Chivalry and Gender Equality in Democracy

[Seem]

I admit I do pratice chivalry to a degree. I don't think women are weak, I am just naturally protective. I do things like walk on the outside of the side walk if I see a woman or a child. When it comes to other things like holding doors I do it for everyone. Being a girl doesn't mean you can't push a door open and being a guy does not mean I get to slam it in your face. I modeled myself after my grandpa, who was big on being a gentleman and helping others, so I don't really think about doing stuff like this. It is natural to me now because I wanted to grow up to be a polite person.

Earth needs more people like this!

It should come natural to anybody to hold open a door to anyone else without over thinking that they can't open it themselves. No one in their right mind would be insulted by that. Of course, an elderly lady or someone with a pushchair will have trouble opening one of those stronger doors, so it's still common courtesy to lend a hand and I really think they'll be thankful rather than not.

 

[Profesco]

I don't know if I would consider that necessarily a form of chivalry, since it's not like women shouldn't also be expected to give up their train seats to pregnant women. The reason you give up your seat to a pregnant woman is because she has reduced mobility, and able-bodied men and women alike should do the same for men and women with any physical disability or heavy burden. Should it be courteous when a woman does it, but chivalrous when a man does it? Such a distinction would still be sexist in nature, even though men cannot be pregnant.

If the definition of chivalry is 'men aiding a woman in such a way that does not hold for other men,' then it could be chivalrous simply by definition. Also, chivalry is a form of courtesy anyway, under a broader definition - it is not just chivalrous when a man gives his seat to a woman, it is courteous (this goes along with your burden explanation). For this reason I would argue that chivalry needn't be defined as one-way, man to woman. Women can be chivalrous to other women.

That's not necessarily out of the question, either, as it depends on how the children are being conditioned and how their behaviour toward their parents develops as a result of that conditioning*. Children can relate to their same-sex parents differently, too.

Precisely, it isn't definite. It isn't definitely sexist, and it isn't definitely not. Generalizing anything that can be seen as chivalry "sexist" gives what is essentially an innocuously courteous intention and harmless action a very strong stigma. The negative association, I believe, is more of a figurative harm than the chivalrous action that spawned it, if that makes sense.


*I'm not convinced a label of "sexist" can fully apply to the intentions and actions of a being too undereducated and underdeveloped to have any inkling of what its preconceived notions of sex might be, if there are any. But it's an unnecessary tangent. =P

 

[Redstars89]

The truth is that women don't want equality in terms of its definition. Women deep down want the luxury's associated with being a women such as safety from conscription, chivalry, etc along with legal equality. Most women are hypocrites in that their cries for equality would go out the window come titanic time when boats are limited. There are exceptions of course, just like anything else in life, but this discussion is with regards to the majority. In essence, women deep down want both their cake and their pie.

It is difficult to say these things without coming off as misogynists or mean, but it doesn't make it any less true. Something no one touched on is also the benefit women have towards surviving. If a woman's career doesn't work out she always has the option of playing homemaker to one of the billions of single working men. In high school, I even heard girls joking that if college didn't work out they would just try to get married. Men don't have this often overlooked luxury.

People rushing to defend women ironically are doing so out of socially conditioned chivalry which is quite hilarious on a certain level. It has nothing to do with one gender being better than another, but it has everything to do with the fallacy in feminist thought.

 

[Evilyn]

i have no problem with treating people with respect. but "chivalry" from my experience strikes me more as "i'm a woman, you're a man, treat me with greater respect than you treat other men with". this, i have a problem with. i'll hold the door open and make room on the sidewalk or do other respectful things to anyone i see, but if i'm not going to do something for a man, i'm not going to do it for you just because you have breasts and don't have something dangling between your legs. with obvious exceptions of course.

