Chivalry equals misogyny. Assisting women with simple tasks like opening doors or carrying luggage, is just clarifying that women are not physically capable to do anything, and is also showing that women are weak. I believe that chivalry should be used by both genders and only when the person is either disabled, pregnant, occupied with a child/children or elderly.
Chivalry traces back to the Medieval period where knights used to first defend women from any possible danger during wars. I would like to state to all those people who believe that chivalry should and always will be a tradition, that, if you want equality between men and women, chivalry is contradicting all that. If you want to be a feminist, believing in chivalry is not the way to go.
-11yr old feminist
I don't know how to answer this with anything but ...Duh. Men sacrificing their money, dignity and lives just to treat a woman like she is some sort of angel that might deign to notice them if they prove themselves worthy.
Oh wait. You might mean the feminist trope that it is sexist against women. Well, yes. But it is a privileged form of sexism which is why most women that call themselves feminist are all for it. They like infantiilizing women so long as it keeps them in a position of power over men. They complain about it from time to time, but never try to seriously do anything. Let's see women in the street hollering, abolish women first rules on ships, draft women, women need to spend more money on men, time women got down on their knees and begged men to marry them.
Yes, chivalry is definitely sexist – that’s what chivalry is! The term “chivalry” is most closely associated with courageous Knights of the Round Table being chivalrous and rescuing fair damsels in distress. Chivalry is not dead, and we should be glad that there are still men who think enough of women to come to the rescue when one needs rescuing. In our quest to make all things equal between men and women, we should stop a minute and make sure we realize what we are doing, for there is a strong possibility we could kill chivalry off in the process.
Chivalry stems from protectionism, which is more or less the belief that women must be sheltered from the big bad world. Used to argue against various women's rights, such as suffrage. In addition, it is heterosexist because it assumes that the woman in question is interested in men at all. BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE. It's also cissexist. By offering your far-superior man door-holding powers in the name of chivalry alone, you are assuming that the recipient even identifies as female. No bueno, friends.
Chivalry is about manners?
Manners are good. Holding doors, for example, is good, if done equally for everyone. If you are entering a room, for example, HOLD THE DOOR OPEN FOR THE PERSON WHO FOLLOWS YOU. Regardless of their gender. (There are more than two, you know.)
It implies that men should act like slaves to women, or that they are less important, which is sexist because both genders are equal, and anything that's sexist is automatically wrong, it's like saying that you should hold the door open for someone just because they are black or because they are white, sexism is no better than racism. If it's anyone holding the door open for anyone regardless of gender, then that's fine, but the idea that men should always hold the door open for women and basically act like slaves, is sexist and therefore wrong.
The U.S. Constitution is strange, but its first words do not state anything for men or women. I hold the door for everyone. I do not focus on one gender. I do not care what gender someone is and have no bias toward them because of how I interpret their gender to be. That would be sexist, and sexism (a form of bigotry) makes me extremely angry. It sounds like to defend those who need help is what I did in 2009. But it was not because of the gender of the person, it was because defense was necessary. I do not see women as weaker or stronger than men. I see them as equal.
It culturally conditions boys from the day of their birth that men are innately less valuable than women, and that women's wellbeing and whims, should always both supersede and go at the expense of men, both at the expense of their lives as seen with the sinking of the Titanic, or with their hard earned cash, like paying for all leisure activity's as well as all other living expenses, women here who think this issue concerns whether or not it's sexist to women or not show how blatantly egocentric they are, the question here is whether or not it's sexist to men, and it is, men are taught their lives are expendable and innately inferior to women's lives. And those women who bring up the issue of holding open doors are dwindling over petty affairs, the expendability of men's lives is what's so devious and insidious about Chivalry.
How anyone could argue it's not sexist is truly beyond me.
This makes no sense to me, if anything is aimed towards women its sexist yet if it harms men its absolute perfection and its a great thing, thats chivelry in a nutshell. And if anything even happens to a women she can allways just use the non-existing "Sexism!" As an excuse. How about they do something for us for once, or they get down on there knees and beg us for marraige, or they get drafted, or they do all the goddamn word, or they have a single F*cking problem in their lives
Chivalry is benevolent sexism. Benevolent sexism is "a paternalistic attitude towards women that idealizes them affectionately." If a man is treating a woman as if to protect her like a parent would protect a child, then the woman is automatically below the man. Parents love their children and respect them (if they are good parents), but still have authority over them. Men should not be in that role of authority. A woman and a man in a relationship should be equal in every aspect, different maybe, but still equal. Their opinions and decision making should be viewed as equal. I hate when guys are chivalrous. If a man wouldn't do a chivalrous act to another man, then he shouldn't do it to a woman. Anything that determines treatment solely based on gender is sexist.
