Amazon.com Widgets
  • Yes, it is.

    Females are people too, no matter their upper body strength. Now, I would still let a lady go first, just because it is the nice thing to do and I respect females. I'm just saying that people should not be all about women going first. I go through it all the time, being young. People put me before them. It drives me crazy, because I am not weak and I am not incapable of waiting 30 more seconds.

  • Yes because it is like saying your weak so go I will help you

    Or it can be like boys are nothing and girls are so girls are like queens and boys are trash so since they are queens they go first and boys have to wait just like they are garbage or not important like a queen that is so important they have to go first.

  • It is sexist

    Because boys are cool people too so you have to treat them equally and sometimes boys want to be first and not always ladies first. It would make boys want to be woman and they would regret them being mans and why does it even exist it should be equal like you can go first at the same time

  • First Off, 'Ladies First' is not only applied to opening the door.

    Ladies First is used in the order of ordering and serving food, going into a place, being dismissed from a meeting/class, and even, in some cases, the giving of gifts and/or awards. I have heard the argument "It's being polite" a lot. Let's look at that. Males have a rule enforced on them that tells them to go out of their way to show respect to females, but there is no vice versa- females are not expected to go out of their way to show respect to males. Until there is such a policy, it is sexist. Since it would be hard to develop a tradition to show males that same level of respect without compromising the original 'ladies first' rule, I believe we should just eradicate 'ladies first' and determine order without considering gender.

  • First Off, 'Ladies First' is not only applied to opening the door.

    Ladies First is used in the order of ordering and serving food, going into a place, being dismissed from a meeting/class, and even, in some cases, the giving of gifts and/or awards. I have heard the argument "It's being polite" a lot. Let's look at that. Males have a rule enforced on them that tells them to go out of their way to show respect to females, but there is no vice versa- females are not expected to go out of their way to show respect to males. Until there is such a policy, it is sexist. Since it would be hard to develop a tradition to show males that same level of respect without compromising the original 'ladies first' rule, I believe we should just eradicate 'ladies first' and determine order without considering gender.

  • Because it is stating that girls get better treatment than boys

    If girls get better treatment that means that the genders aren't equal and that is sexist. Its sexist for women too it is saying that they are weak and cant do anything for them selves. Just because they are women doesn't mean that they cant protect or help themselves. Definitely sexist

  • This is definitely sexist

    Men and women are equally capable. This phrase merely advantages one above the other. We are taught to respect every race equally, so why should gender be any different? Furthermore, it assumes that women aren't capable of walking through a door on their own, so it truly is sexist both ways.

  • Because chivalry is putting women before men

    Women's needs shouldn't be put above men's needs, just like men's need shouldn't be more important than women's need. Historically, men have been the protector and provider of women (wich is why ''ladies first'' is a thing) while women have been raising the children and made sure to create a comfortable home for the family. If women have the right to get rid of their gender role (wich is a good thing by the way, everyone should be free to do whatever as long as it doesn't hurt anyone), men should have the right to get rid of their, too.

  • Its sexist and makes no sense

    Just because you are a women or a man doesn't mean you should be granted rights, whoever is first is first. And also there is sexism towards women that is unfair, more people watch man sports and not women sports, sexism. Same case with the word (just to state one of many) mankind, it should be something else. And if you had two people, A and B, would you let B first because it is the second letter of the alphabet, no that BS. Whoever is first is first no stupid factorization.
    However, ladies first isn't a problem when it's voluntary, because that's your own choice, but when you are forced too that just annoying, remember A and B.

  • Why the hell.

    Some people say that me Harry's women but sometimes it is the other way around I have been bullied many times from women and people don't believe me because I am a man and they are a women. It's downright stupid it's pathetic and not being sexist but I see most men doing work and others not and some women work and some do nothing at all.

  • It is an action of respecting women

    Lady first is an old rule.All the special features of an adult male's personality, developed from boyhood--his muscles, will power, stamina, competitive drive, aggressiveness and assertiveness, mathematical and abstractive powers of mind, love for strategic planning and manipulating physical reality, strong sense of fairness and ethical conduct--all coordinate toward a single great purpose in life: protection.
    Nature, it seems, endows men with the physical and mental powers they need to protect their loved ones. The instinct to protect from harm lies at the core of a man's masculinity, and it is an immensely powerful force.

  • There is a different between being chivalrous and being sexist.

    Sexism is the deliberate condescension toward the opposite sex based on a the belief that its members are inferior. Chivalry is the demonstration of an appreciation for someone through kind acts. The motivation behind it is politeness, not condescension. It is, therefore, not sexist to offer a lady the option of going first. It's good manners.

  • Not under 99% of circumstances

    Holding the door for a women is not an act of dominance, it is an act of kindness. Is it right to hold the door for just a woman and then let it slam in the face of the man right behind you? No. But the vast majority of men do it because it's nice. Those who do it because they see females as weak and inferior are few, and it's unfortunate that in today's society it is those few who make a name for the polite men who are just trying to add a little more kindness into the world.

  • No way it is polite.

    Many or some men open the door for women so they can enter a room first. It came about when men thought the lady should enter first so all the men see that she is with him. It is not sexist it is a form of being polite I love when men open the door for me. I like to think it means they are a gentleman.

  • "Ladies first" is not sexist.

    You can't care that much about the age-old rule "ladies first." It's become a part of modern society. It shows signs of a true gentleman. I don't know about you, but I'm flattered when someone at my age remembers to hold the door open. I'm usually the one holding the door open at my middle school.

  • It's called being gentleman

    Why should a male be punished by a female, or anyone for that matter, simply for displaying good old traditional manors. It's due to women being over 'anti-sexist' that has destroyed chivalry in our society. Men and women should both of course be equal to each other, however a man should certainly not be even considered sexist merely because he opened a door for a women and muttered the classic 20th century phrase 'ladies first'.

  • Of course not

    It is understandable that people may consider the concept of chivalry to be biased towards the female gender, but that bias is there for a reason. Women, as a general rule, are physically weaker than men. Men who use their strength to their advantage against women are generally considered rude, immoral, and generally impolite.

    "Ladies first" is essentially just another way of saying that men should take care of and protect women. As a species, females are the ones who continue the generation and keep the species alive; although males are required for reproduction as well (for most species), they do not carry the child and therefore it is their responsibility to protect the females to ensure the stability of future generations.

    Finally, I would like to state that any man who ever wants to get into a relationship has to consider these factors. More often than not, it is men who chase the women, and the women who picks the men. Although this can sometimes be seen as self-serving, a man must submit to a woman's will to be able to gain her friendship, trust, and ultimately love.

  • It's courtesy and respect

    The offer of 'ladies first' makes something of a man into a Gentleman, in the same way as other forms of politeness and etiquette makes a woman a 'Lady'. It can be interpreted as sexist because women may feel that they don't need special treatment as their not handicapped or inferior, and it can be interpreted as sexist to a man as it may appear as the woman gets special treatment by going first. However, that is not the principle of it. It's just common decency and respect.

  • Sorry. I forgot manners was a problem nowadays.

    Its ridiculous. It is definitely not sexist as it is just an act of kindness that should be accepted. If I said ladies first to somebody and they said I was being sexist then I would slam whatever door in their face, and I would still probably be called sexist.

  • Sorry. I forgot manners was a problem nowadays.

    Its ridiculous. It is definitely not sexist as it is just an act of kindness that should be accepted. If I said ladies first to somebody and they said I was being sexist then I would slam whatever door in their face, and I would still probably be called sexist.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
abyteofbrain says2013-12-20T03:59:43.297
Not when used in context, but it is frequently used out of context.