Why Charters are a part of the problem

                  Another day, another article detailing how Charter Schools hurt our overall education system. But I don't want to focus on the specifics of that article. I just want to enumerate why the charter system is intrinsically detrimental to the overall public education system. First, the charter system does not have to be removed. There is a place for Charter Schools in the country. Charter Schools exist so new pedagogy and educational philosophies can be tried outside the public education system. Through this experimentation, public education can possibly pick up useful techniques and advice in order to better themselves. The issue comes when charters expand into huge networks that essentially take the cream of the crop, leaving the most vulnerable students to the public education system. One might think the lottery system in Charters prevents this kind of cherry picking, but with suspension rates at Charters far outpacing that of public schools, it's no surprise that their iron clad management systems are effective at maintaining classroom management. Couple this with several of the famous charter systems being adept at finding private donors, and you have the perfect environment to propagate a myth of charter excellence. The reality is that charters are excellent because they remove students with behavior issues and they have full access to the resources necessary to teach. Of course all Charters are not created equal. Plenty of charters function like public schools and achieve similar, if not worse, results.
                 People might argue that at the end of the day the achievement created by these charters far outweighs any negative externality created by the sprawling charter system. However, there are some institutional downsides. Charters with more money to develop find themselves able to hedge prime locations for their schools, often pushing out potential public schools from being created. The brain drain effect is something that has not been explicitly researched and may be creating a system where teachers in public schools are bombarded with students who need academic assistance. If we're playing the numbers game, the question might be is it worth creating 600 exemplary students or about 800 above average, 100 exemplary, and 300 below average students. Of course those numbers are estimates, but the hypothetical set up is the true question posed by the charter problem. Do charters hurt the public education system enough so that their contribution of exemplary students does not outweigh the unintentional harm done to public education students? If the answer is yes, we need to reform the charter system. If the answer is no, then we need to spend time figuring out a threshold where charters need to be kept at. But the notion of expanding charters without any limits is a foolhardy one. There's an issue when one of my students, who attends what's considered the best public school in her neighborhood, talks about how her mother wishes she had been placed in a charter. Teachers know they're being shortchanged. Students know they're being shortchanged. The only people pretending they're doing no harm are the charter schools themselves. 

Minorities owe nothing to Bernie Sanders

                The Bernie Sanders movement has arrived and it seems to have some staying power in the American political arena. While most politically reserved individuals and know-it-all assholes still believe Sanders-mania will fade when the ballot is real, there are enough individuals who believe in the movement that I felt it was important to address a growing belief that Bernie Sanders is the candidate for most left leaning minorities. And what's there not to believe? Bernie Sanders is routinely cast as an honest straightforward politician who wants to empower the (white) people and spread economic equality across this great nation. Unfortunately many minorities (aside from the Uncle Toms) have heard this script before and we fortunately know better. It isn't the first time a candidate who seems to actually not be a complete racist has come to the fore, promising to help the poor and the needy. What is left unsaid, which also applies to Bernie Sanders, is that these candidates refuse to acknowledge the racist systems of oppression that make so many minority groups (blacks, latinos, native americans, etc.)  underprivileged when these reforms come into place. Unsurprisingly when you look at issues in this country through the lens of socio-economic status, rather than an intersectional lens (i.e. race and socio-economic status), whites tend to benefit more from what ever general policy you put out.
         How does this happen Raymond? Well it's simple, let's say you put a job program to employ Americans. We'll find white applicants are more "qualified" because they'll have higher rates of high school diplomas than their black and latino counterparts. Anyone who knows why this is the case can look at the well documented racist tendencies of school administrations to suspend black and latino students at a far higher rate than white students. This inequality then interacts with the seemingly "equal" policy of a job program, further exacerbating racial inequity. Raymond what about things like lowering rates of federal loans? Or perhaps giving more tax breaks to the poor. Again we have to look at how the racial stratification in a particular socio-economic sense has grown. Whites are in a better position, therefore many of them can utilize these improvements far better than their black and latino counterparts.
        But Raymond, they're all getting the same help, it's fair. That's exactly what many minorities have been trying to point out. It has never been fair. Minorities from the very beginning have entered an unfair game, where it is expected we work much harder and smarter than everyone else in the nation in order to gain some chance at success. The key word in that sentence is chance, meaning many minorities can work very hard and still be unable to achieve any semblance of  financial security, educational achievement, and so on. This is not the same set up for whites. Whites tend to have more resources and more positive biases to help them. So any reform that intends to be an en masse buffer to the poor will really just act as a tidal wave; those who were already elevated will find themselves even more elevated (whites), while those were at the lowest elevation will find themselves lifted, but not as high as those who were initially above them.
      Bernie Sanders doesn't address this. His message has consistently been one focused on socioeconomic inequity. Hidden in his speeches and political message is an old excuse given out by liberals and socialists for decades. "We want to fix racism, but income inequality is more pressing." Or it's slightly more misleading form: "By fixing income equality, we can fix racism." The first statement is at least honest about the second priority minorities have in the politician's heart. The first statement is a poor excuse which begs the question "why not do both?" The two tasks aren't mutually exclusive. Yet Sanders shies away from being explicit on his policy of addressing the institutional barriers that face many minorities. Don't get me wrong, explicit racism is unacceptable in his book, but that's basically true for all democrats. Everyone wants to get rid of the industrial prison complex. Everyone wants to get rid of racially charged police encounters. These are examples of racism that are more explicit and so therefore are easier to get a predominantly white, liberal audience up in arms about. But make a single world about affirmative action and half of that audience will become quiet as they think about their own kids and how they might be affected by such a program. Bernie Sanders isn't out to help minorities. He has hardly addressed the true issues that plague them. And until he and any other candidate addresses these issues, I believe minorities should use their ballot as ammunition for a political gun and aim it straight at their heads, that way they know that any dream of them entering the office can and will be dashed by the swift strike of the pencil on the ballot.
                     

