Is chivalry sexist?

[Comrade Anarchist]

Ive been taught my whole life to be a gentlemen but ive been thinking is that sexist? The whole thing stems from the false idea that women are weaker then men and it gives special treatment to women. But still i do the chivilarous thing. So am is being a chivilarous sexist and am i sexist?

[Sasha]

being polite to people is not sexist, acting like women are incapebel idiots who will break in an instant and cant do anything themselfs is.

[Charles Xavier]

no its not sexist.

There's this thing called mating. And attracting the opposite sex(or in 14% of the population the same sex) to you in order to fall in love and have intimacy is not sexist. Its part of biology. Its your job to find that special someone, and if you think helping them carry heavy bags is the way to go about doing it then all the power to you.

Most women will expect the man to carry heavy things. Don't let any of these new age hippies say that incorrect because I've never been with a girl who didn't ask me to carry heavier bags of groceries. Maybe there are girls like that out there but they are in the minority.

[Rascolnikova]

Personally, I feel that athletic equality between the genders is an unfortunate fantasy propagated by scientifically illiterate second-wavers. Having been briefly been a full time dancer myself, I have the utmost respect, fondness and admiration for those women who (usually due to fortunate genetics and massive amounts of hard work) are athletically superior to most men. However, as a trend, most women are significantly weaker than most men, and this seems to be a biological reality that isn't going anywhere soon. Furthermore, as almost anyone who has been party to an extended domestic violence situation will attest, this inequality still, definitely, matters.

This in no way means we are infantile and unable to carry our own groceries, but I do think that a type of chivalry--non gender based--is important for reaching gender equality. In order to have gender equality, we must have a society where differences in physical strength matter as little as possible. To achieve this, we must enact an ethic of chivalry in which those who are more capable are considered to have a duty towards the safety and well being of the less capable without the slightest expectation of renumeration. Courtesy wouldn't hurt us either.

Thus, if you have your arms full, and are therefore less capable of opening the door than I am, I should open the door for you. If you are less grounded in algebra, and thus less capable of keeping up with our calculus lectures than I, if possible I should make some sort of good faith effort to help you keep up. If you are less physically capable than I, I should under no circumstances enact physical violence against you when you are unarmed, and under certain circumstances I should move in your physical defense. All of these acts of chivalry remain appropriate regardless of our respective genders.

I think rushing ahead to open the door for someone who doesn't have their arms full (as some men will do for women) should be considered a slightly silly but sweet and respectful gesture, and be equally available to both genders, along with all the other minor courtesies of this sort.

[jake williams]

Women aren't "physically weaker" than men. Pregnancy and childbirth are physically demanding and women have biological adaptations (body fat, muscle groups etc.) that allow them to survive it whereas a lot of men wouldn't. Women have higher survival rates for a number of diseases, which is probably partly due to a different body composition. Men and women in general have different levels of average ability in different activities. You can't say one is stronger or weaker than the other.

These differences aren't all that significant though, and they certainly don't warrant a whole new system of morality and behaviour. People should be polite to people regardless of gender. Sexuality is a totally different topic. "Chivalry" is about patriarchy more than it is about courtship. Of course heterosexual men treat women differently than they do men, because they want to have sex with women. There's no reason they must or even should translate patriarchal constructions into this sphere though.

[Rascolnikova]

Women aren't "physically weaker" than men. Pregnancy and childbirth are physically demanding and women have biological adaptations (body fat, muscle groups etc.) that allow them to survive it whereas a lot of men wouldn't. Women have higher survival rates for a number of diseases, which is probably partly due to a different body composition. Men and women in general have different levels of average ability in different activities. You can't say one is stronger or weaker than the other.

You'll notice that this is why I specified athletic superiority instead of, say, intestinal fortitude. Yes, women are more flexible than men and have stronger internal organs, as well as a higher percentage body fat which aids in childbearing and famine survival. This doesn't tend to help them out so much when people are beating them up or raping them.


Edit: Besides being necessary for equality, I think the system of chivalry that I've proposed is simply a good idea, and not particularly new or far from common sense--it's a magnified part of being ethically consistent. I would also love to see you go to a battered women's shelter and tell the residents that the gender-strength differential doesn't matter.

[Module]

This has already been discussed, here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/being-gentleman-sexisti-t74223/index.html?t=74223).

[Rascolnikova]

This has already been discussed, here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/being-gentleman-sexisti-t74223/index.html?t=74223).

So it has.

Props (:laugh::laugh::laugh:) to Jazzrat and LP--and Des, I'm curious how you feel about my gender-neutral chivalry. I think the "walking home at night" is a bit of a spurious example, though. . .

[jake williams]

Besides being necessary for equality, I think the system of chivalry that I've proposed is simply a good idea, and not particularly new or far from common sense--it's a magnified part of being ethically consistent. I would also love to see you go to a battered women's shelter and tell the residents that the gender-strength differential doesn't matter.
- "Chivalry" is counterproductive and sets up an ideology of dominance hierarchy. It's antithetical to equality.

- If you really want to assault someone, statistical differences in upper body strength don't mean much. Chivalry is part of the patriarchal structure that leads to rape, and we need to stop violence against women. Telling men to be nice to women because they're weaker isn't going to do that.

[Bilan]

Telling men to be nice to women because they're weaker isn't going to do that.

That's not what Chivalry is.
Chivalry is not objectively sexist, it can be subjectively sexist.

