I quote this article regularly ("You want equality? I demand it!").

I agree with this article in its entirety.

First, I'll start off with this. Jungle Bunny? WTF?

That said, let's continue.

I agree with MOST of the points made.

But what also has to be taken into consideration is that many things have been imprinted onto people's minds. It is not only the side looked down on as inferior wanting to be superior, but even with attempts to bring it to equality the side that had been superior beforehand still looks down on the once-inferior side and either continues inferior treatment or in their attempt to make the other side overly equal.

For instance, with black and colored people. While they have had every right white right since at least the 60s here in the US, some whites still consider them inferior and useless and so, and conversely, there are some who feel guilt about past wrongs and try to overly make up for it and let overstretching of rules and equality occur. (Al Sharpton in general.)

And then there is the males and females issue.

Yes, women ought affirm their equality, but not when it results in wank or stepping on the guys' penises. While I have hit other guys, I fully expect them to hit me back. (Sometimes, actually, they've hit first for no reason at all. In which case I forget all reasoning behind not penis stomping.)

It's not as much about the demands as it is about the guilt of it. Equality doesn't work unless BOTH sides want it.

Also, I don't believe in equality as being the death of chivalry. While the term of chivalry applies in many different ways, I consider it in the terms as closer to this chivalric code as copied from Wikipedia:

* Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches, and shalt observe all its directions.
* Thou shalt defend the Church.
* Thou shalt respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.
* Thou shalt love the country in which thou wast born.
* Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy.
* Thou shalt make war against the Infidel without cessation, and without mercy.
* Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they be not contrary to the laws of God.
* Thou shalt never lie, and shall remain faithful to thy pledged word.
* Thou shalt be generous, and give largess to everyone.
* Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.

While this is more honor, loyalty, and justice as compared to the ideal of courtly love (excepting the religious overtones), I don't think chivalry has any excuse to be allowed to die out.

I recognise there are flaws in my logic, but it is six o clock in the morning so bring them up so I can try and explain them better in the PM.

That's the definition of a Christian crusader, not of chivalry. Chivalry has absolutely nothing to do with religion, it has to do with acting honourably. Yet another reason why I refuse to count Wikipedia as a reputable source for information. Now that the medieval ages are over, chivalry is used to refer to men doting on women. Opening and holding doors for them, letting them go in first, pulling out their chair and tucking it in underneath them, refusing to hit one no matter what they do, offering to give up your seat for them, etc.

The basic principle of chivalry in today's society is based around the theory that men are tough and rugged, and women are delicate flowers to be treated only kindly, so it is the responsibility of the men to care for and protect the women. But if, as we should be, men and women are considered as equals, that theory is blown, and thus the very basis for chivalry no longer exists.

If men and women are equals, then why should I hold the door for you and not you for me? Why shouldn't you offer your seat on the subway to me? And why shouldn't I retaliate against you if you strike me?

Now don't get me wrong: I am all for doing nice things for the purpose of being nice. If I'm in a good mood, I'm more than happy to hold doors open for people, regardless of who they are. But in a world where everyone is supposed to be equal, nobody has any more or less right to a specific treatment than anyone else, because we should be treated and reacted to based on our actions, and not our physical characteristics.

Equality doesn't mean everyone is capable of doing the same things with the same skill, it means I should treat you no differently than I would treat anyone else who does the same things as you.

It was the best I could think of at six o clock in the morning.

And what you are stating is part of the ideals of courtly love in that it is a knight's duty to honor woman upon pedestal.

Quite frankly I don't believe that chivalry ought to be dead just because of the fact that it is now applied just to one gender from another, it is the fact that chivalry is and was a general honor code. Popular entertainment and media (for hundreds of years) has twisted chivalry into being a basis of code for acting towards women, when the original intent was to be generally honorable and helping those who needed it (even if this usually fell through in the actions of some medieval knights). With that sort of chivalry, it would be just as bad for either party to strike the other despite the other doing no wrong, regardless of gender. The fact is, that all knights were expected to follow chivalric honor once, and the courtly ideal came into play because of general attitudes at the time that women were in fact weaker, and chivalry's play in that created romantic ideas.

I try to use that honor code as a basis for mine, and I'm just as likely to hold the door open for a girl as a guy, and would give up my seat on a bus or wherever if there was someone who looked to require it more than I do (IE, aged, or injured. Not gendered.)

And as to equality not being skill based, I agree that for the most part it should not.

Chivalry is retarded. We're all equals and I'll be damned if I'm gonna treat myself like a second-class citizen just because someone wants to sit down and I'm already sitting. If it were that important to them, they would've arrived early to get their seat.

I have no problem being chivalris (did I invent a new word) just because thats the way I was raised and thus that's how I roll. I dont take it too far. I hold doors open for people, and offer my seat, etc. but not all the time. I don't it for anyone. If someone drops their stuff in the halls I ususally dont stop; I have places to be and I wouldnt expect anyone to stop for me. I judge it by doing those respectful things to people I see as being better or more worthy then myself. I wont get up on the bus jest cause someone doesnt have a seat; but if it's an elderly person heck yes I'll do it because they are expearianced at life, they have been through a lot, and they physically need the seat. The only time I'll do it solely because of their sex is when it's my girlfriend. In those cases I do believe she is better then me and thus the....overpampering if you will....is permittable in my eyes. I love her and I'd do anything for her. Holding a door or standing when she lives the table is just being nice. And besides, it doesnt hurt me and shes ususally impressed which leads to good things so no complaints there.

Now that chivalry is out of the way.
Equality
I couldnt agree more.
Equality will never be achieved so long as any minority is seeking recognition.
Black history month is to be mentioned and celebrated.
A white history month would be racist.
LULAC - League of United Latin American Citizens
My brother started a group on facebook; LUWAC. It's been called bigotist and racist. Why? LUWAC isnt about hate, thats the KKK. We're about pride.
The day women stop complaining and or bragging about being or not being in public offices...
The day we stop having commercials depicting men as slobs and women as superior...

Dont get me wrong on any of this, I feel terrible, No womens rights. African American Slavery. Racial discrimination. Sexism. You name it. But why am I being punished for me male ancestors "mistakes" from 200 years ago?

Let it go. Then true equality will begin.
How can people not see that? It makes perfect sense...

A proud black man is a freedom fighter. A proud white man; a racist.

My policy on chivalry and courtesy:
Treat others as you would like to be treated, unless the other person is an asshole.

You just said everything I've ever thought but couldn't come up with the right words for.

I may love you.

I actually made an account to comment on this ridiculous comment. I stumbled upon this and read it hoping this would take some interesting turn but it really didn't. Let me start off by saying i love to make offensive comments, nobody has ever taken me seriously and i have actually picked up girls by saying sexist remarks(though it did backfire once.) You said jews don't use slurs against other jews? That's not true, a know a large number of jews who like to rag on other jews for being jewish. In fact the crowd i generally hang out with like to mock the various ethnic back rounds, i for one have found the political correctness to have become an absurd concept. But you are clearly an ignorant little wanker. The fact that you are sincere when you say black people's contributions have been music and jews have become successful by managing money is troublesome. Really i love making fun of stereotypes too, but if i'm writting a paper on my great insight into hypocrisy of today's concept of equality i'm not going to start talking about how Asians have found equality in america by doing math even though they can't drive. I sort of agree with some of your points but it is poorly conveyed.