The Instigator
Encore
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
blackkid
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

"Ladies first" implies sexism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
blackkid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/20/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 909 times Debate No: 60693
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

Encore

Pro

I will be arguing that one-sided chivalry is sexist and unjustified (so I will be Pro).

Chivalry: "an honorable and polite way of behaving especially toward women"
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Round 1 is for acceptance and position. 2/3/4 - debate; round 5 is for conclusions.

Thank you!
blackkid

Con

First, what people know as "Chivalry" today is completely wrong ( http://www.usna.edu..., http://www.ancientfortresses.org..., http://www.lordsandladies.org... ) and it isn't sexist at all. The sex of a person isn't even mentioned and it is not mentioned alone and it's not even a concrete list of behaviors or conduct but instead a general guideline of ethics.

Moving beyond that "Ladies First" and various rules about "Women and Children" are actually survival based versus being sexist in the sense of conformity. The reason women and children were to leave first is because women and children are the future, the offspring and the one that bears offspring, which makes a lot of sense when you actually think about it. Generally speaking people propose this as a negative thing under the guise that the male's life is "worth less" but in reality it's for the continuation of the entire species and does not promote the idea of worthlessness but instead pragmaticism.

General conduct of Gentlemanly Behavior (an equivocal term often mixed up with Chivalry) is a social normative that has nothing to do with sexism and more to do with gender roles; there is actually a Womanly Etiquette (http://www.etiquetteinternational.com...) system so it isn't sexist in that there is only "one side" at all. It is for everyone, and though the behaviors differ based on sex the actual standard of courtesy in question does not differ based on sex. One could only say that Etiquette is sexist but not that courtesy or the standard behind courtesy and care are.
Debate Round No. 1
Encore

Pro

Thanks for accepting the challenge! Before I start, I want to make it clear that I was, of course, not referring to the Medieval Chivalry, but to the social chivalry etiquette, which is clearly inclined towards women, as the definition displayed in Round 1.


Since there are 2 angles to view the substance of this gentlemanly behavior, let's examine each of them:


I. Patriarchal consequence.

If we look at it from the perspective of male dominance, this conduct was established in order to protect and help women (carry things for them, open the doors for them, letting them go first, etc), as a benevolent act towards women, who were considered to be weaker and inferior. As women and men are now considered to be equal, the chivalry etiquette becomes unjustified and, by leaving room to gender stereotypes, keeps sexism in a society who wishes to abolish the discrimination based on sex.


II. The "respect" argument

The second point of view is that the chivalry etiquette is due to the respect of men towards women. Why should there be an emphasis on the respect for women in a society that promotes equality and equal treatment for both genders? It is socially expected from a man to behave chivalrously with a woman, meaning to sacrifice his own comfort for the woman's comfort, to be subservient and let her have priority at his expense. If he does so, he is regarded as a real gentleman. But women, more often than not, feel offended if a man "dares" to pass through a door in front of her, for instance, and, generally, if he is not servile to her; he will be considered disrespectful and grobian, as if it's women's right to be treated with servitude by men just because they are women. Is it believed that women deserve more respect? This would implicitly mean that men deserve less respect than women. This is prejudice and discrimination against men based on sex.
We all should treat each other with respect and care, regardless of gender, without special attention towards a specific gender.


"Moving beyond that "Ladies First" and various rules about "Women and Children" are actually survival based versus being sexist in the sense of conformity. The reason women and children were to leave first is because women and children are the future, the offspring and the one that bears offspring, which makes a lot of sense when you actually think about it. Generally speaking people propose this as a negative thing under the guise that the male's life is "worth less" but in reality it's for the continuation of the entire species and does not promote the idea of worthlessness but instead pragmaticism."

My opponent stated that women and children are the future, without arguing why this should be so. Of course children are the future and for this reason we will leave them out of this discussion, but why should women be entitled to build the future more than men are? Procreation requires both genders. Supposing we are not talking about a world cataclysm in which the only option is to save only half of world's population (in some sort of an extreme hypothesis of extending to exhaustion), is it believed that women must be saved because they will mate with other men that were not involved in the unfortunate event and thus perpetuate the species? Men can do that as well, by mating with women that were not involved in the event. If it was the case of the global cataclysm I exemplified above, it would be obviously absurd to save only one gender in order to build the future. Are women preferred in this position because they are better parents than men? This is again discrimination, because sexism also implies the idea of gender roles as a form of stereotyping, as seen in the definition of sexism in the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
1. prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially: discrimination against women.
2. behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex







Of course, my opponent's assertion about male's life is true. It is not regarded as worthless, but it is viewed as less valuable, less important than female's life.
General conduct of Gentlemanly Behavior (an equivocal term often mixed up with Chivalry) is a social normative that has nothing to do with sexism and more to do with gender roles;



Although I showed above the divisiveness of gender roles is also sexist, let's assume that this is fair. So, what is expected from a man in our society, based on the gender roles? He should be the provider for the woman, he should be chivalrous, open doors for her, carry stuff for her, give her the best of everything and keep for him the less good parts; in case there is a survival situation and one of them has to die, that should be him. It resembles very much a slavery model. Failing to do so, the man will draw upon him social penalty. If the roles are switched, the woman is praised as a hero; if they are not switched, it's just "normal". As everything is about the woman, this doesn't deal with equality, it deals with ensuring women's comfort at any cost.


"there is actually a Womanly Etiquette system so it isn't sexist in that there is only "one side" at all. It is for everyone, and though the behaviors differ based on sex the actual standard of courtesy in question does not differ based on sex. One could only say that Etiquette is sexist but not that courtesy or the standard behind courtesy and care are."


The link referenced by my opponent, supposedly related to the Womanly Etiquette, is actually related to business conduct and not to an etiquette that women have to follow in society towards men. The chivalry etiquette refers to how men should treat women, while the code referenced by my opponent (if it remotely deals only with women's behavior) relates to how women should treat anyone. So far, there has been no indication as per which the socially accepted chivalry is not unidirectional towards women. There is no specific code for how women should treat men in society; nothing particular is expected from them, except for "Thank you's" and "Hello's". This puts men in the back line, as footnotes. Of course, courtesy itself is not sexist, it is a desirable attribute of a civilized society and contributes to its general wellbeing; however, its unidirectionality is sexist.
blackkid

Con

I'll try to keep this short.

1. In response to "Patriarchal Consequence":

If we note this for it's nature men instituted it. The proposition of "chivalry etiquette" is still a male proposition if it survives which means that the sexist nature is male-oriented. I suppose that means that "Ladies First" is sexism if we take this vantage point and that men are being sexist by keeping the rules in play but the sexism is against women; the idea behind "chivalry etiquette" (from now referred to by me as just "Male Dating Etiquette" or MDE and FDE for the female equivalent) is formatted as a means of guaranteed reward which we see with the trend of the "Nice Guy" (http://geekfeminism.wikia.com...) which is actually nothing more than sexist proto-assault type of mentality geared towards using common courtesy as a means to garner sexual activity versus using the genuine interest in other's well-being. I will not go into how many feminists do indeed disregard and are against the misnomer "Chivalry" particularly because it's detrimental to women, men, and creates these kinds of topics.

2. In response to "The Respect Argument":

First Paragraph --

[[ The first paragraph has a few claims that are not substantiated ( "But women, more often than not, feel offended if a man "dares" to pass through a door in front of her, for instance, and, generally, if he is not servile to her; he will be considered disrespectful and grobian, as if it's women's right to be treated with servitude by men just because they are women." and "It is socially expected from a man to behave chivalrously with a woman, meaning to sacrifice his own comfort for the woman's comfort, to be subservient and let her have priority at his expense." ) as general rules but I will overlook that as I would like to continue smoothly so I'll presume they are true. If they are true there is still the problem of the differentiation between MDE/FDE behavior and social pressure, with social pressure being separate particularly because chivalry as defined as a social norm as a misnomer has no value to this debate as it is basically a stand-alone problem that has nothing to do with sexism in the least as per pursuit. An example:

If I hold the door open for an elderly man or woman is this ageism? No. Is it expected of me in society? Yes. So does that mean that society impresses ageism upon me? No.

This is the same argument only using the term sexism. The "target" does not matter. It is important to note this because when we specifically call out certain targets (such as females and males or old and young or professional and student) we end up creating a culture of inferiority and superiority which has no basis in anything related to intent. The mechanics of the culture itself is not the topic but instead the attitudes of the culture which is completely separate as said prior and shown prior. ]]

Second Paragraph --

[[ One male can impregnate multiple females. One female can only impregnated by one male at a time. It is short-sighted to attempt to state that males are equivalent biologically in this particular sense. There is no need to expound on whether females make better parents or whether children do better with their mother around though as the biological reality above does just fine. From a pragmatic viewpoint impregnating more females to maintain lives and population is valid. I disagree that it's "less valuable" in the philosophical sense but rather just in terms of a very specific window relating to the pragmatics of choosing between the two biological purposes. ]]

Third Paragraph --

[[ The failure to note the female's part in this partnership is a grotesque oversight. If males are to provide "outside the home" then females are to "keep the home clean, cook for him, clean his laundry, and manage all domestic affairs", if he is to be the strength for her she is to support him in the most absolute fashion which is basically throwing all of your emotional strength behind someone in return for them opening a pickle jar, and if he is to give her the best of everything then she is to provide him with an infinite amount of sex at any time he wishes in any particular manner without complaint and even with eagerness. The reason the "Nice Guy" exists is because of this myth, that men fail to look at both sides of this sick equation, where essentially opening doors and carrying bags grants you a sex slave, maid, and shoulder to cry on or a punching bag to beat on whether it be physically, emotionally, mentally, or to control as a puppet as you control all income, all outgo, and really just about all capabilities relating to resources so your word is always the final word as a man.

To be honest this is why Feminists are against Chivalry as defined. This thinly veiled Power Schema is obvious to anyone who is trained to see beyond the weakest of deceptions. The entire system is absolutely vile to women, there is no gain, and even in modern society the rules of engagement still stand under this model where you fix the cabinet and then you get a blowjob just because you fixed the cabinet regardless of how she feels. Domestic violence and marital sexual assault are crimes that are scrutinized now because when the death of gender roles began this entire tower of patriarchal design began to crumble. ]]

Fourth Paragraph --

[[ FDE (Female Dating Etiquette: http://www.a-to-z-of-manners-and-etiquette.com...) exists. Etiquette on how to behave around men exists (http://theseductivewoman.blogspot.com..., http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) and is constantly under fire. The concept of the "Motherly Woman", the "Sexual Object", and the "Ride-or-Die" chic are all the same reiteration of an assorted number of FDE models. The reason I chose business is because business is where it hits the hardest and matters the most; it is one of the largest and most extensive systems of etiquette around the world, or so I have found in my studies, but FDE and MDE are much simpler and are both garnered around the male pleasure; you open a door, you pull out a chair, you open your car door, and they are supposed to hike up their dresses and drop their panties. That's how it's supposed to work, you attractive, and you follow the rules, and you win sex.

However the statement that there is no management for how females are to treat males in society needs substantiation. Rather than I myself going and grabbing any number of examples I want to know and investigate why my opponent believes this. ]]
Debate Round No. 2
Encore

Pro

Thanks for the Round 2 arguments!

"If we note this for it's nature men instituted it. The proposition of "chivalry etiquette" is still a male proposition if it survives which means that the sexist nature is male-oriented. I suppose that means that "Ladies First" is sexism if we take this vantage point and that men are being sexist by keeping the rules in play but the sexism is against women"
This is true and that's exactly what I was trying to point out in the patriarchal consequence scenario: if the rules were created by men in order to have a superior position, then this is sexism against women. My opponent's argument actually supports my position. My whole point is that however we look at "Ladies first", it implies sexism against one of the genders, whichever that might be.

Responses to my opponent's second point
- First paragraph:
I have not claimed that the social etiquette intends to be sexist, but it directly or indirectly implies sexism; whether it was a matter of intention or not, it is absolutely irrelevant for this discussion. The ageism analogy is only approximate, because, while a man should open the door for an elder person (male or female) in order to be respectful, a woman will be socially penalized only if she doesn't open the door for an elder woman; there will be no problem if she doesn't open the door for an elder man (especially if he is not really older than her). Although, in theory, "the younger should open the door for the elder", within the social judging assessment the age difference is not clear cut when it comes about when a woman should do this for an older man. The problem with the intersection of categorial criteria is that it actually emphasizes the privilege that women have in society, by applying double standards. Additionally, even if we consider this to be a fair analogy, the woman is placed in the superior position, for instance: "the inferior should open the door for the superior, the man should open the door for the woman".

- Second paragraph:
While the mathematics in my opponent's argument is correct, the justification of why this mathematical reasoning should be applied is not demonstrated. While it is true that the male can impregnate more females in a relatively short time interval, this argument alone reinforces the gender stereotypes and places it above the actual aspirations of the individual; moreover it implies that men are likely to be unfaithful to their lovers. Furthermore, if there still are men and women somewhere on the planet outside of the unfortunate event, the species will be perpetuated anyway. There is no need to create a redundancy of a "more numerous" population at the expense of the lives of only one gender, since the cataclysm does not endanger the entire humanity. On the other hand, as shown previously, if it is an actual danger of human extinction, both genders are obviously required to repopulate the planet. If saving primarily the women is based solely on symbolism, life is a pretty high price to pay for mere symbolism.