Sexism is often seen as an evil thing that degrades women and directly makes them seem less worthy than men. That's why chivalry is such a confused topic; it doesn't seem to degrade women, it seems to put them on a pedestal. However, sexism includes chivalry because it assumes women are weak and can't handle the world without help from men. Chivalry should be approached cautiously and not harshly, though, because when men are chivalrous, many of them don't understand the sexist aspect of their actions. They have been taught from a young age to help women because they are women. In order to change from sexism to equality, the benevolent forms of sexism need to die along with the degrading forms. Instead of chivalry, lets have general politeness. Open the door for anyone, regardless of their gender or lack of gender.
Chivalry isn't sexist, because to me, it's the man putting the woman above himself. He's saying that she is more important than he is. That he will open the door for her, so she can just walk right through it, while he does the work.
It's not saying that women are weak. It's saying that men are unimportant when compared to women (this is coming from a man by the way).
There is nothing wrong with men going out of their way to be polite to others. I don't understand why society will complain the men today have no morals. But the one thing that did prevent them from going off the deep end (which they have ) is being rejected.
It is not rude to have someone open a door, it is not disgraceful to have a door opened for you either. People think that it makes you weak or something, chivalry is merely honorable. It does not make anyone more subordinate. Traditions change and evolve, it's natural law to evolve.
It is not rude to have someone open a door, it is not disgraceful to have a door opened for you either. People think that it makes you weak or something, chivalry is merely honorable. It does not make anyone more subordinate. Traditions change and evolve, its natural law to evolve.
Personally, I open the door for everyone, not just the girl. Being a chivalrous person means that you are respectful towards everyone and that and that and that and that and that and that and that and that and that and that and that and that you can't be stupid
There is nothing sexist about being chivalrous. Chivalry is simply a act of kindness for someone who does (and even doesn't) deserve it. As a woman, I don't feel inferior when a man holds a door open for me. I think it's very thoughtful and I always say thank you. And when I hold a door open for a guy, I hope he doesn't feel that I am "robbing" him of his masculinity or whatnot, because I am not. I'm just doing something kind for someone. I like when people do kind things for me and I am confident enough in my femininity and independence to not assume that when someone gives up their seat to me or pays for me THEY are assuming I cannot stand or cannot pay for myself. That is not the case. and will never be.
I personally don’t think that any aspect of courtly love is sexist. When you hold the door open for a woman or offer to drive a long trip you are not putting her below you and calling her weak. You are just showing respect and caring for her. Any point that people can make trying to say that chivalry is sexist can be counter example of why it is not.
Chivalry is not sexist - pulling the door open for someone is just being polite. However, it does not necessarily have to be the man that opens the door. Whoever reaches the door first should open it and wait for the other person to go in. This is common courtesy.
I understand the idea that sexism is "just clarifying that women are not physically capable to do anything, and is also showing that women are weak" as our 11 yr. Old feminist pointed out (and that was not meant to be rude but I simply couldn't find another way to identify her), but truly, that's not the point of chivalry. As I see it, chivalry is just an attempt to be unselfish, to show that despite what I want, despite my own interest to use the umbrella in the rain or to continue through the door with out holding it, I am willing to put my own interests second to aid another. If I have a friend and, to continue with the example I used, she is walking through the rain, by allowing her to use my umbrella, I'm not stating that she is weaker than me and that she needs protection, but rather, I'm showing that I care about her, that I'm interested in her well being and that I'm willing to undergo a discomfort to ensure her own security. Another incident that has happened to me that I think illuminates my point was that I was at a local festival and I just so happened to run into a fellow classmate who was looking for her own group of friends. Something had happened to her phone, so I let her use mine, and when she figured out where her friends were, I walked her over to them. Now, this may seem like it was because I believed her weak and that she needed the protection of a scrawny, 145 lbs sophomore, but my rationale was simply that I cared about her, and as such, I was willing to be inconvenienced if it assured her well being. Granted, this could be seen as a support of the notion that women are weak and that they need men's protection, but rather, I see it as a person denying himself of whatever selfish intentions s/he may have to assist someone. It's not that she was below me and needed my protection, but that I humbled myself and realized that as much as I may want something, this is another human being wanting something as well, and I should be willing to help them. I have done the same thing for a male friend as well. Now, why is my interaction with the girl defined as chivalrous and the interaction with the boy is not? To that, I have no response, and in those regards I could see the argument that someone could make of chivalry being sexist. But, assuming that chivalry is sexist because it demotes women to helpless puppies is false because that's not the purpose of chivalry. Chivalry, as I stated earlier, is a demotion of oneself. Although you and the female are equal, you will demote yourself and place her own needs above your own.
It is about being kind and caring, respectful and polite to anyone and by anyone. Anyone can be chivalrous and anyone can be on the receiving end of someones chivalry. It doesn't need to be about me or about women just about people. I think feminism can be over the top sometimes and I am a woman saying this.