But he made me mad, so I decided to be racist!

               This is a quick and simple post. Racist comments, regardless of how small and indirect are never acceptable forms of lashing out. The real community that needs to learn this is the video gaming community. I remember when I found it hilarious to make women jokes as I killed someone in Halo. Then I grew up and reflected on how much of a little shit I am. Unfortunately we still have a plethora of individuals who think that if someone is a jerk to them, then they have license to use any identity of theirs as potential comeback material. A girl trolls your game? Why does she have an x-box in the kitchen! Someone insults how you play? They're just a stupid illegal, hahahaa! Someone disagrees with your strategy or direction? You should just fucking kill yourself! Now it's not that I don't rage in games. I do. It's something I'm particularly bad at to be honest, so no excuses for me.I'm still  a piece of shit. But I always make sure I have my limits and typically it's refusing to make fun of someone's race, gender, socio economic status and mental health. Especially the suicide comments. I think those are by far the worst. I will tell someone, "god you're terrible." Or " wow you're straight trash." But I always try my hardest not to tell someone to actually hurt themselves. What if they actually do? You have no idea what mental state they're in. So if you're going to be dick, I can't really stop you lest risk being a huge hypocrite, but I will say keep all the extra stuff out of it. Make it about gaming and gaming alone. Or of course we could all stop being dicks and just not rage. But that last comment doesn't excuse or place equal blame on both forms of harassment One is annoying. The other possibly scarring. 

You can't preach love for all exclusively (Trigger Warning: Homophobia, Transphobia, basically talking about the Catholic Church)

                                This is the blogpost I never wanted to write. It's the one that could possibly alienate me from my family and from some of my friends. But just as I get filled with anger as some of my non-minority friends abandon me when I push for the recognition of the difficulties minorities face, I too must face my privilege as a Catholic living in a Christian country. My main issue with the Catholic faith and why I waiver in my support of it, ashamed to call myself Catholic, is that by most primary interpretations of the Bible, the LGBTQ community are labeled sinners. While Christians (Catholics included) rush to preach a gospel of love and acceptance, what many often fail to mention is the underlying belief that those whose sexual orientation are not heterosexual are considered deviant and hellbound. Even by the most liberal interpretation of the bible, which withholds all judgement by God, the bible is clear in its disapproval of anyone who identifies as LGBTQ. Now I know there are other alternative interpretations and I don't want to debate those right now, mostly because I'm not properly informed. I just know that this is a particular facet of my own social justice spectrum that I've struggled with. I grew up in a household where homophobic remarks were normal. While an outright hatred of gays was considered unacceptable, the derision of them was considered appropriate and humorous. Even at school this was considered to be acceptable, especially when connected to the stereotypical effeminate behavior associated with gay men. Gender definitely intersects into this issue and so my experience is a limited one. All I can say is that I cannot in good faith tell someone I love them if a part of me believes that the person that they are is abhorrent. By choosing to remain true to my catholic faith, I am essentially choosing to deny an honest love to many of my friends in the LGBTQ community. This is not a religious choice. It is a moral choice. I choose to tread on the skirts of religiosity in order to maintain what I believe to be the moral imperative and the bedrock commitment I have to my friends. I cannot call anyone out because it is difficult for me to even express how I feel. But do not shed a drop of pity on me because what is far worse is someone holding a core piece of who you are as immoral due to an immutable text. Am I hear to admonish those who are catholic and who claim to be allies? I don't know. I'm not sure if that's my place. I'm not sure if that's right. All I know is that I will not sit by and listen to religious conversation from catholics who claim to support the LGBTQ community, but still consider being apart of the community a sin. The two modes are mutually exclusive and you do a disservice to your friends when you hold both at the same time.

