Whether you celebrate or bemoan it, we’re all pretty much in agreement that chivalry is dead. As noted here before, feminism is what killed it. Broadly speaking, men and women had an unspoken social contract whereby women were expected to behave in a certain way (chaste, modest, nurturing) and in return expected certain behavior from men (protection, self-sacrifice, gallantry). When women started brazenly flouting their end of the contract, it is hardly fair to expect men to hold up their end. Would you give up your place on a lifeboat for a coarse, vulgar, tattooed lady woman otherkin? You’d be a chump to do so, but PTT has a more technical term.
Another social institution whose death it has become fashionable to celebrate/bemoan is the humanities. Can a parallel between the two deaths be drawn? Was there a social contract of sorts between the the soft, sensuous, nurturing humanities and the patriarchal hard exact STEM sciences? (And was whoever coined the acronym in on the joke?) When humanities ceased to be the study of beautiful art, literature and music and descended into coarse, violent, foul-mouthed grievance fetishism — it became destined to go the way of chivalry.
posttenuretourettes 
Not clear, what was the STEM’s side of the alleged social contract, and how contract breach by humanities changed the position of STEM. Unlike the sexes, humanities and STEM don’t need each other that much.
LikeLike
Well STEM, roughly speaking, funds the humanities (being the source of technology, innovation, etc). The humanities are not inherently profitable, but STEM is.
LikeLike