When chivalry is misunderstood

I've been surprised at how vehemently some people denounce acts of chivalry -- you know, actions such as helping a woman down some difficult steps or pulling her chair out when seating at a table. "Don't do it for a woman if you wouldn't do it for a man!" they say.

I understand the sentiment, but I think it's overreacting. People shouldn't take offense at these gestures. They're not meant to imply that the other person is incapable of walking down steps by themselves, or that they can't open their own doors. These are just social niceties and signs of respect.

I like what Carrie Lukas said in her article from the National Review Online:

Gentlemanly conduct isn't about women at all. It's about men and their sense of themselves. Paul Anderson continues to say that he would give up his seat to someone truly in need, such as the elderly, pregnant women, and the disabled. But that's not gentlemanly, that's just humane.

A man giving up his seat to a woman who he knows is equally capable of standing on her own is different. It's a gesture that doesn't (as some feminist suggest) imply women are weak. It's a simple show of respect. Respect not just for the woman, but also for himself. It shows that this man believes himself to be a gentleman and holds himself to high standards. Those standards are more important than enjoying the comfort of a seat on his morning commute.

Resurrecting chivalry begins by remembering why it's important. Chivalry is part of a civil world. Women should welcome gentlemanly gestures, and graciously accept them with a thank you. I'll start by thanking the men of the Titanic, who 96 years ago gave up their seats so that the women could live.