Recently Dalrock was discussing the relationship between chivalry and Feminism. Basically it comes down to this: Men are supposed to acquiesce to what women say that they need; because men are supposed to protect women and who better to know what women need than women?
There are many aspects of the above thought that are flawed. First men are not supposed to acquiesce to what women say that they need. They are supposed to do/provide what is needed for the sake of children individually/society as a whole. Women, surprisingly are not as child centered as they are made out to be. Recently I have run across several stories where women ignore their children in the cause of the pursuit of tingles. RPG provides one such example. Somebody needs to be the adult in the room, with this responsibility falling on men.
The rules of chivalry were formulated through long societal experience. It was noticed as to what works and what doesn’t work, with adjustments being made as needed. All of this happened over generations, even millennia. What kept it going was a stable society that did not incur costs that would cause it to fail. This aspect of costs has been thrown out the window, with men acceding to whatever women say that they need.
And speaking of men acceding, it all starts with pandering for the women’s vote. Politicians fall into line, other prominent men (in the media and elsewhere) follow, pretty much all men eventually do to some extent. If you are being forced to give in, you might as well package it up as something generally considered to be virtuous like chivalry.
Point to ponder: other societies that were less chivalrous and perhaps more patriarchal have not gone down this road.