[Blackscare]

But pretending there are no practical physical differences between men and women just amounts to squeamishness at some point, Jammoe. Also I think from Rascolnikova's earlier post you may actually be arguing the subject with a woman. :D

Also, this leaves out the fact that there do happen to be a lot of women who want a guy to be romantic and to show his interest and devotion by treating them well. Is that so sexist? Many women want to be treated with a certain amount of care and devotion by a mate, and in turn many men want to express how they feel for their mate through their will to protect them and lavish them with affection. Chivalry is an act of devotion, a way of signaling one's love for another person in a way that on some visceral level feels good for men AND the women who receive it. This is all in the modern sense of chivalry of course, and it's a big difference from the chivalry of the past.

Modern chivalry doesn't really extend past a relationship, women aren't treated as delicate flowers by strangers (or indeed, their mates, since most men do not have this impression of women anymore, and that is not why some choose to act with "chivalry"). They are treated as human beings out in the world and taken seriously. A women who is a stranger to me is just like any man, and I'll be happy to offer to help them with a task such as lifting a box if they look like they need it, but not if they clearly don't.

Chivalry was bad because there was a time when women were hemmed in by it on all directions, and had their choices made for them by men because they supposedly couldn't handle such things. It was an awful idea that reduced women to the role of a pet, unable to undertake anything for herself because of the misguided attempts made by men to completely provide for every facet of their lives. That is not what chivalry is these days.

Women will let a man know if they like such behavior (getting the door, grabbing the groceries, etc) or not, nothing is forced on them. A woman can accept a sweet gesture from a man and still be an independent being in full control of her life. And, if on a personal level she resents it as an assumption that she's weak, that same women might also refuse help carrying boxes or whatnot. Most women, I'm willing to bet, don't take it that personally though. Most women see it as a kind gesture, nothing more. If they didn't, then why, with their current state of liberation in most places, would most women not simply say "hey, cut it out, treat me like you would a guy!" to their boyfriends? They have freedom, they can come and go, they are not at the whim of any man yet chivalry is still widely accepted from men by women.

Perhaps this means that most men and women do actually enjoy the age old mating dance that humans perform. Maybe gestures suggesting a mild protectiveness or devotion (or the act of performing such gestures, if you're a man) really do give men and women a little fluttery feeling around those they love and care about. And there's nothing wrong with that if that's what you like.

This idea that any chivalric gesture is an act of domination is stupid, in reality it speaks to a much deeper biological urge on the part of a man to protect the woman he loves, as well as the desire of women to feel like they are wanted and treated well. This is an instinct hardwired into most of the human race by evolution. Like it or not, at a point in the distant past size and muscle mass meant a lot more to survival, and it was really necessary for men to take the protector role. Just like orgasms or taste buds, the feeling someone gets from a romantic gesture was evolved to promote behavior that would sustain the species. Nowadays it's more than a bit outdated in terms of survival, but that doesn't mean that harmless expressions of this urge are somehow bad.

I think this all comes from the point of view that because some women read into it as an insult, or that some people don't even engage in "conventional" relationships, the prevailing norm that they don't want to be shackled to is bad for everybody. They of course have the right to live their lives in a completely different way than what is described above, any way they choose. The problem is when we confuse the freedom to choose how one wants to live (a very very good ideal) with a hatred for what the majority wants to do (a very very misguided one). Just because in the past chivalry was forced on people does not mean it is bad, it just means that forcing it upon people in the manner that it was is bad. Now that people are free to be individuals, it's absurd to suggest that the majority of women who choose to engage in more or less "traditional" relationship patterns are all oppressed.

And outside a relationship, a woman can tell a guy to fuck off if he's being arrogant too, no one is telling her to mind her place in society.



Sorry for the long post, and thanks if you read this far down. :D Nothing except the very first remark towards jammoe was aimed at anyone's posts, so don't think I'm attacking anyone. Also, even though I tried to be logical and respectful, and I think that stands for itself, I do feel the need to say that I respect women as equals and don't want to come off as chauvinistic at all, because I am anything but. Also don't think that I assume all people are heterosexual, I don't (I'm bisexual myself). Those types of relationships just happen to be most relevant to this context. So there, my disclaimer, now you have to refute my points, not call me a sexist! :p

[Module]

That's not what Chivalry is.
Chivalry is not objectively sexist, it can be subjectively sexist.
'Chivalry', specifically directed towards women, which is what the OP is talking about, is objectively sexist.

