Home > Uncategorized > Ultimate Act of Chivalry

Ultimate Act of Chivalry

I read this fascinating article about how male field crickets will lay down their lives for female crickets to survive if they get attacked by a predator. The article states that if a group of crickets are attacked, the male will let the females enter the burrow first and let himself get eaten by the attacker. This act may seem strange by an animal and goes against the laws of nature and “survival of the fittest” idea because the male will sacrifice himself for any female, but it turns out that this act by the male crickets may be chivilrous, but also has a selfish reason behind it.

With most species, the rule is that only the best survive and that any weak or too slow will be the ones devoured by the predators. Crickets don’t follow this pattern, they allow the females to live because females will be able to keep the species alive. Male crickets willingly sacrifice their lives because they know that that their mates will be able to pass on their genes to the next generation. The male crickets may die, but their genes will still be perserved by their actions. Crickets are very territorial creatures, and males will only open their burrows open to female crickets so that they can mate with them. Males guard the females closely because they are now his and if another male mates with them, the new mates genes will wash out the old mates, so crickets guard so that they can be the father of the offspring.

From these actions, both male and females benefit. Females gain protection from protection when with their mate, and the longer the males are with the females, the more mating opportunities and the better chance of the them being the father of the next generation of crickets. Each get what they want, while also perserving the species from extinction.

My question is, does this same role apply to humans? Do all the choices we make really come from our selfish reasons and biological needs even though it may look chivilrous? Let me know what you think.

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. October 27, 2011 at 4:19 pm

    I choose not to be chivalrous in order to give women what they say they want, equality. Besides, I don’t see the need for chivalry anymore. Women on average are more educated than men, and have more opportunities, granted to them by both their higher level of education, societal pressure to succeed, and affirmative action.

    Instead, I treat women the same way I treat men. I hold the door for both sexes, and I try to lend a hand to those who could appreciate it regardless of sex. However, when I go out with a girl, I usually split. At other times, I would pay for the entire night. And sometimes, she would pay for me, though the last two situations are rare.

    I admit that I would hate for an attractive woman to be killed in combat, but I think they should be able to serve on the front lines along with men. They should also be required to sign up for the Selective Service System if they wish to vote, as is required from men. If Americans are ever drafted again, they should be drafted along with men. It’s only fair right?

    Note: In an ideal world, there would be no drafts, no SSS. I would rather we get rid of the whole anti-libertarian system than to include women in it to make it equal.

    What would you define chivalry to be? In early human warfare, when a village is captured, the men are slaughtered and the women and children are kept alive, as slaves, or as wives for the conquerers. The children are then adopted and taught the ways of the conquerors.

    When a pride of lions engage in combat with another, and wins, the lions kill every single male lion, and keep the female lions alive for mating. Often, the conquered female lions willingly mate with the conquerors. The same goes for gorillas. (This example came directly from Dr. Bonnie Blackwell, my AP Environmental Science teacher.)

    So, if those are examples of chivalry, I am actively against chivalry. I am for treating everyone justly and compassionately with no regards to sex or gender.

  2. October 28, 2011 at 2:21 am

    Well this response probably won’t be as long as the first comment, seeing as its Friday night, but I wanted to put my two senses in on the matter. I think it’s amazing how the crickets have figured out how the can both benefit from the relationship. I feel like in our relationships most people are selfish. Either in their expectations or in what they want out of the relationship, but this comes from biological needs. Expectations are the human’s way of making sure the other person has “good” genes. Think about it, If you want someone smart and funny, the probability that those genes would be passed on are really high. I personally don’t think that all humans act out of selfishness or Biological needs. Is it really biological for women to want to go out and buy a purse?
    I am interested to see what other people think about this too.

    Also… Go RANGERS!

  3. October 30, 2011 at 2:32 pm

    I found your post pretty interesting because i do infact think humans are kinda selfish. Its inevatable, we all want something, anything. We don’t just go through our lives not trying to achieve something or else we would live such meaningless lives. Therefore I somewhat agree with this whole crickets ordeal, but with a certain twist. Men who are usually interested in a woman, who want to pursue that woman usually perform acts of chivilry. Going out on dates, paying, holding doors, complementing ect ect. If things go well they could marry can produce chideren, however the twist in this is the twist is that men and women choose each other based off of innate disirable characteristics. I think we mate because in the long run we want to pass down our genes. Though in this day and age it seems that people kinda just mate for whatever reason, it think it is beacause we havent found ‘that’ person that would be suitable for us to blend out genes with. Just a thought.

  4. October 30, 2011 at 10:01 pm

    I find the subject of your post also very interesting. Chivalry is dead amongst humans but just because women want equal rights doesn’t mean men can forget that they are indeed female. However, I sorta see what Haysoose is saying to a certain extent. I don’t agree with his whole splitting the check thing. If you like a girl that much you shouldn’t mind spending money on her to a certain limit and vice versa for her. Also for his whole women on the front lines of combat logic the word “attractive” before women makes him sound like a superficial bonehead. I do agree with the point I believe he was trying to make. Chivalry should stay dead but kindness should be should be shown between all sexes. Women should be able to open doors for men, be left to carry something heavy, and pay in full while on a date. We are a selfish race and we need to put an end to it. We think too much about what others can do for us and not what we can do for others.

  5. November 12, 2011 at 7:25 pm

    Jadaasmith- Ask any guy and he’ll say the same regarding “attractive” women. Those who don’t are only kidding themselves.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: