So, what you're arguing here is that chivalry acts as a safety mechanism for men to learn to control themselves? The benefit for women is that men don't rape them, and the benefit for men is that they codified behaviours they can learn based on heraldic principles and these are better than Andrew Tate.

I suppose I can see the value of the argument, but it feels like a sticking plaster. I'd rather we just dispensed with chivalry and pushed up rape convictions. If you're arguing that the male version of respect is chivalry, I'd be happier with just respect. Respect is neither a masculine nor a feminine trait and I'm not convinced we need to pink or blue-ify it in quite this way.

As you've said, remember that Uncle Sam 'I want YOU' for the army.... that was aimed at young men. That's not equality. If we dispense with chivalry we accept both sexes into the army, we conscript both, neither or leave it up to volunteers.

The messaging taking chivalry's place is very weak, but that is because it has not been roundly rejected by both sexes as inherently an indicator of inequality. It places one sex under the tacit protection of another in a form of entente cordiale that says - if you let me protect you, I won't be a rapist. That's not how I'd choose to run society... and chivalry seems a poor substitute for a genuine thrust towards equality.

That's just me though.... and as always, I'm not necessarily right - I'm just fighting my corner. :o)