[PUG] Chivalry is sexist
- Thread starter slant
- Start date
this thread is just....Personally, I enjoy being courteous. I take no gender preference however, and would do so with anybody.
Personally, I enjoy being courteous. I take no gender preference however, and would do so with anybody.
+1 I open doors for men and women alike and I say thank you when people do it for me. It's just polite.
Yeah, i used to be very appreciative or gung ho about chivalry and held it in such high regard until i realize that it was often used as a cover up for sexist or chauvinist feelings. But even with good manners, people are sometimes abusive, seeing it as a set of rules by which everyone must conform, rather than coming from a place of true respect for someone.
One could be generally polite for the wrong reasons as well. Why is chivalry so different in this regard?
I'm not big on chivalry which is just an outdated behavior set of social institutions. All that hat tipping and "little lady" bullshit is learned, stupid and fleeting. On the other hand, I am dominant and protective by nature which most women seem to love even if they only admit to it in private.
@Jack
Yes, they could. But chivalry is unique in that it stems from a gendered tradition in which women are seen to be weaker and not equal to men. Of course, I can't judge the individual motives of those who are chivalrous. But i think politeness, because it is extended to everyone regardless of gender, is considered more reasonable or acceptable because there is no gendered notions of difference attached to it.
Last edited:
I try to be chivalrous, if a woman told me she found it insulting or anything like that I would likely drop her like a hot little potato, I don't need a to waste my time on someone with a chip on their shoulder.
So if some dude started kicking your ass in public who was much bigger then you, you wouldn't want your bf to defend you? just to stand back while you handle it?
I don't think stepping in on someone randomly attacking a person is chivalry... I would (and have) done so for both males and females.
can someone define the terms please? having a debate seems rather redundant when it unclear what series of behaviors is being criticized/defended,
can someone define the terms please? having a debate seems rather redundant when it unclear what series of behaviors is being criticized/defended,
I'm not sure how this fits in tbh. My point was about the motives and misuses behind chivalry, or the ways in which some may hide sexist or chauvinist thinking behind the charm and consideration associated with it. Of course, i would expect the person i'm involved with to help me if someone tries to hurt me. I don't think anyone wouldn't want that.
@Billy
Last edited:
I greatly appreciate the kindness of a man and his desire to show it (unless he is trying to get something from it).
I agree with Under Skies that it is more a matter of someone being polite. I hold the door open for people and I think it is, more likely than not, a kindness and the polite thing to do. I am sure that the man is not thinking..."this weak woman needs my help"
Why would the polite thing to do be any different if my hands were full or if someone just happened to be at the door first???
I enjoy the nice things in life and the people who care enough to do them.
I agree with Under Skies that it is more a matter of someone being polite. I hold the door open for people and I think it is, more likely than not, a kindness and the polite thing to do. I am sure that the man is not thinking..."this weak woman needs my help"
Why would the polite thing to do be any different if my hands were full or if someone just happened to be at the door first???
I enjoy the nice things in life and the people who care enough to do them.
Do you see celebrating differences in gender as fundamentally sexist? Personally, I do not. Granted sexism may have existed in the culture at the time, yet chivalry was more about giving respect to women and about courage and honor... it sounds to me that it may even have been progressive for its time. If it therefore isn't sexist by definition, any sexism masked behind the ideals of chivalry would only be an abuse of it. If we were to judge any set of ideals based upon their abuses they would all fare the same.
of course it is unfair for a stronger person to attack a weaker person, and we all appreciate a stronger person standing up for us if we are poorly treated, but what does that have to do with biological sex? of course women can get through daily situations without constant protection, and without the idea that they can't open doors themselves or walk on a footpath without a big strong escort shielding them from the street. a woman is not a special variety of incompetent child, or a delicate possession to be secreted away in a glass cabinet, or a subject to be dominated - she is an equal. whatever it was in the past, it is now apparent that it is horribly sexist. knowingly going through polite motions for the purposes of formal etiquette or flattery or mutual amusement or role-play is one thing, but holding these moth-eaten old notions dear is something else.
the question is:
is chivalry being defined as courtesy and valor by men towards women
or
as courtesy and valor by all genders toward women
or
as courtesy and valor by men towards all genders
OR
or courtesy and valor regardless of gender identification of the participating parties
@Jack
What is sexist is the context - the meaning behind the social, cultural, and historical situation in which it was practiced.
I don't believe chivalry was a simple matter of respect for women. It was fundamentally based on the image of woman as fragile because of their "femininity" and perceived role as the "weaker" sex, thereby needing more softer and delicate treatment. Chivalry also existed in a time in which men went to war to fight for and protect women and children; the implication was that women need to be protected by men, because they couldn't defend themselves. And of course, they couldn't defend themselves because they were never taught defense or the art of war- it was considered too brutal and harsh for woman to handle. And it's easier to control someone when you prevent or restrict them from gaining access to things which would empower them and lessen their dependency. Women, in chivalry, were always on the receiving end of the action, and rarely the initiators, since it was not considered appropriate for women to make their own choices at that time. Women were treated as mainly support for their families, and not permitted to step outside the restricted roles society carved for them.
But it is sexist by definition because it is based on gendered assumptions about masculinity and feminity which position one sex as weaker than the other.
What is sexist is the context - the meaning behind the social, cultural, and historical situation in which it was practiced.
I don't believe chivalry was a simple matter of respect for women. It was fundamentally based on the image of woman as fragile because of their "femininity" and perceived role as the "weaker" sex, thereby needing more softer and delicate treatment. Chivalry also existed in a time in which men went to war to fight for and protect women and children; the implication was that women need to be protected by men, because they couldn't defend themselves. And of course, they couldn't defend themselves because they were never taught defense or the art of war- it was considered too brutal and harsh for woman to handle. And it's easier to control someone when you prevent or restrict them from gaining access to things which would empower them and lessen their dependency. Women, in chivalry, were always on the receiving end of the action, and rarely the initiators, since it was not considered appropriate for women to make their own choices at that time. Women were treated as mainly support for their families, and not permitted to step outside the restricted roles society carved for them.
But it is sexist by definition because it is based on gendered assumptions about masculinity and feminity which position one sex as weaker than the other.
Last edited: