Chivalry is derived from the code of conduct of medieval knights. Since then we seem to have lost the privileges of chivalry, but we’ve also lost the risk so maybe it’s a push. It also seems to be one of the few cases where we’ve kept the best of the past and lost the worst.
One of the most commonly cited arguments against maintaining chivalry is actually an argument for it; it reinforces gender roles. What chivalry’s opponents forget is that the sexes must cooperate and cooperation means roles. No reasonable person would argue that army officers shouldn’t lead and soldiers shouldn’t fight, unless they oppose war entirely. So why are gender roles seen as negative? Reinforcing gender roles is a far cry from forcing them on people.
Men who believe in chivalry also place expectations on women. What those expectations are is beside the point but it does mean it’s only fair to give them something in return when they seem to be striving to meet them.
Chivalry is altruistic. Many of the women who benefit from chivalry are not striving to meet men’s expectations. This means it’s no longer fair it just benefits them. They can accept it graciously, reject it humbly, or demonstrate that a woman is not inherently equal.
Men benefit from chivalry as well. Obviously the etiquette changes, since being the same doesn’t create differences. A chivalrous man will likely open a door for a lady then follow her through but would go through before the fellow man he opened it for.
Feminists see chivalrous acts as “microaggressions.” Feminists are belligerent. They are the enemy of men and ladies. Female feminists reject their identities as women to pursue the impossible goal of becoming men. Male feminists refuse to strive for excellence and instead emasculate themselves to become slaves. Any enemy should be opposed. The amusing thing is how often feminists complain about not being able to find any good men. They don’t even realise that it’s all their fault.