As an altenative to the 'You live versus...' posts which seem to focus on just how self-centered people can be, here is an article that ran last week in Illinois/Missouri:

Boys credited as heroes after being hit by pickup (http://www.nwherald.com/MainSection/local/287370078669267.php)

Both boys pushed the girls they were with out of the way of the oncoming pickup. As I have said in several threads, you don't know how you are going to react until faced with a crisis. One of the boys saving the person they were with would be a great story -- that both reacted in the same way is amazing.

Well, pushing them out of the way isn't exactly chivalrous... I'd settle for valiant, though :) Seriously, the guys do deserve gratitude.

Well what do you know, it seems not all of the following generations are ingrates and hoodlums. It's unfortunate that such conclusions tend to come from tragic events.

Good on them - but I wouldn't put this as a counterpoint to the 'your life versus' thread. After all that thread is about whether you would die outright with the knowledge that you have no chance. This is risking your life, not just losing it.

Still very funky - don't think it has anything to do with chivalry, which should die. We say that we want equality between genders - but I hardly think that chivalry encourages this...

Who cares about equality between genders? Women are more valuable to the human race than men.

It just might be that behind some chivalry is just some good ol' evolution working again. I'm hypothesizing that given the same situation, the majority of men would act in the same way as the two boys did.

Who cares about equality between genders?Well, me, for starters. I'm hoping that there are more out there...

Women are more valuable to the human race than men.Not really.

It's only a matter of how much more valuable women are to the humankind than men. Both are needed in order to create a stable population, but men are needed less.

There's even no need to get all cultural here, it's mainly a question of how many offspring can men produce as a theoretical maximum compared to how many offspring women produce as a theoretical maximum.

If all but one man died, humankind would be able to survive, even without in vitro fertilizations, but if all but one woman would die...that would pretty much be it. And with in vitro fertilizations there's no actual need to bring that much men into this world. Think about the crisis China will have to face because they have at least one generation with more men than women because of the one child policy.

Chivalry is a culturally emergent property based on survival of the specie. A man should sacrifice himself for (almost) any woman, and this tends to appeal women as well so the mechanism might include that it's gambling with life in order to get lucky with a gal.

Wow, I am so surprised by the turn that this thread has taken already. T2 brings us a wonderful story of 2 boys who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, that is to give their life for another. ( I can not read their minds but to throw yourself in front of a truck you can't be thinking "Oh this is going to be no big thing.")

Instead of reveling in these boys great deed the discusssion has turned to who is more important, men or women. I can not speak for you or even society but I can say that for me and the way I was raised, chivalry is not dead. In fact I work to instill it in my son as well.( He holds doors open and gives up his seats on buses or trains for women or the elderly if none are available) My wife is most dear to my heart but I believe all women are to be treated with respect (such as my mother, my daughter, the lady next door, the woman I meet on the bus/train in passing). I guarantee I will not let my daughter date a young man who can not see me eye-to-eye in this.

Anyway, back to the real story. The boys were real heros and very chivalrous. I will pray for their quick recovery and that their families will be honored as well as the kids for teaching their sons such behavior. Thanks for the story T2.

Well, since the topic has changed a little...

To the feminists and the people who want an equal world for men and women: should this kind of thing be tolerated? Sure, pushing someone out of the way to save their lives is a good deed no matter what gender the other person is, but giving up your seat just because the person is a woman is a bit of reverse-discrimination. Feminists are complaining that they get treated differently just because they are females, so does this mean that women should not get any kind of special treatment, even if it's a good kind?

Keep in mind that I am not saying that that's neccessarily my opinion, but still...

*sigh*

Here is what I see as the problem... chivalry, if taken too far, can lead to the conclusion that women are weak and NEED to be taken care of. Why is it necessary for women to be given seats? Are we incapable of standing? Why is it necessary for doors to be opened for women? Have we no arms?

As I see it, COURTESY is far more important than chivalry. There's a one-way sexist grain to chivalry that rubs me raw. If I see an elderly or infirm person of either gender get onto the train, I yield my seat. If I see a man struggling with a door because he's loaded down with packages, I open it for him. If I get to a door first I open it for myself instead of waiting for one of the men in the group to come help me - why should I?

Women are not deserving of special treatment simply because they're women. PEOPLE are deserving of courtesy simply because they're PEOPLE.

Back on topic... I think those boys are heroes. I bet they would have done the same thing if they'd been walking with their grandfathers or their gym teachers or their little brothers.

I naturally will do things for women that I wouldn't do for men all the time. I do give my seat up for women, I do open doors for them (but I won't rush ahead to do so) but I would also hold a door open for somebody else if they were behind me and I'd let everybody through (provided I wasn't in a hurry at the time).

I believe that women should have special treatment in some areas, especially the physical areas since men are naturally more physically able than women. Yet Rally does touch on a point, there is a stage when it is too much and a woman should never EXPECT such treatment yet men in my opinion should provide it when able (not to jump across 4 lanes of traffic to help a woman open the door to her car or something stupid).

Rally you are also perverting the definition of chivalry. Being chivalrous does not mean sexist -- it is a combination of gallantry, courtesy, and honor. It is about selflessly helping those in need. Chivalry is putting others before yourself (including strangers).

T2, that's why I emphasized the "if taken too far" part of my statement. That's where I see the sexist edge come into play in "chivalry." Also, the way I hear the word used, it almost always applies to how men treat women - I can't think of any modern examples of one man's conduct towards another man being described as "chivalrous."