Again I don't believe I deserve any pity. Just like how I show no pity to white people who grapple with white privilege, I don't expect a badge or a pat on the back for writing this. I feel this could start a crucial conversation in the catholic community about a glaring hypocrisy that many of us want to ignore. 

A naive look at oversight in schools

                        People hate the teacher unions enough to suspend common sense. There are around 75,000 teachers currently teaching in NYC public schools. The state is so concerned with the performance of these teachers it forces principals from other schools to evaluate them. This makes no sense. What is the intended outcome of observations? One might assume it's to remove bad teachers, however between the subjective nature of observations and the variable nature of randomly taking three snapshots of someone's classroom, it often falls short of achieving this goal. One might argue it's accountability, however teachers often find ways to game the system (i.e. change their lesson and demeanor specifically for observations) or do not care because of tenure. When I find teachers talking about how they change their entire way of teaching for an observation, I know that that accountability isn't occurring, only bureaucratic appeasement. Why do we keep pursing this? Well, it's because we have an inherent distrust of teachers due to their vilification by many politicians. I'm not here to exonerate teachers. I think teachers are employees, much like any other company, where there are good ones and bad ones. We need to treat teachers similarly to how ethical companies treat their employees.
                         Oversee Principals who will then oversee Teachers  
                         The current system we have for observations is a classic case of micro-managing. We need to trust that the principals in charge of schools are observing their teachers fairly. But how can we trust principals? Well simply put a Principal's success is tied closely to how their teachers perform. So principals have an incentive to keep high performing teachers and get rid of those performing poorly. Even more than a simple hire versus fire dichotomy is the motivation to help coach and support teachers. Principals will realize that their success is tied to their teachers' success and so rather than firing many teachers they will instead choose to support struggling teachers.
                      Of course this then gets tied to the question of how hard it is to fire a teacher. I honestly don't think this is as big of a deal as people make it out to be. The firing process for a teacher exists to protect the teacher from reckless Principals that would use their authority to gain better control over their staff. In this way unions are completely justified in demanding a fair and extensive process that determines whether a principal has attempted to support a teacher in every way they can before firing. While it can be annoying, the reality is that principals have plenty of reasons to fire teachers for things other than performance. Perhaps a personality trait is clashing with the principal and while the teacher is an excellent teacher, he breeds defiance in the staff. Well that's a good reason to fire anyone, but we often forget that's a person's livelihood and it should not be taken away due to a personality clash. Or as I mentioned before, nothing breeds fearful respect of a Principal than a random firing of someone who was doing something menial (perhaps showing up late to Professional Development) in order to wake the rest of the staff up. While these are all probably effective techniques in terms of corralling the troops, the cost of potentially ruining an individual's life is too great. There are plenty of other ways for principals to make you feel miserable at work (I'm not condoning this behavior, I'm merely pointing out that we have no real reason to demand teachers be fired more easily). A magic eraser isn't necessary for motivation.
               Furthermore, the long firing process encourages a mindset of help and nurture rather than alienation and removal. If a Principals knows it can only fire realistically 2 to 3 individuals from their staff, then they're more likely to focus on helping the majority of teachers on their staff succeed, rather than attempt to clean house every single time difficulty occurs. Principals essentially become married to the staff they receive and must deal with what they have. Similar to a baseball manager in the midst of reconstruction, the principal must focus on accentuating the talent that already exists on the staff, while minimizing the deficiencies. For example, if all of your special education teachers are first year teachers, then they may need extensive help writing IEPs (a skill never explicitly taught to you in graduate school). So set up a Professional Development teaching them how to do it. Create documents assisting them through the process. Give them the support they need, but won't ask for. Trust me as a first year teacher I spoke up about everything, but always felt bad doing so.
             Principals should decide pedagogical choices 
              With a shift in oversight from teachers to principals comes the reality that your classroom will in some ways be dictated by your principals, This already happens in many schools, but certain provisions in the current teacher union contract in NYC afford unnecessary rights to teachers. For example, teachers have the right to choose their lesson plan format. This is absolutely unnecessary. The reason this right was demanded was in response to principals who would often demand 4 to 5 pages per lesson plan. That is clearly excessive, but giving full autonomy to a teacher is the other end of the spectrum. It's very easy for me to merely hand my principal a mostly blank piece of paper with my Learning Objective and a copy and pasted description of the 5 main parts of a lesson and it would be acceptable. Principals should be able to hold teachers accountable for proper planning and if there is a reasonable request made by the principal (e.g. have a section detailing possible misunderstandings), teachers should be responsible for doing it. On this count I would side with the principals, simply because their jobs are on the line according to how their teachers perform. If they believe a ridiculous 4 to 5 page lesson plan will bring about success, then they can demand it. Whether it gets done by most teachers or done well by most teachers is another problem, but in the end the buck stops with them. As I noted before in exchange for job security, teachers must be willing to adapt to their principal.
             Included in this adaption is the pedagogical philosophy in the classroom. Meaning principals need to have a degree of control over the pedagogy you employ when teaching. In my school, all teachers are expected to use small group instruction every single day they teach. This means as teachers we do not address the entire class (after the lesson), instead we only teach a small group of students, leaving the rest of the class to complete independent work. For many teachers this sounds like a nightmare, but when an entire school commits to it, the results are splendid. That kind of commitment can be sought by principal. Of course at first it may not give her many fans, but if the pedagogy is successful and people are given the proper support and guidance, then the results will speak for themselves.
            This post may be controversial and considered to be naive and shortsighted, but I wrote this simply from my own observations through my first year of teaching and the knowledge of the documented failures of the current observation process. Stop making teachers nervous about being randomly fired or given low ratings. Let them teach and focus on allowing principals the tools and oversight to produce great teams of excellent teachers. 