In response to Rascolnikova,
I agree that 'gender-neutral chivalry' is important. As I've said elsewhere, before, people being offended at the idea of women being physically 'weaker' is simply demonstrative of the superior social value placed upon masculinity.
i.e. we consider the ability to physically dominate somebody else a superior trait in a human being, but we do not consider the ability to, say, give birth a superior trait in a human being. This is a natural product of a patriarchal society.
As the social relationships between men and women, as well as between men and men, is still defined largely by the ability to inflict violence upon one another, it is progressive to try to shift the boundaries of acceptable behaviour in a relationship away from violence.. the domain of violence in a relationship is one where men, as Rascolnikova said, will continue to until technology has caught up with it, have the upper hand.
The state, for example, has 'the sole legitimate use of force' to maintain it's power. To take away the power of men over women we must take away the legitimacy of the use of physical force by men, as men, over women, as women.
Social values are geared towards supporting the self-justification of social power. For example, not simply in terms of physical advantage, there has long been an issue with IQ tests, which place emphasis on the intellectual areas that white men are in the greatest social position to develop.
Some of these advantages are created socially, for example men have 'traditionally' been better than women at things like science and maths. Whilst recently the difference between performance between men and women has been disappearing, it's an example of a social advantage that men have had, which turns into an economic advantage when things like science and maths have greater value placed upon them. It still is not a 'natural' (that is, congruous with the way one is taught to behave, within the limits of one's social role) option for women to be interested in things like mathematics, or science, or politics, or economics beyond quite a shallow level. It is still a 'masculine' thing to do.
Traditionally 'women's work' like things like teaching, nursing, cleaning etc. are seen as being of less social value and have consequently never been payed well, despite these kinds of work being very demanding. I'm waffling on a bit now, but yes.
When it comes to social power, again, it's an advantage that men have because it is based upon an advantage that men naturally have, i.e. the physical advantage. If men and women are to have equal social power then you have to take violence out of the equation. The same thing goes for things like maths and science, if you want men and women to feel equally comfortable with maths and science then you have to take the masculinity out of it. You have to take away the social association. This seems like a really complicated thing to type out but I'm pretty sure people will get what I mean.
It is unjust to think that violence is a reasonable way to establish one's social position in the same way that it would be unjust to think that child birth is a reasonable way.
It is only seen as legitimate to use because men are in a position where violence actually reinforces the social dominance they hold over women. This shouldn't be the case.
As Rascolnikova said, if we want true social equality then we should believe that violence should not have social value. This puts the physically less powerful members of society, including women, at a natural disadvantage, and takes away their true opportunity at achieving a deserved social standing on the basis of their own individual merits.

[Bilan]

'Chivalry', specifically directed towards women, which is what the OP is talking about, is objectively sexist.

That's so simplistic, and just ignores the complexities of human relationships.
It can and it can't be, its subject to intention and objective; it is not black and white.

[Rangi]

So should you open a door for a female? Should I only pay for half of the meal? Things were so much simpler when girls wore dresses and men wore pants.

[Pogue]

Its only sexist if you do it because you feel the woman is incapable of doing it herself and thus needs your help.

[Rangi]

What if I say that I think she is capable but I really think that she isn't but I don't say it?

[Glorious Union]

Chivalry is part of the patriarchal structure that leads to rape, and we need to stop violence against women. Telling men to be nice to women because they're weaker isn't going to do that.
I have been polite to women my whole life (opening doors for them, picking up a dropped object, etc.) and I have been more polite to women than men due to how I was raised. But I have never in my wildest dreams ever allowed the thought of rape come to the farthest borders of my mind. How exactly does that work?
:confused:

[Invader Zim]

In an effort to avoid being called a chauvanist, for holding doors open for others; carrying heavy bags; and giving up seats on public transport I have gone the other way. I now let doors slam in women's faces, and the sound of a nose breaking on glass and wood lets me know I'm not a sexist.

PS. and for the particularly dense individuals of this board who cannot spot sarcasm (and there are some), I of course do not deliberately allow doors to slam in peoples faces.

Quite obviously it is motivation, and context as ever, which dictate whether acts of 'chivalry' are 'sexist'.

[Rjevan]

In an effort to avoid being a chauvanist, for holding doors open for others; carrying heavy bags; and giving up seats on public transport I have gone the other way. I now let doors slam in women's faces, and the sound of a nose breaking on glass and wood lets me know I'm not a sexist.
Lol, that's brilliant. :laugh:

As already said, there's nothing sexist about being polite to women. I hold doors open because I want to be nice and I wouldn't be happy if somebody slammed the door in front of me, but not because I think women are so weak and dumb that they aren't able to open a door and I, the strong superior man have to help these weak girls, so that they'll fall down to my knees and thank me for my generosity. That would be sexist.

[Invader Zim]

That, pretty much sums it up. As said, it comes down to motivation. If you do it because you hold some bizarre notion that women are weak, thus requiring patronising, then you're a berk.

[Killfacer]

Lol, that's brilliant. :laugh:

As already said, there's nothing sexist about being polite to women. I hold doors open because I want to be nice and I wouldn't be happy if somebody slammed the door in front of me, but not because I think women are so weak and dumb that they aren't able to open a door and I, the strong superior man have to help these weak girls, so that they'll fall down to my knees and fuck me for my generosity. That would be sexist.

I think that's what you meant.

You are essentially saying you should help women, but not because they're women. How does that work?

I always try and help, i offer to walk women home and the like. I guess it could in theory be sexist and although even if it is, i would still do it. Most women seem to appreciate the gesture.

[Invader Zim]

You are essentially saying you should help women, but not because they're women. How does that work?




I think you have missed the point; which is that you should help women not because they are women but because they are people. In precisely the same way you should help men because they too are people. To return to the broken nose analogy, you should attempt to stop a door slamming on a person because it is the nice thing to do, not because they happen to have two 'x' chromosomes.

Similarly you should assist lone parents with prams who encounter stairs, etc. Not because of their sex, but because it is the kind of thing you would like happen to you in a similar situation.

[Killfacer]

I think you have missed the point; which is that you should help women not because they are women but because they are people. In precisely the same way you should help men because they too are people. To return to the broken nose analogy, you should attempt to stop a door slamming on a person because it is the nice thing to do, not because they happen to have two 'x' chromosomes.

Similarly you should assist lone parents with prams who encounter stairs, etc. Not because of their sex, but because it is the kind of thing you would like happen to you in a similar situation.

So you all offer to walk men home?

[Invader Zim]

So you all offer to walk men home?

I regularly walk with friends to their homes provided it isn't pissing down with rain. Free cup of tea.

Other than in such a situation (where I am scrounging for tea), I can't recall ever walking someone home, male or female, unless, A. I had reason to go to their home, B. they live on the same route to my home, C. I was in some earnest discussion with them that could wait until morning or sobriety.

