A dating adviser, Christie Hartman (link below), recently tweeted:
“Guys: chivalry is an easy, cost-free way to impress a woman.”
My tweeted response was:
NO!!!! THIS IS WRONG!!! DON’T DO THIS!!!!
Via Twitter, she asked why not. As for Christie, I’ve retweeted some of her dating advice tweets in the past because she mostly gives reasonable advice and I support her efforts. It’s unfortunate that otherwise excellent dating advisers sometimes come up with disasters like that tweet. Another example of that is Moxie (link below) writing for Role/Reboot, the most politically correct and idiotic website discussing gender issues. No link from me to that dreck.
As for chivalry (link below), it might have had its place for medieval knights and Dating 1.0. With Dating 2.0, chivalry – especially early in the dating phase – is an expression of weakness and supplication in a man. A woman might be outwardly pleased at a chivalrous gesture but inside, her hindbrain is screaming “Run away! This guy’s a pushover!”.
Worse, chivalry can too easily be exploited by selfish and egotistical women. One of the quickest way for a man to assigned to the FriendZone is for him to act chivalrous to a dame. The loathsome and despicable white knights use chivalry with wanton abandon. This pedestalizes women and the clever ones will manipulate the white knights while enjoying the physical affection of men higher up the sexual food chain.
A bold and confident man can certainly use courtesy and manners as required. If a relationship develops during the dating phase, certain chivalrous deeds can be doled out very rarely. At the start of dating, a man simply can’t be chivalrous but he should be polite.
Ironically, chivalry is where feminism and the Manosphere agree. Feminists hate chivalry because it makes women look weak. Denizens of the Manosphere hate chivalry because it makes men look weak.