Why life after an elite college for a poor kid can suck

                      So you just graduated from your top 50 school fresh with optimism, a degree and tons of debt. Mom already knows your moving in and while it's a bummer, it's only temporary you tell yourself. The job hunt has been real and there's no way your [insert Alma Mater here]'s network will let you down. Then three months pass and you find yourself consistently temping at an office job that pays meh, but isn't so embarrassing that you wouldn't tell your friends about your city office. And one day you'll come home and wonder, " what the fuck did I do wrong? What was I supposed to do to keep this from happening? And more importantly are my friends going through this as well?" Well the answers to the first two questions are long and difficult, but the answer to the final question is quite simple: no. Most of your friends were probably middle-class or well off, meaning many of them are not in your situation. Many of them are doing one of two things: taking a gap year (i.e. an unearned vacation) or dicking around in grad school. Well since taking a gap year definitely costs tons of cash we can cross that off our list of things we'd suggest to our parents. My mother and father would laugh at a suggestion to cap off my 200,000 4 year slumber party with a slightly cheaper 1 year slumber party. So why didn't I pursue option 2? Oh yea, I can't actually pay for the University I attended. Everyone is quick to encourage people to go to college to get their undergraduate degree, but Masters are typically reserved for those who gain acceptance to incredibly competitive programs or to those who have the money. Sure that kid who gets into the master of business administration program at Wharton might not mind taking out debt in order to get a degree that will most likely give him great earning power. But your degree of Social Work at the University of Virginia isn't going to pay the bills or the tuition it cost to get it. Why not pay for it the same way I paid undergrad? Well undergrad left you in debt and jobless, so putting yourself in more debt and remaining jobless is not an option. Also, mom and dad reluctantly helped you through undergrad. Poor parents don't have time for a 22 year old who can't feed himself. But how are all my friends doing it? Simple, they either left college with 0 debt, allowing them to take a one to two year period of time to put themselves in debt or their parents have the money to send them through more schooling. Either way because of their socioeconomic status they'll be afforded far better job prospects later in life, while you will probably languish, your degree becoming more useless with each day passing, ultimately ending with you unhappy, unfulfilled and bitter. But what about when I pay my debt! Oh you mean the 30 to 40k of debt you accrued? You intend to pay that making close to 50k a year in a major city? That will take you 5 to 6 years, so yes you can then attend grad school at the ripe age of 28 to 29, while your friends are all starting families, careers, etc. So how am I supposed to rationalize this, it all seems unfair and I'm tired of this fetal position that you've put me in. Well, you can rationalize it in two ways: first, I should have been smarter so I could earn special benefits such as a scholarship or financial aid for graduate school or I have been plagued by an unfair system that is stacked against me, I must resign myself to my mediocrity. How do you deal with it Raymond? I write sarcastic blogposts with fictional characters talking to me.