[Killfacer]

I regularly walk with friends to their homes provided it isn't pissing down with rain. Free cup of tea.

Yeah so do i actually. Turns out i was chatting shit.:crying:

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

If you have to think to yourself "she's a women il be nice to her in the same way il be nice to a child" then you have problems and your also a ****. I dont mean it in the context when somone il trying to have a relationship or just have sex with somone since those motives are sexual or emotional not sexist..

[JohnnyC]

I agree with Syndicalisme ou Barbarie.
Chivalry is not objectively sexist but can be subjectively.
For example, if someone only offers help to women, because he or she is attracted to them, is he or she sexist?No.Sexism is a belief that one gender is inferior to other, so if you decide to help someone(or some sex specifically) for any other reason than that, you can not be considered a sexist.

[Module]

That's so simplistic, and just ignores the complexities of human relationships.
It can and it can't be, its subject to intention and objective; it is not black and white.
Being chivalrous in the sense that the original post was actually referring to, that is, opening the door for women, carrying their shit for them, whatever, doing those things specifically for women is objectively (and obviously) sexist.
There's nothing simplistic about that, it's just a fact.

People seem to be ignoring the difference between 'politeness' and 'chivalry', in this thread. It's quite obvious the sense the OP was using it in, it's really just making the way you're taking the conversation into a total nuisance.
As such I'm trashing SoB's little Wiki quote.
A decent response to the OP's query is not "Being chivalrous is not being sexist because I open doors for both men and women". If anything it's avoiding the point completely.


So should you open a door for a female? Should I only pay for half of the meal? Things were so much simpler when girls wore dresses and men wore pants.

What if I say that I think she is capable but I really think that she isn't but I don't say it? Then you're a moron. Women can open doors by themselves.
Oh, and this is a verbal warning for sexism.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

no its not sexist.


Yes it is.

Its a concept originally from the Fuedalist ruling classes whose culture was fucking rife with sexism. Infact women were used as gifts and diplomatic pawns then.



There's this thing called mating. And attracting the opposite sex(or in 14% of the population the same sex) to you in order to fall in love and have intimacy is not sexist. Its part of biology. Its your job to find that special someone, and if you think helping them carry heavy bags is the way to go about doing it then all the power to you.

Thats called being nice in the hope of getting your dick wet.



Most women will expect the man to carry heavy things.

So thats called helping somone with a task they struggle with. Most women are weaker then most men henceforth its right that the stronger person does the task of carrying something since its easier. For example if one of my weaker male friends is carrying say a crate or whatever and is struggeling il either help him with it or take it off him.

Its called being nice, I dont see why your not capable of doing this but insted make up for being an arsehole by acting patronizing towards women.


Don't let any of these new age hippies say that incorrect because I've never been with a girl who didn't ask me to carry heavier bags of groceries. Maybe there are girls like that out there but they are in the minority.


You an idiot.

[Black Dagger]

Joe, please don't flame so much.

[Module]

Split argument into 'Is 'being a gentleman' sexist? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/being-gentleman-sexisti-t74223/index3.html)'

[Invader Zim]

Its a concept originally from the Fuedalist ruling classes whose culture was fucking rife with sexism. Infact women were used as gifts and diplomatic pawns then.

Well, actually chivarly is much more complex than you assume. It, in fact, shifted power from men to women; at least in idealised theory if not practise. The knight was expected to wholey submit to the will of the woman of his affections. And that regularly, if you read medieval romantic literature, involved going on bizarre and dangerous quests, and various other forms of servility, in order to prove his love until the lady was satisfied.

But it strikes me that 'chivalry', as we think of it, was more of a literary devise for 12th century onwards romantic poets. I suspect the actual phenomenon was very different to the extreme and idealised ideas we have now, which are actually largely shaped by Victorian authors like Tennyson.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Well, actually chivarly is much more complex than you assume. It, in fact, shifted power from men to women; at least in idealised theory if not practise. The knight was expected to wholey submit to the will of the woman of his affections. And that regularly, if you read medieval romantic literature, involved going on bizarre and dangerous quests, and various other forms of servility, in order to prove his love until the lady was satisfied.

Thats called beince (scarily?) nice in the hope of getting your dick wet. That is not the same as treating all women like they are children or objects.


But it strikes me that 'chivalry', as we think of it, was more of a literary devise for 12th century onwards romantic poets. I suspect the actual phenomenon was very different to the extreme and idealised ideas we have now, which are actually largely shaped by Victorian authors like Tennyson.


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[Invader Zim]

Thats called beince (scarily?) nice in the hope of getting your dick wet. A crude, though not completely inaccurate way of looking at it. But as ever, it was more complex. These actions would extend beyond simply tying to get between a womans legs, but to a general code of behavior for a knight akin to his role in society as a mounted warrior and defender of society. The issue revolves around medieval consruction of gender, and class (in a crude way of looking at social stratification), roles. I.e. a knight would perform quests for women, be it to bed them or otherwise, because that was a knights job in the idealsed world of romantic poets - or rather the idealised world of the people who commissioned romantic poets - who were often wealthy and influencial women, a key example being Marie of Champagne. The shift from chivalric literature aimed at consumption for men (i.e. material by Geoffrey of Monmouth) to women (i.e. material by Chrétien de Troyes) is a marked one.


That is not the same as treating all women like they are children or objects. Indeed, it is not. And that's the whole point; the concept of chivalry, as you think of it, has nothing to do with the medieval attitudes you were describing earlier. You were ascribing some inate historical sexism to 'chivalry' simply because it was medieval (and everyone in the past was a raging misogynist, right?), yet quite clearly we could sum up your entire knowledge of the topic on the back of a postage stamp.


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZIf you find it boring, then why write posts about it? Actually, don't bother answering that question, I don't care.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

A crude, though not completely inaccurate way of looking at it. But as ever, it was more complex. These actions would extend beyond simply tying to get between a womans legs, but to a general code of behavior for a knight akin to his role in society as a mounted warrior and defender of society. The issue revolves around medieval consruction of gender, and class (in a crude way of looking at social stratification), roles. I.e. a knight would perform quests for women, be it to bed them or otherwise, because that was a knights job in the idealsed world of romantic poets - or rather the idealised world of the people who commissioned romantic poets - who were often wealthy and influencial women, a key example being Marie of Champagne. The shift from chivalric literature aimed at consumption for men (i.e. material by Geoffrey of Monmouth) to women (i.e. material by Chrétien de Troyes) is a marked one.

Yes but in general knights were supposed to be nice to all "virgins" (upper class ones peasants - no) - although il bow to your superior knowlage of chivialry




Indeed, it is not. And that's the whole point; the concept of chivalry, as you think of it, has nothing to do with the medieval attitudes you were describing earlier. You were ascribing some inate historical sexism to 'chivalry' simply because it was medieval (and everyone in the past was a raging misogynist, right?), yet quite clearly we could sum up your entire knowledge of the topic on the back of a postage stamp.

Yeah but people dont think "oh dear gosh I wont be all scary nice for women because Chivalry was a conspect mostly from literacy. No there quite obviously is a culture of "be (patronizingly) nice to women and cold to men"


If you find it boring, then why write posts about it? Actually, don't bother answering that question, I don't care.


Alright cool

[Invader Zim]

Yes but in general knights were supposed to be nice to all "virgins" (upper class ones peasants - no)Well, again that is untrue. The knightly quality of 'courtoisie', was to be extended by knights to all, regardless of social position. Whether it was, or not, is another, though in this case, irrelevent, side issue.


Yeah but people dont think "oh dear gosh I wont be all scary nice for women because Chivalry was a conspect mostly from literacy. No there quite obviously is a culture of "be (patronizingly) nice to women and cold to men"But the vast majority of people aren't. People hold doors for people regardless of gender, help individuals with prams when they come to steps, etc, not because they are male of female, but because there are social expectations to do so.

And even if this weren't true, and men are more 'gentlemanly' to women then that is unlikely to be a reflection upon the individual, but socially programmed gender roles which are dictated from birth. The idea that the vast majority of men who help women because they feal that women are weak and should be patronised is quite obviouslly bullshit.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Well, again that is untrue. The knightly quality of 'courtoisie', was to be extended by knights to all, regardless of social position. Whether it was, or not, is another, though in this case, irrelevent, side issue.

Im not going to bother arguing with ya but knight genery did butcher peasants.



But the vast majority of people aren't. People hold doors for people regardless of gender, help individuals with prams when they come to steps, etc, not because they are male of female, but because there are social expectations to do so.

Not im my Expirenece . Its often viewed as "unmanly" to be helped with physical tasks and to offer to help other men. However its seen to be manly to help women with physical tasks. This might be diffrent were you are.


And even if this weren't true, and men are more 'gentlemanly' to women then that is unlikely to be a reflection upon the individual, but socially programmed gender roles which are dictated from birth. The idea that the vast majority of men who help women because they feal that women are weak and should be patronised is quite obviouslly bullshit.


Of course people dont think "shes a woman hanceforth , a little kid" but in most cases of patronizing we dont realise we are doing it. However that does not make the action of (Subconciously?) treating women like kids A-OK ]

But yes i agree the blue for boys and pink for girls culture probably plays a role in this.

[Invader Zim]

Im not going to bother arguing with ya but knight genery did butcher peasants.

They also butchered, raped, and stole from, each other. The issue here is not whether they lived upto the standards set for themselves via the chivalric codes, but what those chivalric codes were. And that code of curtesy was supposed to be extended to the peasants.


Its often viewed as "unmanly" to be helped with physical tasks and to offer to help other men. However its seen to be manly to help women with physical tasks.

This is a prime example of pressures as a result of socially constructed gender roles. People behave in a manner, to use your words, which make them "seen to be manly". In other words they are behaving in a manner which society dictates is proper for males.

And my society does indeed seem to be very different. Holding a door for a man is not seen as 'unmanly', it is seen as being 'polite'. Helping a person when they are clearly struggling, be they male or female, is also not seen as 'unmanly'.


Of course people dont think "shes a woman hanceforth , a little kid" but in most cases of patronizing we dont realise we are doing it.However that does not make the action of (Subconciously?) treating women like kids A-OK ]

So basically you admit that, despite this issue being down to motivation, men aren't motivated to help women because of some inate sexism; but because of gender roles, which dictate what is and isn't appropriate behaviour, programmed from birth. So men, who open doors for women don't do it because they think women are weak or akin to children? They do it because society dictates it is 'correct' that they should? So, are these people sexist?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

They also butchered, raped, and stole from, each other. The issue here is not whether they lived upto the standards set for themselves via the chivalric codes, but what those chivalric codes were. And that code of curtesy was supposed to be extended to the peasants.

Yes but they mean nothing if they were just writing. Words that are not backed by actions are just words.




This is a prime example of pressures as a result of socially constructed gender roles. People behave in a manner, to use your words, which make them "seen to be manly". In other words they are behaving in a manner which society dictates is proper for males.

True.


