A lot of the chivalry seems to be just doing mundane things for women or treating them differently (opening doors, scooting out chairs, shaking hands differently). Women can do these things literally just as well so it's not like most of the "chivalry" we are losing is due to real differences between genders. I still get things off of high shelves or open pickle jars for my girlfriend but those are based on practical differences (she is tiny and I have great grip strength)
Sorry for being unclear. My point to was that the vast majority of "chivalry" is in no way rooted in real physiological differences while trying to also highlight some small exceptions. Chivalry is mostly crap but also that you shouldn't avoid helping them (or anyone) when it makes sense. You shouldn't treat women any differently than anyone else who is in a similar situation (I do jujitsu so I have good grip strength and have helped both male and female friends open pickle jars as a weird example).
EDIT: I guess what I'm trying to get across is that it's not your gender or ethnicity that makes you treat someone a different way, it's who they are as an individual. I think that the idea of "chivalry" runs generally counter to this.
Not really. I'm female and hate most of the "chivalry" stuff, because it treats me like I can't do things like open doors or pull out my own freaking chair.
Reaching high boxes or opening jars is different. I'd do the same for a short old man as a woman, and I assume most men would do the same. It is no longer about sex, but about differences in people's strength and height. Gender doesn't matter as much, just ability.
Just like I'll hold the door for someone going through right after me instead of allowing it to slam in their face, or hold it longer for someone who's hands are full. I don't wait for elderly folks, though, since most folks are capable of opening doors.
Treating people different based on their gender(or race) is kind of the definition of descrimination. That said, equality shouldn't mean a loss of civility, politeness, or hell even being romantic. It also doesn't mean treating everyone uniformly. Once you get to know some one or grow closer with them and learn their likes and dislikes, obviously you'll treat them differently. However when you don't know them well you shouldn't default to method A for men and method B for women.
People aren't equal though. Coming from Russia, the West is really confused about what it wants.
It seems to want chivalry plus equality minus morality. This desire is represented by factions who seem to work together on some level. The end result is a mess.
A mess the end result of which is that people here touch far more rarely than they did in Victorian times. Yet we know that rarely being touched in childhood is a strong risk factor for promiscuity later on.
As for equality, women are far more at risk from sexual predation and assault; I don't think it's rude to let social customs reflect this by having them initiate touch, largely.
Democracy is messy, slow and complicated because it's build upon compromises between different factions. A lot of things in the west are more of a mess than they are in Russia, but there is a reason immigration streams one way.
Equality in modern colloquial context (esp. regarding social strata) means equal "especially in status, rights, and opportunities". It really means fair treatment, not equal treatment. Another side effect of people using the wrong language and sticking with it.