- Third paragraph:
It was not my intention to undermine the female's very important part in the partnership, of course she also has a lot of things to do in the household; I was trying to show that beside the family responsibilities, man also has the social burden of chivalry etiquette which is not intended only for romantic relationships, but it is expected to be applied towards all women. Maybe it is better said: the burden of social penalty if he isn't chivalrous to women. Consequently, men are prejudiced solely because of their gender more often than women.
"then she is to provide him with an infinite amount of sex at any time he wishes in any particular manner without complaint and even with eagerness" - this is far from what the gender roles imply in a couple; this kind of trade is degrading for the woman and the man's intentions are petty if he's chivalrous to her only to get sex in return. The gender roles clearly don't expect this type of trade and if this is the way how people apply it in the real life, then it is sexist too.
"opening doors and carrying bags grants you a sex slave, maid, and shoulder to cry on or a punching bag to beat on whether it be physically, emotionally, mentally, or to control as a puppet as you control all income, all outgo, and really just about all capabilities relating to resources so your word is always the final word as a man." - again, if man sees the gender roles as a means to abuse from his illusive power, this leads to sexism towards the woman. Anyway, this is just one of the many possibilities that people can behave it is purely contingent and it has nothing to do with the topic.
Anyway, the patterns of the housewife and the provider do not apply nowadays anymore. While in the modern society, women and men have the same rights, work together, etc, whatever chivalry etiquette was trying to compensate for is not here anymore to compensate.

- Fourth paragraph:
The Female Dating Etiquette is a special case, because it deals more with the intimate life, whereas the resolution of this debate refers to the entire social life, not only the intimate one. Even so, the feminine etiquette doesn't imply anything that she wouldn't do as a civilized person in any situation. This is also why I said that there is no management for how females are to treat males in society; the woman's expected behavior is more like a passive politeness and in a larger sense, her attitude is to be aimed to earn/reinforce the man's respect for her. MDE also stresses the respect for the woman; the disproportion is clear. I will not discuss the sex thing here too, as I have already expressed my opinion in the response to paragraph 3 above.

I would also like to know why my opponent thinks that "FDE and MDE are much simpler and are both garnered around the male pleasure; you open a door, you pull out a chair, you open your car door, and they are supposed to hike up their dresses and drop their panties. That's how it's supposed to work, you attractive, and you follow the rules, and you win sex." Is this backed up from the perspective of accepted social etiquette between men and women, or is it a subjective conclusion of observing reality?
blackkid

Con

Point A:

What is true however is that your argument only works under that distinct patriarchal notion which is no longer present. The prospects behind the assumption have long weakened to the point where they are no longer viable. The entire reason there is a classification known as the "Nice Guy" is because the logic behind that behavior is dead in society and we've pressed on. Today it is a merit system based on behavior and culpability versus gender and rules.

Point B:

1st Paragraph -

There is absolutely no point to a discussion on "implied" -isms. If they are not intentional and direct behaviors then one runs the risk of "looking too hard" to find a case. Because "implied sexism"is undefined here it has no contextual value either so if the opponent wants to actually define it so be it but otherwise it's ambiguous and impossible to discuss. For instance this:

"The ageism analogy is only approximate, because, while a man should open the door for an elder person (male or female) in order to be respectful, a woman will be socially penalized only if she doesn't open the door for an elder woman; there will be no problem if she doesn't open the door for an elder man (especially if he is not really older than her)."

The statement itself is unsupported. Followed by:

"Although, in theory, "the younger should open the door for the elder", within the social judging assessment the age difference is not clear cut when it comes about when a woman should do this for an older man."

Which is further unsupported and culturally sensitive. It's purely ambiguous and may or may not be true only in certain regions of the world; there is no standard for what region is under assessment at all and because it's generally an unwritten social rule there's likely no real documentation to back it or attack it either way so with no support, no means of evidencing the notion, and no universal standard this is why "implied" -ism conversations do not work.

2nd Paragraph -

"While it is true that the male can impregnate more females in a relatively short time interval, this argument alone reinforces the gender stereotypes and places it above the actual aspirations of the individual; moreover it implies that men are likely to be unfaithful to their lovers."

