How and Why Chivalry is Sexist

Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:37:07 EST

One of the board trolls asked how chivalry is sexist in another topic. I was surprised to see there's no Feminism 101 post specifically about chivalry, so I'll explain it here. Why explain to an anti-feminist troll something he'll never accept no matter what? Because I'm bored.

I'll use a specific example, rather than talking generally here.

[b:3oew27a7]Andrew Lawton: Being Chivalrous Does Not Make Me Sexist[/b:3oew27a7]
[i:3oew27a7]http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/andrew-lawton/chivalry_b_2936648.html[/i:3oew27a7]

In this article, Lawton describes an incident in which he held a door open for a woman, who told him she didn't need a man to hold a door for her. She refused to go through the door while he held it open, so being the gentleman who respects women that he is, Lawton refused to move, blocking her only exit from the coffee shop in which this act of moste noble chivalrie took place. She eventually relented, and passed him (with a huff and a roll of the eyes, that bitch).

First of all, notice how he uses language to frame the woman in the tale negatively, and himself positively. When he held the door open for her, she "refused" to go through; when he steadfastly held the door open, he did so "unwaveringly."

When he points out that she wasn't incapable of opening the door, his mind immediately goes to "pushing a stroller." 'Cause you know. Women push strollers.

Notice how he sidles from admitting that his decision was sex-based...

"Had it been a man behind me, I probably would have done the polite-but-effortless Herculean reverse stretch of the arm while still walking forward until my fingers release the final inch of the door. Women get full service."

...to claiming humanism, as sexists tend to do...

"Chivalry is an exercise in basic [i:3oew27a7]human[/i:3oew27a7] decency, not an effort to subjugate women." (emphasis mine)

Even from the first sentence, he frames feminism and any notion that his actions were sexist as ridiculous. "When I woke up this morning, I had no idea I'd be setting the women's rights movement back 100 years." Since feminists are always making that claim. His closing line is far more blatant. "...should I ever run into a cranky, 30-something, misguided feminist again, I will do as I was raised and hold open the door."

I'm not even gonna get into the "poor modern men are being emasculated and feminized" thing, 'cause it's tangential to this discussion.

So...how exactly is chivalry sexist? Reading that, how can you think it's not?

Okay, okay, I'll go further into it than that. You see, feminists have this crazy notion that a person ought to be able to define their own lives based upon their personal preferences and perceptions, rather than having their lives defined for them based upon their race, sex, gender expression, sexual identity or anything else.

Chivalry forces gender roles upon women, just as Lawton forced his act of "kindness" upon his unwilling recipient. It gives the power to define what a "proper lady" is to men, and gives them justification for shaming and despising those women who refuse to conform to that role.

The woman in the story doesn't want men to hold doors open for her. But she's not allowed to make that decision, according to Lawton and chivalry in general. It's a man's decision to be chivalrous, and if a woman rejects a chivalrous act, she's a bitch.

Because you see, despite everyone who advocates chivalry always saying the opposite, chivalry isn't about treating women respectfully. It's about treating [i:3oew27a7]certain[/i:3oew27a7] women respectfully. As Lawton puts it, to be chivalrous is "to believe that ladies should be treated as such." You know, [i:3oew27a7]proper[/i:3oew27a7] ladies, the kind who wear dresses and fan themselves on the veranda while sipping mint juleps.

By separating women into those who are "ladies" and those who are not, the power of self-definition is stripped away; a woman isn't free to define who or what she is, men have already done that for her. Her only option is to conform and be treated like a child all her life, or rebel and be treated like a bitch.

Right about now, some of you who don't already get what I'm saying must be asking yourselves, "So then what am I supposed to do? Never hold doors open for women on the off chance they might find it offensive?"

Not at all! The whole point of feminism is, as I said, self-definition, self-direction. You [i:3oew27a7]like[/i:3oew27a7] holding doors open for women. And that's okay. So do it.

Sound like a paradox? I just spent a dozen paragraphs condemning some random internet douche for just such an act.

Well you see, the thing about self-definition is that it goes both ways (a phrase our anti-feminist friends are very fond of). If you want to hold doors open for women, go ahead. But if you should encounter a woman who doesn't want a door held open for her, you should respect her decision and continue on.

Lawton's mule-like insistence on holding the door open was forcing his ideology on someone who doesn't share, respect or want it, and that's wrong. What he should've done when she said "I don't need a man to hold doors open for me" was reply "Ah, sorry." and step aside. And in the future, he should keep holding doors open for women, and keep apologizing and stepping aside when that act proves unwanted.

The ability to make exceptions is very important (and a very big reason chivalry is so sexist -- it categorically assigns behaviors to and about women).

Unfortunately, what I think happened was when Lawton's door holding was rejected, he became defensive. "Hey now, holding doors open for ladies is good. If this lady doesn't like it, she has to be wrong. Well I ain't lettin' this bitch have her way. I'm a gentleman who respects women and I'll prove it, consarnit!"

I think what happens when people who believe in chivalry hear "chivalry is sexist" is, well obviously first of all they get defensive because they've tied their own identity up in an external ideology, so attacking that ideology is tantamount to attacking them.

But more importantly, when you say "chivalry is sexist" what they hear is "being nice is bad." Because they think "being chivalrous = being nice." They literally think you're telling them not to be nice to other people.

In fact, what I and others are saying by putting down chivalry is, "don't base your behavior on a person's sex." That's the definition of sexism -- regarding someone based upon their sex, rather than their individual characteristics.

You wanna hold doors open? Go ahead. But do it for everyone, or based on circumstance (someone's got their hands full), instead of just categorically acting this way towards one group of people.

You still wanna hold doors open for just women. Okay, but don't get mad at a woman who rejects your offer.

You pride yourself on never hitting women? You should pride yourself instead on never hitting. Same thing goes for swearing. It shouldn't be, "I never swear in front of women because I don't want to sully their delicate, flower-like ears with such harshness." Either swear or don't.

Chivalry is the act of treating people differently based upon their sex. That's sexism. If that's not clear to you by this point, just deactivate your account and please leave the rest of us alone.(read more...)

(By Hufflepuff )

Spacefem.com Articles

How and Why Chivalry is Sexist