my main problem with "chivalry" is that it's become more or less an excuse for women to cry out GENDER EQUALITY. first of all, the following is based more on my experience in america than in places where gender equality really is an issue. but here in america, so far, genders are about as equal as they'll ever get. feminists can run around crying about how HEY THAT GUY ISN'T LOOKING AT ME AS A PERSON HE'S JUST LOOKING AT MY TITS or HEY I WASN'T ALLOWED TO WORK HERE BECAUSE I'M A WOMEN THAT'S UNFAIR BAW BAW BAW all they want. you'll never change everyone in the public. we can't just pass some act or wave a magic wand that makes everyone see women and men equal, and it's not like there's not women (or men for that matter) that treat men in a similar way (though i do admit there's less of them). just grow some thicker skin and learn that not everyone is going to be nice to you; it's a shame, but that's how it is.

bottom line is, assuming you're not living in some place where there's actual and literal oppression, then stop *****ing and acting like it's something you can change. it isn't. it's as fair as it'll ever be. everyone will have opinions and sometimes they won't go in your favor. unless there's a law that says IT'S OKAY TO BEAT AND RAPE YOUR WIVES or something along those lines then stop acting like the world is put out against you. even if it is, then put on your big girl panties and work until you overcome it.

 

[Deku_Link]

If the definition of chivalry is 'men aiding a woman in such a way that does not hold for other men,' then it could be chivalrous simply by definition. Also, chivalry is a form of courtesy anyway, under a broader definition - it is not just chivalrous when a man gives his seat to a woman, it is courteous (this goes along with your burden explanation). For this reason I would argue that chivalry needn't be defined as one-way, man to woman. Women can be chivalrous to other women.

Fair enough, though applying a definition of chivalry based on something that is physically impossible for men seems like more of a logic trap than a defense of chivalry.

Precisely, it isn't definite. It isn't definitely sexist, and it isn't definitely not. Generalizing anything that can be seen as chivalry "sexist" gives what is essentially an innocuously courteous intention and harmless action a very strong stigma. The negative association, I believe, is more of a figurative harm than the chivalrous action that spawned it, if that makes sense.

The negative association is simply a function of chivalry being a more sexist subset of courtesy, but just because chivalrous actions can also be courteous actions (if the performer does not limit his/her actions to women) does not make chivalry any less sexist (in general). I suppose I should really be saying that practicing chivalry exclusively is sexist, but if you're a practicer of common courtesy, then even if your actions may be chivalrous at times, such a label is superfluous.

*I'm not convinced a label of "sexist" can fully apply to the intentions and actions of a being too undereducated and underdeveloped to have any inkling of what its preconceived notions of sex might be, if there are any. But it's an unnecessary tangent. =P

I think I didn't make myself clear here. The actions of the children aren't necessarily sexist, but rather can be reflective of sexist attitudes that have been imposed upon them, which would also be reflective of the environment the parents have been raised in, and so on and so forth. Sexism doesn't necessarily manifest itself as a result of malicious intent, or anything like that.

my main problem with "chivalry" is that it's become more or less an excuse for women to cry out GENDER EQUALITY. first of all, the following is based more on my experience in america than in places where gender equality really is an issue. but here in america, so far, genders are about as equal as they'll ever get. feminists can run around crying about how HEY THAT GUY ISN'T LOOKING AT ME AS A PERSON HE'S JUST LOOKING AT MY TITS or HEY I WASN'T ALLOWED TO WORK HERE BECAUSE I'M A WOMEN THAT'S UNFAIR BAW BAW BAW all they want. you'll never change everyone in the public. we can't just pass some act or wave a magic wand that makes everyone see women and men equal, and it's not like there's not women (or men for that matter) that treat men in a similar way (though i do admit there's less of them). just grow some thicker skin and learn that not everyone is going to be nice to you; it's a shame, but that's how it is.

bottom line is, assuming you're not living in some place where there's actual and literal oppression, then stop *****ing and acting like it's something you can change. it isn't. it's as fair as it'll ever be. everyone will have opinions and sometimes they won't go in your favor. unless there's a law that says IT'S OKAY TO BEAT AND RAPE YOUR WIVES or something along those lines then stop acting like the world is put out against you. even if it is, then put on your big girl panties and work until you overcome it.

I strongly, strongly suggest you read up on "the birdcage effect". Oppression is much more complex than your simplified and defeatist explanation of it.