This is Hasty Generalization (http://www.iep.utm.edu...) because there is nothing about the biological truth that suggests (or even talks about) faithfulness and monogamy. The entire paragraph is one large Hasty Generalization because it continuously presumes greater than the actual merit of what was said by pushing the concept into different areas of philosophy particularly by continuously asserting the hypothetical in order to justify a null point. The production and use of these systems is not maintained widely today though it was when the population of the Earth was lower, wars were more common, and societies really did face extreme amounts of losses due to war, technological inability (such as when ships sunk), and disease. The argument that it is / was / will be purely symbolic has no grounds either which is the problem; there's no actual reasoning as to why it would be symbolic or what would make it out to be as such.

3rd Paragraph -

None of this is supported. At this point it's unreasonable to presume when discussing archaic systems that it doesn't require actual evidences from society in real-time. Show "Maybe it is better said: the burden of social penalty if he isn't chivalrous to women." to be actually true. Show it to be true not just in single instances either but as a real-time general trend in society, whichever you speak of, and it must be specific to at least one society rather than gathering examples from around the world as that does not form a trend without backing.

A side-note: "The gender roles clearly don't expect this type of trade and if this is the way how people apply it in the real life, then it is sexist too." debunks the above patriarchal assertion to begin with that you made. It either does or does not. You cannot hold both archaic propositions and modernized and updated behavior patterns. So if nothing else we can drop the first portion as it is contradictory to mentioning the modernized state as you acknowledge in your final sentence that it no longer exists.

4th Paragraph -

Note: All dating etiquette deals with intimate life, as it is is dating etiquette. Thus why I grabbed business etiquette first.

"Even so, the feminine etiquette doesn't imply anything that she wouldn't do as a civilized person in any situation." This is completely unsupported. The sources themselves show an extreme amount of attention to presentation, wording, care, and behavior. The entire basis of "slut shaming" and "sleeping to the top" and so forth is based on breaking these very thin rules. It's just not true as it was cited and the number of rules required and behaviors and presentations are definitely greater than basic civic behavior.

The "Nice Guy" proposition backs up the perspective, thus why I had shown it to begin with, because the entire argument you've posed is based on the Nice Guy persona. Nothing you've said deviates away from it in your reasoning which is basically undermining itself. For instance you acknowledge that in modernized society the concept of Chivalry (as attached to "Nice Guy Syndrome") is dying, it's not expected in a normal partnership, and it isn't celebrated in general society. In dating the two exchange very real behaviors where they show for the "old archaic" build, the male is respectful through tangible gestures and the female is emotionally involved; in turn it's two types of respect so the MDE/FDE differential is relatively argued through subjective observation and is an appeal to emotion (http://www.iep.utm.edu...) rather than a concrete argument.

Requests:

1. Some form of backing other than your word for the trends you claim exist. The Archaic/Modern element to this debate seems to have completely derailed it because it's arguing three separate points now, A) that it did exist, B) that it does exist, and C) that it is observable and proven however (A) means nothing, (B) is unsupported, and (C) lacks context through the "implied -ism" problem.

2. A more linear argument. There's elements of far-reaching opinion (such as with the Hasty Generalization) that do not support anything. For instance the biological truth is biologically true; there is no deeper philosophical proposition and if there is and you wish to pose it you have to do more than pose questions as there's no reasoning behind your questions or assertions. I'd be more than happy to just drop that portion as it's wasteful to the point at this point in time due to the nature of where it's attempt to go.
Debate Round No. 3
Encore

Pro

Because my opponent won't be available for the weekend and cannot conclude the debate due to time constraints (see comments), I won't be posting arguments for the following rounds either. People who want to vote, please vote according to what has been argued so far, Rounds 1,2,3.
blackkid

Con

[Forfeited]
Debate Round No. 4
Encore

Pro

I'm sorry we could not conclude this. Thanks for this interesting debate!
blackkid

Con

Me too, no problem though! Enjoy your future endeavors!
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Encore 2 years ago
Encore
Maybe e could end it today though :)
Posted by blackkid 2 years ago
blackkid
Due to Time Constraints and the fact that we have two more rounds I concede.

I won't be available this weekend to conclude, so you win! Congratulations. :)
Posted by roark555 2 years ago
roark555
Give me a break. Everything is sexist with these people.
Posted by blackkid 2 years ago
blackkid
I hope you don't mind that my position is a tad long, but that's it! Obviously I accepted. :p I don't know if I have to say "I accept" every time.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
EncoreblackkidTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: IMO con showed enough doubt that "ladies first" didn't imply sexism. Good try tho pro, good job on your first debate. Tell me if you think I voted for the wrong person.