This is something that inevitably you'll have discussed in some way or another, even if I limit it to what you find sexually or romantically attractive. I've had my fair share of conversations about what makes a woman attractive.
I've met people who want a nice, friendly, subservient woman. Of course, they want a cook and a cleaner (and actually, not a whore in the bedroom) and wouldn't ever use the word subservient, but they want someone who fits traditional gender roles by being passive and unchallenging. They want someone demure and refined (their words; boring and restrained might be more accurate).
Others want someone who shares their interests. That seems a step in the right direction, but I'm not so sure about that. I'd certainly want one who could tolerate and participate in my interests, and for whom I could do the same, but I don't think I'd really want to be so limited, or so similar.
Men want women they can care for, or plenty of them do. Chivalry itself is rooted in the fact that many men see women as weak and in need of the protection and care of a man. The whole mindset is about control and domination. It's not necessarily deliberate: traditionalist men are put off by a more assertive or self-supporting women, but that's not necessarily just down to wounded masculinity or a fear of change; some part of it could be the concern that this woman, in rejecting chivalry, leaves them unable to express affection in a manner with which they are comfortable; a fear of failure, you might say. Even the sort of man who has no interest in the more domineering aspects of traditional masculinity feels sometimes obliged to play by some of the traditional rules, simply because that's the only code of expression that we can be sure is mutually understood.
An independent woman is definitely a turn-off for many men with whom I have spoken about this. So if it's ingrained because of culture, it's been absorbed very deeply.
A woman who makes other men insecure? Now that's hot. Once she's chosen you, you're all good. You know she's in control of her own mind and life, and she's steered it your way.
That's so much sexier than some random who you've scooped up with a bit of effort and money who's just a candle blowing in the wind.
That's why not to go chasing girls the old-fashioned, chivalrous way. I don't want to be constantly wafting a girl my way and protecting her from other men because I believe her to be, and she acts like, just a piece of property.
I want an equal; someone who makes her own choices, has a mind of her own and hitches herself to me freely and happily. That's the only way to find a relationship fulfilling. If she hasn't chosen you, no wonder you get insecure about her affection! 'Chivalry' and implicitly sexist attitudes cause men a load of pointless heartache. And, strangely, gives women power, through the consequent insecurities, even though the sexism implicitly denies that they have any.
If men (and women, many of whom also look for a chivalrous, sexist man) would just renounce traditional attitudes then the vicious circle of relying on chivalry because it's the default mode of interaction, and it being the default because everyone uses it, would be broken.
Men wouldn't have to worry about losing a woman (so much) because they would not conceive of social status as central to every relationship (although no doubt some couples will have that as their shared perversion, just as others like leather riding crops). Maybe conspicuous consumption and crime levels would decrease. Most violent crime is about 'respect' and 'disrespect', so anything that reduces the importance of social status and promotes individuality over the reliance on society to define oneself is a good thing.
Is it macho to want to care for a weakling? Is that 'alpha-male-like' instead of demanding a partner who can keep up? Is 'alpha-male-like' an important goal to aim for?
Whatever the answers to those questions, I don't want to be lumbered with someone who'll slow me down. I want someone who can keep up, or show me new things, rather than meekly follow. I have no insecurities that can be soothed by having a passive 'yes-woman' supporting me in everything I do. I don't derive my self-esteem from twisted notions of superiority, in which a woman must support me, and is humiliating me if she points out I'm wrong.
I want to learn what's wrong and improve, not have someone help dig me into a rut through their support.