And my society does indeed seem to be very different. Holding a door for a man is not seen as 'unmanly', it is seen as being 'polite'. Helping a person when they are clearly struggling, be they male or female, is also not seen as 'unmanly'.

I envy you




So basically you admit that, despite this issue being down to motivation, men aren't motivated to help women because of some inate sexism; but because of gender roles, which dictate what is and isn't appropriate behaviour, programmed from birth. So men, who open doors for women don't do it because they think women are weak or akin to children? They do it because society dictates it is 'correct' that they should? So, are these people sexist?


No the whole thing with the blue for boys culture is that it is is a common cultural thing to treat women as if they are children. And yes many of these people are sexist.

[Invader Zim]

Yes but they mean nothing if they were just writing. Words that are not backed by actions are just words.

To an extent. But chivalry was more of a concept to aspire to than an actual code of behaviour rigorously adhered to (at least in most cases). And the examples we have from the sources generally depict the perfect knight. Perfection was obviously not actually able to be achieved. However, certainly from an ideological position chivalic 'politness' was supposed to be extended across society. The fact is that knights, as in mounted warriors were trained to be vicious killers, and many behaved as such be it to other nobles or peasants.


And yes many of these people are sexist.

That is as maybe, but presumably the act of opening a door for a woman is not a symptom of that sexism. That is a symptom of what society deems to be polite behaviour.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Chivalry isnt sexist, it's good manners. I use it on everyone, my boyfriend uses it on me, it's just common courtesy. Who would object to having a door held open for them anyway?

[Rascolnikova]

- If you really want to assault someone, statistical differences in upper body strength don't mean much.

You certainly have a point here, in that plenty of outlier situations exist. However, while social and internal license to commit violence are certainly an important part of the picture, physical strength differences have an undeniable impact on how easy and how effective these assaults can be.

If I really want to drink alcohol during the prohibition, I can get legal cider, go to a speakeasy, or mix up some moonshine. However--despite popular perception--people chose to drink far less (about 50%) during the prohibition simply because it was more difficult for them. We know this because we have good statistics on liver disease which are, in other scenarios, always very closely correlated with a population's average alcohol consumption.

If you really want to, this isn't going to stop you. . . but accessibility Does stop some people, and we would be foolish not to take account of it.



Chivalry is part of the patriarchal structure that leads to rape, and we need to stop violence against women. Telling men to be nice to women because they're weaker isn't going to do that.

Widespread ideas of what constitutes honorable behavior are far more substantive in impact than a simple matter of "telling men to be nice to women" for any reason. As an example, very few people care to conceptualize themselves as rapists, or as sexually coercive. Clearly, this doesn't stop us from having rapists or widespread sexually coercive behavior. How does this split happen?

Patriarchal systems of chivalry extend protection and rights over women on the basis of class and ownership. Therefore, one is obligated to protect one's daughters (owned) and one's wife (owned) while simultaneously one's wife is considered to have an obligation to provide sex on demand, and one's female servants, being un-owned, are fair game. Note, this is not, in the conception of the perpetrator, rape; the object of "a woman's virtue" is the only thing of value being violated; it does not belong to the woman, and how much value it has (to the man it belongs to) depends entirely on her social position.

As industrialization and (some, and the illusion of much more) class mobility happened, the current widespread conception of chivalry came into place. In America, I know, few think of it now as a question of ownership--it's widely regarded as a matter of courtesy. This being the case, simply protesting that the older notion of chivalry was terrible is not a useful tactic, as it will resonate with few people--especially among men, who are even less likely to have experienced "belonging" to someone in that way. Such protests also place us (in most people's perception) in opposition to courtesy, which surely is a position we ought to take selectively and with great care, if at all.

Instead, it makes far more sense to tap into the sensibilities of a public that widely considers it's self to be "post feminist," and do something that makes sense to them--promoting notions of chivalry based on the gender-neutral premises that

1) people belong to themselves
and
2) greater ability brings with it an ethical obligation to help lesser ability

Note that the first premise carries a strong notion of self-determination, as well.



Apologies if someone has already covered a lot of this later on in the thread, haven't had a chance to catch up with everything, just trying to fill in where I can. .

[hammer and sickle]

No the whole chivalry is sexist argument is foolish! I pull chairs out and such for women I dont do it because I think they cant do it themselves I do it because its the nice thing to do! It would only be sexist if someone thought that women are incapable of doing these things for themselves and I dont think theres a man in the world who believes women cant open doors or pull out their own chairs!

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

No the whole chivalry is sexist argument is foolish! I pull chairs out and such for women I dont do it because I think they cant do it themselves I do it because its the nice thing to do! It would only be sexist if someone thought that women are incapable of doing these things for themselves and I dont think theres a man in the world who believes women cant open doors or pull out their own chairs!

Do you do it for both sexes if so thats not chivalry but good manners (if you have them do your a prick)

[PC81]

I give up my chair often for any lady I see without one. I open doors and would pull out chairs no problems. I believe very strongly in keeping chivalry alive. There are very few gentlemen in my social circle.
My wife loves me this way.

[AvanteRedGarde]

No the whole chivalry is sexist argument is foolish! I pull chairs out and such for women I dont do it because I think they cant do it themselves I do it because its the nice thing to do! It would only be sexist if someone thought that women are incapable of doing these things for themselves and I dont think theres a man in the world who believes women cant open doors or pull out their own chairs!

Do you just as regularly do this for guys?

Chivalry is sexist, in that it assumes gender roles.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I give up my chair often for any lady I see without one. I open doors and would pull out chairs no problems. I believe very strongly in keeping chivalry alive. There are very few gentlemen in my social circle.

