Chivalry: A Forgotten Relic of a Bygone Age?

Coming back from the Buttery, I offered to carry one of my friend's textbook. It looked kinda heavy, and I figured, she's already carrying a bag, so it makes sense to offer, right? Well, my innocuous action sparked a mini-debate on the value and existence of chivalry, leaving me to wonder this: Is chivalry dead? And if so, why?

I have always believed that guys should be kind to, and look out for, girls. Even when I was in my "girls have cooties" phase which, admittedly, lasted for a long time, I followed this principle known as chivalry. This involves, for example, holding the door, offering assistance whenever it may be needed, "ladies first," etc. This means, on a crowded bus, giving up your seat to someone more in need, i.e. the girl, or the pregnant woman, or the elderly.

However, I am told that it no longer applies--a seat is given up only to those in obvious need: perhaps the woman in high heels who will suffer terribly while standing, the pregnant woman (definitely), and the elderly. But this now goes by "common courtesy," because men shouldn't give up their seats to woman now that there is "equality between genders."

My friend warns me that some die-hard feminists will even take offense if I, for example, offer my seat or to help carry some items. Why? Would I be threatening her independence? Is she so insecure in her independence, self-sustenance, and self-esteem as to be offended? I don't understand. Being offered help usually doesn't mean the helper deems the helped to be weak or needy. If somebody offers help, especially for no price (which is important, apparently, in our current materialistic world), why look a gift horse in the mouth? Is the act of offering assistance a condescending mistake?

Biologically speaking, men are for the most part physically stronger than women. Does this not imply that he should offer her help when he can? This is hardly encroaching on the woman's individuality or independence. This doesn't mean that the woman is relying on the man to "save the damsel in distress." This doesn't mean that she is helpless to fend for herself. Why is chivalry such a bad thing, then? Why do people wish it dead?

Socially, chivalry would definitely help improve communities. Kindness, in whatever form, should be encouraged. Who wouldn't rather live in a supportive community instead of a lonely apartment? Kindness leads to kindness--if you're nice to someone, they will remember it and maybe be inspired to offer the same courtesy to someone else.

Are people really so adamant about eliminating chivalry? Based on what I've seen/heard, apparently the answer is yes. "The elimination of gender roles!" is a familiar attack against chivalry. "Equality for all!" is another. But I ask this: Why throw away perks that are freely given? A woman confident and secure in her ability and independence shouldn't need to worry about the implications of being offered help. Why should she? She knows what she is capable of, and a little help would only save her time and effort. And she can always decline the offer.

But if outcry against chivalry exists, why do the same people still cling to other gender roles? For example, it is, in the vast majority of cases, the man asking the woman out on a date, or to marry him, or for anything romantic. Isn't this just another form of chivalry? The man makes himself vulnerable so that the woman does not. I only know of one case where the girl asked the guy--and she supports chivalry.

Other principles, such as never hitting a girl, follow directly from chivalry. The principle of chivalry is that guys will be nice to girls, instead being jerks. Is that really such a bad thing?