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 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.
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.
If women really want complete equality then they should expect exactly that...Equality, no one sex benefits from another, because if another benefits then it's no longer equal. For example, being a gentleman means that a male would be in a sense "serve" the female, because it's the "right" thing to do, because it's chivalrous. But what people should realize is that the idea of a gentleman existed from a time when sexism was actually very rampant and the norm, the female would be the housewife, not doing the heavy lifting etc. But apparently it's the only sexist thing that survived that era.
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.
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
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.
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.)
Nobody should be treated any better or worse simply based on gender because that is essentially a simplified version of sexism. I know women who could beat the tar out of men and visa versa, so nobody should be physical or rude to one gender, or at least not expect to get it in return. If anything, it's sexist to both genders. Chivalry was a time when women were treated kindly, but expected to stay home, birth children, and remain quiet unless addressed first (sexist to women). Women were to come first before men in most ways, especially regarding physical or verbal attacks on men (sexist to men). To be truly equal is to be equal to BOTH sees, not only when it's convenient.
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).
We need to stop the whole notion that if a man doesn't give up his seat to a women than he is a rude pig, and if he does than he is clearly misogynist. There is no way to win. Men AND WOMEN both should be giving their seats up to help the elderly, infirm, pregnant,whoever needs it, regardless of gender. Chivalry should not be a man helping a woman, it should be both helping each other.
I'll let the door slam in your face, never help you when you drop your books. If you're carrying a heavy load I'll just leave it to you to carry it on your own. If you're having problems with friends or society I will just ignore you. I won't buy presents for you. I won't ask to be your partner in a project or any other activities. If you missing supplies I wont let you use mine.
Now does that sound nice? No, it isn't, so shut up and be grateful that I took the precious time out of my life to hold the door open for you.
Chivalry is about respect, not sexism. It's about a man feeling like a man & a woman feeling like a woman. Nature has a yin & yang aspect and no matter how "pc" we try to be you can't ignore or deny the differences in the genders, those differences make life exciting.
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.
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.
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.
There are a lot of men that were brought up to offer a seat to a woman or opening a door for them not because they are weak because of respect. It would be similar to opening the door for royalty or those of power to show passivity and respect.
I question the interpretation of such an action is not a reflection of the one performing it but one who's interpreting it.