Why not do this for men too?


My wife loves me this way.

Yes but i think your a freak.

[brigadista]

when a man helps out a pregnant woman by offering his seat to her but ignores assisting a woman with a pram toddler and bags this is very hypocritical - women dont want chivalry - they want respect and equal treatment at home and in the workplace

[an apple]

I think that chivalry could be interpreted as positive sexism (as if there is such a thing). I think that universal chivalry would be looked upon as strange as it does not conform to traditionalist views.

[PC81]

Why not do this for men too?


Yes but i think your a freak.
You are of course entitled to think what you will. However, I find it very sad that any man would feel this way towards somebody who feels so strongly about their wife or partner. Is there no Missus Comrade Joe??

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

It can be taken that way but at the heart of it no

[ScarletShadow]

My preference is against chivalry (I always thought it absurd) but really, it's rather unimportant whether it is practiced or not.

[Killfacer]

If i'm honest, i only ever do it for a girl who i fancy.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

You are of course entitled to think what you will. However, I find it very sad that any man would feel this way towards somebody who feels so strongly about their wife or partner.

If its just towards your partner then its called being nice to somone you care about , if you do it to women because you think they deserve special help to acomidate for the fact they have a vagina then your a twat.


Is there no Missus Comrade Joe??

Yes , she posts under the name bobkindles.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

My preference is against chivalry (I always thought it absurd) but really, it's rather unimportant whether it is practiced or not.

I can imagine its fucking irritating and kind of upsetting at times as well as it being a reflection of how you view women.


Killerfacer however is perfectly justified it making an effort to open doors for women he fancies and generally being nice to them because it increases his chances with her if you fancy somone and do it its no diffrent to making an effort to wear after-shave.

[communard resolution]

Chivalry is sexist but not misogynist. However, no one suffers any disadvantage from it, so it's nothing to get hung about - unless you're a very pedantic person.

[ScarletShadow]

Chivalry is sexist but not misogynist. However, no one suffers any disadvantage from it, so it's nothing to get hung about - unless you're a very pedantic person.

It pertains not to me presently since there are few people that I care about and none that I respect, but if someone I respected was sexist, I would certainly "get hung about" it, and probably cease to respect that person.

[communard resolution]

It pertains not to me presently since there are few people that I care about and none that I respect, but if someone I respected was sexist, I would certainly "get hung about" it, and probably cease to respect that person.

To disrespect everybody equally certainly seems like a superb solution of the problem. Nice one.

[PC81]

If its just towards your partner then its called being nice to somone you care about , if you do it to women because you think they deserve special help to acomidate for the fact they have a vagina then your a twat.



You are a real prick really aren't you. I have better things to be doing. Fuck off.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

You are a real prick really aren't you. I have better things to be doing. Fuck off.

Cool we should have sex.

[Mujer Libre]

Comrade Joe and PC81, stop flaming please.

[PC81]

Comrade Joe and PC81, stop flaming please.
No sweat..

[Refounder]

I think it depends on what you mean for chivilary. If you intend treating a woman like a poor weak dolly which cannot breathe without breaking, yes, maybe it's sexist, and even counter-productive. There are even some (over-over-overprotective) friends of mine who treat me like a doll just because I'm gay. Well, it is not the same thing at all, but I can understand how women might feel uncomfortable with having a guy who look at them like they are glass puppets.
On the other hand, I like to treat, and therefore be treated, kindly, just like everyone, I guess. But this is another thing. And of course another thing is being gentle to a woman because you like her :rolleyes:

[Louise Michel]

Just treat women with respect. In fact treat everybody with respect (except reactionaries who don't deserve it). Everything will be okay if you handle people with kindness. There are no golden rules. Open the door, don't open the door. Who knows? Some women like it, some don't. It annoys me to be honest but I have girlfriends who love to have men bowing and scraping. That annoys me too because it's disrespectful to men.

[Killfacer]

It's fucking pathetic. People are so easily offended. Get over it.

[Mujer Libre]

It's fucking pathetic. People are so easily offended. Get over it.
I don't think anyone in this thread is 'offended.' (Your labellnig them as that is just a way to dismiss the discussion at hand) They're merely analysing a social behaviour- which is one of the things that this forum is designed for.

So, if you think people (queers, women, people of colour etc...) should just 'get over it', and stop thinking critically, maybe this forum isn't for you.

[Louise Michel]

It's fucking pathetic. People are so easily offended. Get over it.


Agree with Mujer Libre.

Also, being told to 'get over it,' now that's annoying too - especially when you've no idea what is you're supposed to be getting over. :ohmy:

[Killfacer]

I don't think anyone in this thread is 'offended.' (Your labellnig them as that is just a way to dismiss the discussion at hand) They're merely analysing a social behaviour- which is one of the things that this forum is designed for.

So, if you think people (queers, women, people of colour etc...) should just 'get over it', and stop thinking critically, maybe this forum isn't for you.

Maybe your right.

[Killfacer]

Agree with Mujer Libre.

Also, being told to 'get over it,' now that's annoying too - especially when you've no idea what is you're supposed to be getting over. :ohmy:

Getting over the fact that someone wants to open a door for you. Personally i would like it, but some people are weird.

[Louise Michel]

Getting over the fact that someone wants to open a door for you. Personally i would like it, but some people are weird.

It's true there are a lot of strange people in this world. I've noticed that too. :lol:

Of course I don't object to 'someone' opening a door for me if they're just being polite. I do however object to being expected to take part in the gender roles charade meaning that it's somehow inappropriate for me to open the door and should wait for the man to do it for me.

