Apparently feminist prefer chivalrous men over wokebros

[BalletBunting]

According to this article: www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/women-who-stray/201812/feminists-think-sexist-men-are-sexier-woke-men

I'm v lucky to have DP who's pretty sound on sexism, but I'd still take a traditional 'chivalrous' male over a beardy pro porn/prostituion, pro erosion of women's spaces woke bro any day of the week

Is there truth to it? The link in the article is to one study of 128 undergraduates. He also mentions 'anecdotes', that gold standard of science.

I can only speak anecdotally but I certainly remember a number of my female friends who by any yardstick could be described as intelligent, confident, attractive women consistently date a string of blokes who can only be described as totally selfish 'alpha male' twats. I could never understand what they saw in these guys.

woke men aren't particularly more likely to be kind or respectful
Yes, that's very true. I'd also agree that women often end up with unpleasant men. I don't think I can think of a strong trend of women being uninterested because a man was nice, I'd hope it's not that common.

plus they are willing to lie.

I think this is a big part - it's a lot easier to be charming when it's all a temporary act/lie!

I think it might actually be that people, including women, prefer polite people - and despite some of the drawbacks, carrying bags, opening doors, standing up as someone enters the room etc. is polite. It's stuff that I'd do for those less able/anyone/someone I'm greeting.

If some toerag can't be bothered to help bring in the shopping, and uses the excuse that I'm a feminist, I should be able to do it myself (which I obviously can) then that's impolite, and of course I'm not going to fancy him (not least because he'd sound like my son being cheeky)

"Nice" guys are often anything but. They be just as entitled and arrogant as the more overtly macho types.

They can be

I'd rather have a man with manners, willing to help men or women carry things and opening doors for them than some twat who thinks he doesn't have to help or hold a door open because 'equality'.

Thinking of data rather than anecdote, I remember a rather pithy observation Richard Dawkins made. He was examining (and debunking) the Evo psych hypothesis that women settle down with kind nurturing "beta males" while (if they were the type to commit adultery) shagging dominant "alpha males" on the side for the sake of their genes.

He pointed out that if you do a "big data" number crunching analysis of the trait most highly valued in unknown sperm donors by would be single mothers by choice (who are clearly choosing on the basis of "what're the genes like?" rather than "will he make a nurturing father?") it turns out the most highly valued quality in sperm donors is... Niceness!

'Chivalry' used to mean a set of rules and values that demonstrated men had acquired enough self discipline to be civilised. I don't think it was intended to mean 'some twat who can act nice for 5 minutes to get a shag'.

I don't think I can think of a strong trend of women being uninterested because a man was nice, I'd hope it's not that common.

I think it is less about the man being 'nice' and more a case of him not being exciting enough. Again speaking anecdotally I noticed in my social group through the years a number of guys suffer from the clichéd unrequited love and relegated to the role of nice reliable friend by their female peers only for these same women to come full circle in their mid 30s and show an interest in these 'nice' men they have romantically ignored for years or get upset when they end up getting engaged to someone else.

I think it is less about the man being 'nice' and more a case of him not being exciting enough.
Yes, I think this is right. It was always very important to me that a guy was nice (as in, treated other people well, wasn't selfish or moody) but niceness on its own isn't enough. Lots of people are nice. You don't want to shag them all.

My DS summed it up as follows: if you open a door for a woman to feel good, superior, or just because you are male, it is patronising and therefore not “good manners”. If you open a door for a woman, to be helpful, or because it is sensible and sensitive to do so, that’s fine.

Good manners are about making other people feel good and comfortable, not about making self gratification.

I would add that chivalry is about helping others and wokeness is very self gratifying.....

I think it is a sensible approach, as long as you acknowledge others may not know your motivation.

I am really interested in the idea that being respectful and kind isn't necessarily related to being sympathetic to some sort of woke type of attitude to women's equality.

Men, and really women too, can think about the other sex as a group as being different, really even mentally different in some way, yet also want to treat each individual fairly, take them on their own individual merits, and like them for themselves. None of those things are very related to specific ideas about how much alike women and men are, just an appreciation for people in general and people as individuals.

In that way of thinking, those individuals are able to get along well with all different sorts of people because their interest and kindness towards them doesn't depend on them all being the same. Whereas if you are a jerk who only respects a certain sort of person, you are going to be a jerk whether you think women are "equal" or women are different than men.

Ti take it in a different direction, t strikes me that this is good reason to rethink the best way to talk to kids in schools about how to live together well with others. It's not about what anyone really thinks about any sort of identity group, in the end.

Making self gratification 🤯 should be for self gratification...

Once read a 'Nemi' cartoon in the Metro that said 'women don't prefer bastards. They just don't want to be bored'.

Not bad for a freesheet, I thought.

@Goosefoot Men, and really women too, can think about the other sex as a group as being different, really even mentally different in some way, yet also want to treat each individual fairly, take them on their own individual merits
This is interesting. I would say that if you say men and women are mentally different, then you are making assumptions about them, which means you're not taking them on their individual merits.

Hmmm ... I have been on the receiving end lately of some rather puzzling snubs from some men who would definitely describe themselves as 'chivalrous gentlemen'. I think they are hugely threatened by feminism, took 'metoo' intensely, weirdly personally, and seem to find any woman who is comfortable in her own self and not constantly apologising/being naice very unsettling.

I am ambivalent about chivalry.

Why can't we just have politeness and respect, for everyone, from everyone?

This is interesting. I would say that if you say men and women are mentally different, then you are making assumptions about them, which means you're not taking them on their individual merits.

No, not necessarily, I think this is something that can be a problem when talking about characteristics of groups.

You can have characteristics that hold true at a group level, say women are shorter than men, but they don't hold true at an individual level. If I assume Tom Cruise is taller than Uma Thurman, I'd be wrong. I can both think the generalisation is true but not be worried at all about Cruise being short.

No, not necessarily, I think this is something that can be a problem when talking about characteristics of groups.
Ok so I think the phrase I find misleading is "the sexes are mentally different." If you were to say that certain traits are more prevalent in one sex than another, then I would agree with you.

I wasn't aware it is an either/or situation. My late DH was neither chivalrous (he respected women as equals too much for that), nor was he woke.

He was simply polite/helpful/held doors etc. to everyone irrespective of sex.

Oh, and if I had been forced to choose between the two extremes I would have bloody well stayed single.

Why can't we just have politeness and respect, for everyone, from everyone?

I think most people are generally polite, and will help others or hold open doors etc regardless of gender. I personally would be more suspicious of a bloke who only made this kind of effort when dealing with a woman.

I like people who open doors for me. And I open doors for people. I like people who help me if I'm struggling. Ditto. And I like people who would stand up and defend me if I was being attacked. If I could I would do the same. And I'm attracted to people who are confident, though I have sympathy for those who aren't. But I'm really not going to be attracted to someone who feels entitled to sex, whether they whinge about it, or whatever tactics they use to try and get it.
Do you have to be a fella to be 'chivalrous' or maybe it's just good manners and community spirit?