Chivalries were military codes of conduct for knights that came into being around the 12th century (plural, because there wasn't a single monolithic formulation of such codes). At that time, a knight was a member of the nobility who also happened to be a heavy cavalryman (in fact, the words "chivalry" and "cavalry" have the same origin).
Contrary to what people seem seem to think nowadays, these codes had little to do with how men were supposed to woo women, treat them all special, and whatnot. People continue to bemoan the death of chivalry, but the truth is that the military code of conduct disappeared centuries ago when use of military use of knights itself became obsolete.
Anyway, my point is, I think the true origin of chivalry should be mentioned, but I'm new around here, so maybe that's not what this wiki is about.
If such a description is added, it would also help to mention how it morphed from "military code" to "gentleman's guide to romance". This happened centuries after the historical death of chivalry (during the Victorian era?), when writers remixed the notion for their romantic novels. This version of "chivalry" never died, because it never existed outside of fiction.
Tangent: IMHO, it's fine if you want to incarnate the romantic version of "chivalry", but note that it originates from a time/place when/where women weren't exactly "empowered". Moreover, expecting men to treat women special with no analogous code for special "lady-like" behavior towards men is simply blatant sexism. If you want special treatment, I would strongly suggest that step 0 would be to dish it out yourself (cf. golden rule, be the change you want to see, etc.). If you aspire towards a world of gender equality, then being female ought not confer any special birthright privileges, just like being male ought not confer any such privileges.
(nota bene: I used the word "ought" there, not "does". Though the difference between these words is extreme, it is somehow often glossed over, especially in hastily and sloppily constructed Internet arguments on charged subjects like this.)
Chivalries were military codes of conduct for knights that came into being around the 12th century (plural, because there wasn't a single monolithic formulation of such codes). At that time, a knight was a member of the nobility who also happened to be a heavy cavalryman (in fact, the words "chivalry" and "cavalry" have the same origin).
Contrary to what people seem seem to think nowadays, these codes had little to do with how men were supposed to woo women, treat them all special, and whatnot. People continue to bemoan the death of chivalry, but the truth is that the military code of conduct disappeared centuries ago when use of military use of knights itself became obsolete.
Anyway, my point is, I think the true origin of chivalry should be mentioned, but I'm new around here, so maybe that's not what this wiki is about.
If such a description is added, it would also help to mention how it morphed from "military code" to "gentleman's guide to romance". This happened centuries after the historical death of chivalry (during the Victorian era?), when writers remixed the notion for their romantic novels. This version of "chivalry" never died, because it never existed outside of fiction.
Tangent: IMHO, it's fine if you want to incarnate the romantic version of "chivalry", but note that it originates from a time/place when/where women weren't exactly "empowered". Moreover, expecting men to treat women special with no analogous code for special "lady-like" behavior towards men is simply blatant sexism. If you want special treatment, I would strongly suggest that step 0 would be to dish it out yourself (cf. golden rule, be the change you want to see, etc.). If you aspire towards a world of gender equality, then being female ought not confer any special birthright privileges, just like being male ought not confer any such privileges.
(nota bene: I used the word "ought" there, not "does". Though the difference between these words is extreme, it is somehow often glossed over, especially in hastily and sloppily constructed Internet arguments on charged subjects like this.)