On a real note: I'm currently attending grad school. I'm currently working as well. So I guess I took the fuck it, I'll do it live option. But not everyone has this option. Oh and please spare me the story of how your friend got a scholarship. So has all of our friends. If there were enough scholarships for every person accepted to a school, this post wouldn't have been written. I also don't think it's anything you should fall into despair about, there are real options out there, but I just wanted to write something that captures the struggle many poor students find themselves in after college. 

My thoughts on Bernie Sanders, his "liberal" brand, and why I support those black activists

                 So I know Bernie Sanders labels himself as a Democratic Socialist, but that's just a good example of political jargon developed in order to make him electable (in any campaign). In reality, had his media team not spin out this "democratic socialist" label we would consider him a liberal and a pretty far left leaning liberal at that. And hey, I'm cool with that. My political journey has ranged from entering college as a moderate conservative to leaving college as what I'd call a "democratic socialist" (you see it's ok for me to do it because I have nothing to gain from it). And now I kind of find myself with Bernie in that we want to differentiate ourselves, but if we abstract the political field, we're both lumped in a big blotch of liberalism. I'm sure for Bernie, if he weren't running for President, that'd be ok. But for me, personally I find liberalism in its current form to be pretty inept at prioritizing minorities. Now before I get the screams of racist republicans this and tea parties are "colorblind" that, I'm not saying liberals are overtly racist. I'm saying that liberals and liberalism typically supports policies that are for the status quo. Regardless if it's changing the status quo or maintaining it, liberalism serves people as a "whole." But minorities all know that the conglomerate is never truly serving them. American group think has been innately oppressive for so long that it's hard to even tell when we're feeding into it. For example, my friends, so called "social justice warriors", were quick to criticize black protesters for disrupting Sander's speech. I guess the urgency to save black lives can wait for the presidential cycle?
         Elitism reeks in liberalism. So many of my friends thought they knew better than those protesters. Those that spoke (who were not black) for some reason believed they were more qualified than black people at running their own social movement. I remember one time I heavily criticized the divestment movement in my school because I thought their sit in on the CSG meetings was a poor way of getting the public on their side. I found their actions to be annoying and borderline rude. So I decided to be critical on Facebook (yay for digital acitivism!). And one of my friends, who was very involved in the movement, basically called me out for being an oppressive jerk. She was completely right. While I support her and the movement, as a non-arab, the effects of that movement were removed from me. No movie, testimony, sit-in was going to truly affect my life like so many of my peers whose families have suffered. So when the divest movement decided to act as if it were a state of an emergency, I responded to them as if they were overreacting, which makes sense. But that doesn't excuse that we need to have the sense to acknowledge when we may not know. When my friend confronted my foolishness I felt embarrassed. At the time I thought I was pretty down in the Social Justice Crowd. What happened! I forgot that the theory of social justice and its actual exhibition in our lives are two completely different things.
        Ooops, this is supposed to be a post about Bernie Sanders! Well, the reason I decided to take this long tangent is because I understand and sympathize with minorities who don't trust any politician who hasn't explicitly made their campaign about them. I think it's about time we make politicians prove they're down before we give up our vote. And what better way than to potentially stake your presidential bid on making a radically profound statement on race. People want to harp about how Bernie Sanders has been fighting for Civil Rights for decades, but these same people are quick to ignore how he was complicit in a brand of liberalism that has always put minorities second and other issues first. When minorities demand that they be taken seriously and refuse to be patronized with afterthought considerations or token policy, we are viewed as being greedy and petulant. I'm not saying Bernie Sanders hasn't done everything in his power to help minorities. I'm saying that candidates who are dedicated to helping minorities don't earn their way by name dropping Martin Luther King. Bernie Sanders seems committed to helping minorities, but we're in an election cycle right now and why support someone who has race has one of his #3 or #4 issue, when we could demand that we be treated as #1. This is how political lobbying works. This is how social movements work. If we strip the civil rights movement of a lot of its romanticized notions, a lot of it was mobilizing people to pester everyday bystanders into action.
             When I see liberals such as Bernie Sanders come to the fore, I begin to grow annoyed at so many people who had claimed to be committed to something higher than an individual, but abandoned those values in order to protect a politician. Which is exactly what he is. This isn't cynicism, it's pragmatism. Bernie Sanders, if he wants to be a successful president, is not going to fulfill many of his promises. Bernie Sanders will concede issues once he enters office. He may accomplish a lot of good too and it's not like his inability to get legislation passed will be any different from other candidates who are far leaning in the spectrum. I'm just suspicious and because I'm suspicious, I'm slightly critical, but for many that's considered to be liberal sacrilege. I guess I'm not a liberal after all.
        Was it shitty that activists hijacked his speech? Sure, to you it probably was. Is everyone capable of using someone else's platform in order to further their own agenda, even if it's the agenda of a particular group of people. No, I'm sure some people aren't. But are people of color, specifically black people, still dying due to ingrained racism in this country, especially in our policing institutions, yes they are. I can't believe I'm going to agree with Donald Trump in this post, but the time for political correctness is over. Activist and those who support the movement will do what ever it takes protect black lives. I respect that. My life isn't on the line. So instead of criticizing it, I think I'll shut up. Plenty of my friends should probably do the same. Oh yea, and that's why I don't click the heels of my boots when I see Bernie Sanders. I don't trust him. I don't trust any of them. I won't be swept away. I'll wait till election day and compare the merits of every candidate. 