Of course it's just a tiny part of a much larger problem but this thread is about chivalry.

[Killfacer]

I don't think anyone in this thread is 'offended.' (Your labellnig them as that is just a way to dismiss the discussion at hand) They're merely analysing a social behaviour- which is one of the things that this forum is designed for.

So, if you think people (queers, women, people of colour etc...) should just 'get over it', and stop thinking critically, maybe this forum isn't for you.

Having said that, i fail to see what your last comment has to do with anything. When did i say "queers, women and people of colour" should just get over it? I didn't. So stop putting words in my mouth.

Obviously people shouldn't have to "get over" everything. However, some people here have a really pathetic attitude and take offence to anything.

[Revy]

I would lean toward, yes, it is sexist.

Are you doing these things for her because it's nice and courteous, or because she is a woman? That is the question here.

It would be wrong of course to assume that actions considered "chivalrous" are being done for gender-specific reasons.

Is it a "benefit"? Well, there were once people who argued that it was a benefit to women they did not have to work.

Treat people nicely, but not because their genitalia makes them perceived to be too weak and frail to take care of themselves, but because they're people.

[Mujer Libre]

Having said that, i fail to see what your last comment has to do with anything. When did i say "queers, women and people of colour" should just get over it? I didn't. So stop putting words in my mouth.

Obviously people shouldn't have to "get over" everything. However, some people here have a really pathetic attitude and take offence to anything.
Perhaps I wasn't entirely clear. I meant that that is the logical conclusion of your argument about people just putting up and shutting up.

Also- once again, nobody is offended. LM put it very well in her previous post, so I'm not going to reiterate it. You keep confusing offence with criticism. Not the same thing.

[Lynx]

Chivilary... Chivalry
I'd like to see a list of chivalrous acts. There don't seem to be that many of them. The one where a gentleman lays out his coat so a lady can cross a puddle of water might have been exaggerated?

[PC81]

From chivalrynow.net:

Chivalry is appealing because acting chivalrous makes you feel good; it fills you with a feeling of warmth. Warmth given off by a candle of passion of doing good that is ignited and remains ignited so long as you remain honorable and do good every day of your life. This warmth, from chivalrous acts, makes chivalry appealing.

Chivarly is following a set of values that you have created that make you a true gentleman, a true man. These values cover everything in life from loyalty to your lord and family to being courteous to everyone you meet. These values, to do good, are in all men and will only truly come out once one has unlightend oneself— the true path to being a man is following a chivalrous path of good.

Chivalry = respect, not domination. Perhaps men think chivalry is a code now outdated, especially since the idea of women's rights and so on. I would say precisely because of that movement, (which I applaud) that acting respectfully toward women is even more important.

A human behavior involving respect of others, honesty and courage. I would like to see the radical feminists allow men to act more chivalrous.

Inherent sexism.



Does the word "chivalry" convey a positive, neutral or negative image in your mind?

Positive
Neutral
Negative
Male
51
13
1
Female
69
12
4
Total
120
25
5

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I think everything from the "duty to your family and lord" to "a real man" all the way down to the "respct not domination" which is funny because I always found people need to earn respect and having a vagina is not a good enough reason by itself.

[Killfacer]

Perhaps I wasn't entirely clear. I meant that that is the logical conclusion of your argument about people just putting up and shutting up.


How is that the logical conclusion? You're just making up things and saying that's the logical conclusion to what i said.

[PC81]

I think everything from the "duty to your family and lord" to "a real man" all the way down to the "respct not domination" which is funny because I always found people need to earn respect and having a vagina is not a good enough reason by itself.
The Lord bit is a crock of shit alright.
Most of it is crap, but I'm still gonna give up my seat, or open a door or pull out a chair when in the presence of a lady.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Why?

[PC81]

Why?
To piss you off... :laugh:

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Im intrigued why you feel the need to aid one specific group of people based on the contents of their trousers , i think thats pretty patronizing to be honest.

[PC81]

Im intrigued why you feel the need to aid one specific group of people based on the contents of their trousers , i think thats pretty patronizing to be honest.
It is how I was raised. I see no harm in it whatsoever.
Does it do anyone any harm? No.
Does it upset anyone? No.
Do you look like an asshole doing it? No.

I really think when you finally find your first girlfriend and go on your first date, that you'll see it is much appreciated when you do these little things.
It's called being a gentleman. ;)

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

It makes you a hack. I used to be polite to my ex but would not patronize her by doing everything for her as if she would snap like a matchstick if she had to open a door. Seriously being a sexist prick because "its how I was raised" is disgusting and I believe you should be restricted.

[Louise Michel]

I think everything from the "duty to your family and lord" to "a real man" all the way down to the "respct not domination" which is funny because I always found people need to earn respect and having a vagina is not a good enough reason by itself.

I agree in the sense it's meant but isn't it better to assume respect rather than wait for it to be earned? I mean, if an old person is struggling with bags you help them out. Respect is the default.

The old person may turn out to be an asshole but that's a lesser evil than disrespecting someone and then finding out they led the Flint sit down strike in the thirties :lol:

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I help people i dont know not because I respect them but because If i dont I feel bad.

[Louise Michel]

I help people i dont know not because I respect them but because If i dont I feel bad.

That's very honest but I do think a tenet of communism is that working people are deserving of respect - of course there are worker-assholes but we should be demanding respect for the working class.

[Nulono]

Yes, it's sexist. Women should not be assumed to be weaker. The whole notion of chivalry is steeped in sexism.