Thank you Rosette Charles. Chivalry is not dead, but that is not the issue here.
Amelia Harnish states “some of us still expect the damsel-in-distress treatment, and some of us, regrettably, abuse it.” While this is true and sad, it does not relate to most points mentioned in the column. The responsibility of buying dinner or drinks falls upon the host, the person who invites guests to an event and pays for the guests’ (read: date) meals. The important lesson here is that chivalry is not required to be a well-mannered individual. I found it interesting that while Harnish asks the gentlemen not to confuse manners and chivalry, she is the one who mixed them up. The difference between a well-mannered man and a chivalrous man is simply the romance. For example, a well-mannered man knows to bring flowers to a date, but a chivalrous man will know your favorite flowers. Harnish states that “[at] the root of the chivalry concept is that we are somehow incompetent.” Why do we, women, only see this antiquated reasoning and not see the polite man who is smitten enough to pull out our chair? Come on ladies, open your eyes and appreciate the man who is trying to impress you.
Michael Perrone had a more realistic vision of the modern context of chivalry, albeit slightly offensive in word choice. He was on point when he mentioned that chivalry is pointless in a bar, for both sexes. In addition, who is the host? Gentlemen, your best bet is to talk to the lady for a few minutes before ordering drinks; chances are, if she only wants the free drink, she won’t hang around long enough to wait for it.
Unfortunately, it is usually the ladies who kill chivalry. Remember, it is not always that the gentleman must buy dinner but the host or hostess. Yes ladies, if you invite a man out to dinner, you should expect to pay and do so willingly. Only a truly chivalrous gentleman will insist.
