesn't do anything but antagonise sexism anyway, it's counter-productive and just plays to insecurities instead of diminishing them. To be against chivalry by condition of what it says about you is merely to give someone else the power to decide how you feel about yourself. Regardless of how dramatically or indignantly you demand that power back, the fact remains that you gave it away and it was your choice to do so to begin with. If you believe how a man acts towards you should say something about you, then you believe it, but you shouldn't blame that on him.

Men aren't allowed to be courteous because it's sexists, we have to treat women as equals, yet if we treat them as equals (like men that would be as an equal to me) then we are pricks. If we are nice, and open doors, that's bad, but if we treat you like an equal, that's bad because you want to feel special like your someone meaningful in my life, not just one of the guys. Now I don't treat women as one of the guys, just as I don't expect you to treat me like one of the girls, because I ain't. (At this point I am talking about myself, although many of my male friends have the same views) I am not sensitive, I don't care to talk about feelings, there are many times I have nothing on my mind, it is not a reason not to talk, I simply have nothing to say at that moment. I don't care about your PMS, i don't bleed or get the cramps or bloated feeling, I don't feel like crap once a month, you have female friends to deal with that, that can sympathize with you, just as I don't expect you to understand the pain of a four hour hard-on. I cannot multi-task that well, many men can't we are not that great at it, we are awesome at focusing on one thing, however multi-tasking is something women are amazing at, I give ya props on that. Women are great at empathizing, we men are great at rubbing it in and making fun of it all (unless it is serious such as death and even then, it depends on the situation) We do things that disgust women, women do things that disgust guys, it's natural, we are different, our brains work slightly different (multi-tasking is an example). Women are far more nuturing than many men, there are always exceptions to this, and men well we are insensitive for the most part, however we love women (the straight guys, some gays do but for different reasons) and over all we want to respect you (for the most part many do) however we do things because we like you, not because we find you inferior, no because we want to show that we are above our animalistic behaviors, that we as men can be courteous, and some what senstive.

In the same sense I don't expect a woman to act like guys or behave anything else than as a female (the reason I love women and not men is because they are women) i mean come on I am game for being equal but when you can't open a jar, you sure as hell don't call you female friends to open it, just as when it comes to the kids I don't call my guy friends to figure out how to handle them. I am all for equal pay and equal treatment in the work force, but lets admit something here, women don't want to be equals, because men will treat equals like men, and you women are not about to start treating us guys as women. We are different in many aspects, both mentally and emotionally. How we express ourselves is far different, how we communicate is different, however we still love women because of those differences, I don't mind don't the chores, hell it keeps the house clean and sane fine with me, however don't expect me to start opening up about my feelings or start talking about things spontaneously all the time, it ain't going to happen, I don't empathize that well. So chivaraly isn't the same as sexism, these days we do mainly because hell it's a dying thing, and for the most part guys are pricks with other guys, and if you want to be treated the same, then go right ahead, don't complain about foul language, don't complain about guys sexualizing women (that's what we do with other guys), don't complain about being equals in friendship/relationships. Work force, same work same pay, household chores, that's fine with me, raising the children, hey I don't mind helping, don't ask to be this nurturing, empathizing, all caring father, I don't mind saying no, I don't mind dishing out punishment, heck I don't mind tending to injuries (although many times I  have told my daughter to stop crying, and that there is no crying in this house....unless bones or flesh are broken) but to be the all caring one, no, ain't going to happen, but when it does.....don't harp on how we should be like this more often.

With all that said, I still respect women, I love them all, I think men need women, just like women need men (straight men and women I am talking about here, don't start with bi-sexual, lesbians, gays, transexuals etc, etc, etc) and equality for all, but equality is really about the work force and about having a vocie in society, but in relationships, being courteous to a woman, opeing the doors, standing up when she sits at the table, all of that isn't about disrespecting a woman, it's all about respect, it is about being kind. If you want to talk about muslim women and the treatment in the middl east and other theocracies, well that's a different topic. I do apologize for any run on sentences, mistakes in spelling or just plain old rambling, it's late.

Thanks for making me sneeze coke all over my computer screen Thomathy >.>

(Can any one else find all 3 sexual innuendos? its like the adult version of Wheres Waldo!)

Very true.  But we are better at sports (save for maybe gymnastics, ice skating. and archery)

I'm an older, southern male. I was raised in a culture where one showed respect for others as a matter of course. 'Sir' and 'M'am' were and are ingrained in my vocabulary. I firmly believe courtesy greases the wheels of human society.

The code of Chivalry, as it relates to relationships between men and women works both ways, in it's purest sense a man accords a woman a special level of respect while a woman must strive to be worthy of the respect shown her.

I am a feminist, I teach my girls to be certain that they can always take care of themselves, and to not be dependant on others for their physical, emotional or financial well being. As a result, pissing off any of my daughters could be hazardous to ones health.

That being said... I get truely pissed when confronted by a politically correct pseudo-feminist who thinks that common courtesy is an afront to her personal dignity.

LC >;-}>