Like I said, it's the implication that women can't do things for themselves and need to be taken care of by men that sticks in my craw. That, unfortunately, isn't limited to "chivalry."

It took a while for my wife to get used to me opening her car door in the evening or on a busy street, walking in the lead in dark places, walking on the street side of the sidewalk, and other such nonsense. I generally get to a door first and hold it open for her (but then I usually walk faster). She initially didn't like the door opening thing (she very independant), but has since accepted it especially since most places around here have two sets of doors -- one of us gets the outer door, the other the inner door.

Chivalry is about courtesy and respect. Giving a seat to another is a sign of respect. Opening a door is a sign of respect. Shaking hands also has its rules for showing respect -- the person deserving the greater respect is expected to offer his/her hand. In the traditional rules, women always hold higher ranking than any man. I don't find that offensive at all.

It's not about inferiority, it's about respect and courtesy.

Good kids! Heroes, yes.

But I think I'd call this Altruism, not chivalry. Unless the the young lad had carried the young lass away tenderly from the road to the sidewalk. You don't push a girl! You can't do that! :p

Heh. If that's the case, I wish those "traditional rules" would be applied to business as well, and not limited to social interactions. I can think of many, many instances in my life where I'd prefer equality over chivalry, by a large margin.

Shall we continue this in a new topic, to stop diluting discussion of your example of selfless heroism?

Like I said, it's the implication that women can't do things for themselves and need to be taken care of by men that sticks in my craw.Well, I've not met too many women that are willing to kill a spider crawling on the wall. Just last night my wife made me come up to the top floor of the house from the basement to kill a bug. I couldn't believe it. And I had to go and kill it right now.

AFI, don't get me started. Not only have I killed plenty of bugs by myself, I can give you a long, long list of things that I've observed men to be incapable of doing for themselves.

The problem starts when this attitude carries over to other aspects of life, things that really matter.

Thanks for the story T2, it's not easy to find good news anywhere. The boys are to be commended for selflessness. We should all be so lucky as to have friends like them around.

Alright, firstly for the overt issue on hand; those lads should be applauded. :D


And as for the issue of chivalry, I see little wrong with it, but for what Rally intimates - extremism in anything isn't very good.

I myself act in almost the same manner as her - open doors for people rather than women, etc.

I do find the 'chivalry as a biological imperative' theory interesting, tho. And just to spell out what other people are hinting at:

A group of ten men and one woman will generate one offspring every nine months until the first of those offspring is both female, and menstruating.
A group of ten women and one man will generate ten offspring every nine months.
Ergo, since the latter group is more capable of replacing its numbers, 'Mother Nature' encourages behaviours that bring about those circumstances.

As I've said already; it's an interesting thing to think about.

Well, damn if these are middle schoolers -- I mean, I don't know about you, but I got picked on by girls during middle school (and vice versa).

Certainly admirable -- although whether it's chivalry is probably an issue of semantics. (No doubt the boys were not living by a medieval knightly code.)

Oh, for crying out loud. I'm glad the boys (probably) won't read what's here, or they will probably feel guilty that they started this whole thing.

Anyway, I think they just did a good thing, no more and no less. Chivalry is not, imo, the right word because it implies a degree of reasoning (i.e. I will stand up and free the seat for the old woman because she needs to sit more than I do), and in the situation I think the boys just acted partially on instinct. I don't know how much importance the gender issue played for them, although I suppose they do wanted to protect the girls.

Why did they not just jump to the side and drag the girls with them? That way, they probably wouldn't have been hit, at least not straight on.

i think that it is instict for a male to protect a female (in most species of mammals)

for example, if i was walking toward a woman on the pavement, i will walk on the roadside when we pass eachother.

Bahir, if you don't understand, nobody will be able to tell you. However, there was clearly not enough time, even as it was one of the girls did not get pushed fast enough.

Rally: I had no direction in mind for this thread. I thought it would be interesting to put something heroic up and see where the thread goes.

In real life, I've got people preeching from both sides. Some of my best friends are always going on about how 'true chivary is dead' - an often lecture (used in the widest of senses) I get when I tell them to take off their shoes when they complain about sore feet after wearing high heels during a night in town. Yet on the other side, in university quite a few of my classmates are extreme feminists, who hate the idea of any thing like this. Quite an interesting contrast - I guess that's the difference between architecture and political sceince students.

On the whole though, I tend to agree with Rally. If someone is less able to stand than me, I'll give up my seat. I'm just as likely to hold the door open for a male as a female. As far as I'm concerned, both are just as able - neither should be recieving any special treatment, nor should either be desciminated against.

I know, personally, if someone was constantly going out of their way to hold a door open to me, getting out of their seat so I could sit and so on, I would feel slightly insulted. Even if it was in the best of intentions, I would get the feeling that they believed I was less able so needed help in such things.

I definitely agree with you guys that what the boys did was heroic. For it to have it's basis in the survival of the species does not diminish its worth, quite the opposite, if you ask me. The boys did their duty, did exactly as they should in a life and death situation. Fullfilling your duty to a worthy cause is very honorable.

And I just happen to think that the cause of saving the girls lives had even more worth, since girls have more worth than boys. Human females and males are equal in all important respects. Men just have the qualities that make them expendable in the worst case scenario. Giving a seat to a woman in a bus isn't exactly a worst case scenario.

This could be an interesting topic to be discussed as a different subject completely...