I often come across articles on the Internet about how chivalry is dead and why those angry men-hating feminists are to blame. But is it a bad thing that men unnecessarily overextending themselves is no longer a criteria for landing dates? Or is it a good sign that current dating culture is moving away from gender stereotypes, and toward a more well-balanced system? Chivalry may not be dead, but it is taking on a whole new meaning.

I’ve yet to see anyone toss their raincoat over a mud puddle to protect a passing female from an undue splash, but chivalry appears to be quite well on the University of Oregon campus. Nevertheless, UO males seem to view it as less of an art form than a moral necessity. Some view the practice of chivalry as more mannerly than masculine and as more respectful than romantic.

A general consensus among the men I interviewed was that they felt it necessary to be chivalrous because they were raised believing that it is the way a man should act toward a woman. They equated these tendencies with good manners. So instead of believing that they had to be chivalrous to impress women, they felt it was simply the practice of being respectful.

Sophomore Rudy Zarosinski views chivalrous norms as problematic. “I felt a lot of pressure to be chivalrous until I recognized it was part of a larger patriarchal culture,” Zarosinski said. “I still feel some of that pressure, but I can more easily see aspects of it that are part of a problematic culture.”

Dom Carrillo, a junior and a political science major had a more straightforward point of view on the demands of chivalry. “I absolutely feel no pressure to be chivalrous,” Carillo said. “To be honest chivalry comes naturally. Why would you not open the door for a girl or another person if any other reason than to be a good person?”

It’s interesting that in the view of these males, what was once viewed as romantic is now viewed as respectful. Still, I wonder about expectations. Don’t get me wrong — the world of dating has vastly changed since our parents were going steady. But why are men still expected to pay for a woman’s meal, to hold the door or to walk on the outside of the street to protect us delicate women from … what, running in to parking meters?

Obviously, worth shouldn’t be measured by how much a man will shell out for a woman on the first, second or third date. Unless, of course, you are completely financially supported by your parents, and are in the wealthy 1 percent. In which case, dinner is always on you and I’m in the mood for pizza.

Allie Sasek, a women and gender studies discussion leader, says that chivalry can be problematic by always putting one sex on a pedestal. “I don’t think that chivalry should be dead because it is about respect, and being conscientious of another person,” Sasek said. “But why can’t there be equal respect for both sexes? Feminism is all about a balanced scale, and traditional chivalrous roles don’t help to equalize that scale.”

Men shouldn’t be discouraged from being polite and generous. But they also don’t have to put unnecessary pressure on themselves to prove their worth by flexing their chivalrous muscle. Women deserve respect from their male counterparts, just as men deserve respect from women.

Perhaps chivalry is less dead than changing. After all, the obnoxious side of chivalry is the condescension that certain things should be done for the “weaker” sex. Bury that bone in the backyard. If men view chivalry more as measures of respect than of false flattery or political correctness, then that is a healthy and welcome evolution of the term.

If you hold the door open for the person behind you, then good for you. Manners matter. My point is just this — don’t hold that door open because it is a woman that is behind you. Hold it open because it looks like she could use the help, or you have already made eye contact and not holding the door open would be awkward. And women, take note of that kindness and hold it open for the man trailing behind you.