Fuck Chivalry. Yay High standards!

                  If I have to read another chivalry is dead article I'm going to puke. Chivalry is a sexist concept, can we just be honest about that. The notion that men have to go through a ridiculous prescription of actions and responsibilities in order to properly court a girl puts all agency and control in the man leaving the woman to be a passive recipient. And God forbid if she decides to reject a "chivalrous" gentleman, then she is ostracized, being labeled as"stuck up." That sounds shitty for both parties. Yet, I still hear a chorus of articles chiming about how "dates aren't a thing anymore" or "men don't want to define relationships." Yes, those are negative aspects of our current dating culture, but is your solution really an archaic notion of gender roles? What's worse is we're moving from getting down on chivalry to getting down on women being realistic. An article on how "women should be more high maintenance" irked me as the examples given were really just proving the point of "women should have basic expectations for dating and romance." The article cites a man inviting a woman over his place for a first date as an avoidable occurrence if a woman chooses to be "high maintenance." Actually that's pretty avoidable if you just have basic standards for dating.

does this scream romance to you?

          I'm tired of backwards expectations for dating. I think women should be able to have considerable say in what dates are and how they should go. I think men, while certainly obliged to pay for a first date because they are the ones who typically ask for them, should not feel threatened if a girl decides to ask them out. You know what's an attractive characteristic? Confidence. I think chivalry and all of its tenets should not all be obligatory. Holding the door, helping someone over a puddle, pulling out someone's chair, these are obligatory due to common courtesy, not because of some invisible "guy code." Buying someone roses, complimenting what someone wears, even at times paying for dinner, these are not actions that are obligatory, they're earned based on how someone piques another's interest. As I said in my last post, being a little selfish is actually healthy when initially dating. 

        The final aspect of chivalry I despise is the need to protect a "woman's honor." By chiming in before allowing a woman to speak for herself you are essentially treating her like a child. I'm not going to ignore the clear physical and violent dimension these types of exchanges take. You can be just as supportive by standing right by a woman as she deals with an altercation herself. Your presence and clear physical disposition is enough to let another man know that violence will not be tolerated. However, how the altercation should be handled is completely up to the woman. Of course intervene when someone is feeling overwhelmed, but again this is not because of chivalry, it's because that's what people do when they see other people in similar circumstances. 

      I have not been on many dates, but for the ones I have been on, I acted in a way that was going to make me happy, while also being respectful to the person I was dating. Instead of stressing over ridiculous notions of whether the date was done proper, I focused on getting to know the person I was meeting. That's what dating culture should be about. That's what people should be pushing for. Stop it with the chivalry crap. It ain't cute.