This, I don’t agree with.
In the past, to be chivalrous was to serve your king, to serve your God, and to serve all women.
We are now in an era where women don’t require special treatment, where kings hold no real power, and we are more free in our choice of religion.
However, the concept behind chivalry is not one to be laughed at.
It is the idea of putting others, regardless of their social status, before yourself, of protecting the weak and poor, of being loyal to your word, of courteousness, of mercy and yet of personal strength to me seems like a wonderful way to live your life.
It saddens me that if I were to hold a door for a woman they might be disgusted, thinking it were because of their gender. No, I look back every time I pass through a door and if I see anyone, I hold the door. It’s a kindness, not a discrimination.
Chivalry is two-faced manipulation, it’s concern trolling, it’s the Nice Guy Syndrome in stereo. Chivalry is not selfless, it’s the idea that you do something for women because they’re lesser than you (somehow I don’t think they were thankful for the infantilizing behavior) and only because you expect something back for it (like women’s bodies, a relationship, subservience), even if the woman didn’t consent to it in the first place. Chivalry is about entitlement. Not to mention the only women seen as ‘deserving’ of chivalry were ones who fit into a very restrictive mold, especially concerning their sexuality. Since when was chivalry applied to lower class women?
Your version is of chivalry doesn’t actually seem to match up to real life, perhaps you’re going off a romanticized version.