Oh, most definitely. The problem is in a non-shared definition of chivalry and cultures which do not reinforce or reward acts of chivalry. Feminism is a great example of this - if you hold a door open for a woman who is not a feminist, usually she'll appreciate it; hold one open for a true feminist, and she'll be offended ... As if you holding the door open for her implies shes in some way not worthy or is invalidated because you've done it "for" her.
True chivalry, to my way of thinking, requires both genders to buy into it as well. It doesn't work if the woman is expecting to be treated like a lady/princess and the man is expecting to act like a commoner. The result will be her feeling offended and him being oblivious.
Because many social mannerisms go with chivalry, usually whether both people in a heterogeneously-gendered scenario is detectable or inductively discernible. Simple discussion can often resolve whether such paradigms incorporate chivalry.
So: Yes, it's still alive. It is however less and less common.
True chivalry, to my way of thinking, requires both genders to buy into it as well. It doesn't work if the woman is expecting to be treated like a lady/princess and the man is expecting to act like a commoner. The result will be her feeling offended and him being oblivious.
Because many social mannerisms go with chivalry, usually whether both people in a heterogeneously-gendered scenario is detectable or inductively discernible. Simple discussion can often resolve whether such paradigms incorporate chivalry.
So: Yes, it's still alive. It is however less and less common.
