Attack on Chivalry

Chivalric behavior has been idealized and fantasized from a 1338 Medieval romanticization by King Edward. The romantic conception of a "knight in shining armor" was birthed during serfdom and Lords era where social strife was a partition between reality and fantasy. Through all this, amorous passions carried on in secrecy (e.g. Romeo and Juliet's war-torn familial feuding) and chivalry was an accomodation of women so that they can find their prince charming romantic and attractive.
Chivalry is not a modern day term because women have fought unsuccessfully for their equal rights. There is no realm for chivalry because it is publicly known as performative acts that may or may not carry obvious intent. Chivalric actions place the center of power towards the women's side by raising obligatory acts that men must follow, for the pleasure of a woman. Though power dynamics are hard to get rid of (every situation has a power dynamic), an introduction of chivalry will pit masculinity against feminity and tear it down to its most naked desires: to tear at each other's throat while rendering freedom momentarily.
Chivalry is not essentially a give and take: A man does not obligatorily hold the door for a woman so that she will pay for his club sandwich at Ihop. Unless this is a phenomenon that is mutual understanding that takes place at the forefront of a relationship. Usually communication is disrupted and chivalric behavior either becomes mundane, or estranged from either partners, causing chivalry to become aware of itself as acts of performance. The gradual death of chivalry in a relationship will cause a loss of meaning in every chivalric action.
To give a woman a jacket may recall chivalric behavior, but women should not use it to gain advantage over men in terms of pleasure and fulfilment. When a power dynamic is introduced or supported, obligations usually arise in order to sustain these power struggles. To enter chivalric behavior is to almost expect certain behaviors which will become measurement of the relationship, giving it a certain kind of value that is almost unnatural and predetermined, reducing both partners' freedom to act otherwise.

The Problems We Face Right Now

We have immense distrust in public officials and government. We cannot trust the government because of the rise in conspiracy theories. This is cynical suspicion which is given birth during the twenty first centuries with the rise of virtual media. Now that true democracy has been reached online, the flow of information is deafening, in fact rather dangerous causing us to be selective in a biased way. Our concentration span is threatened and our focus on basic needs is disrupted. Our civic participation has ended because we click Attending on Facebook but don't show up at the event. If we do show up, we are on Facebook searching up the next event to click attending to.
We have no time. We don't have any friends. We don't have anyone to turn to but ourselves. But our selves are swimming in homework, piles of undone research, and responsibilities amid work and familial obligations we wish to abdicate but because blood is thicker than water, we remain guilt-ridden. Because we have all these issues, we wish for more hours in the day and we sit up all night and semi-procrastinate because we are either on Facebook or checking ourselves in the mirror momentarily. This disassociation with external society is a retreat into our interior selves. This brings out the worst rather than the best in people. Once we recede into our own selves we may find it difficult to step outside of our own comfort zones and project empathy or caring capability towards others outside of us physically.
Facebook is an incredible interior-directing tool which tells us to focus on our interior selves, but it fails at directing us toward our authentic selves. Instead we create fictitious selves (e.g. "You don't look anything like your Facebook profile pic!") that exist only online because the photos we CHOOSE to upload and EDIT to certain degrees reflect a certain mode of ourselves as certain distinguished moments that we prefer to share with our friends (private mode) or the world (public settings). Now we must understand that there are people who have inverse understanding. The pictures of them in suits and ties may not necessarily be most desirable. If someone takes pleasure in self-abasement and dissing himself, he will put up devastating pictures that show shame and guilt to elicit sympathy from others who come across his picture (Comment: "Aw, poor thing.").