Dealing with Benevolent Sexism

[phantasmalkitty]

If you're against benevolent sexism (aka chivalry), how do you deal with it in daily life?
Personally, I don't allow men I'm close to to open doors, etc. for me, but if a stranger or acquaintance does it, I just accept it and say thank you. I feel like if I made an issue of it every time it happened, my entire day would be spent explaining to strangers why opening doors for women just because they're women is sexist.

[lillerina]

I make a point of holding doors for everyone, regardless of sex. I think that if enough women get into the habit of doing that, it stops being something that chivalrous people do and starts being something polite people do.

[monk]

I agree with lilly. A better strategy than trying to get guys you know to stop opening doors is to get the girls you know to start opening them. We should all be habitual door openers and such so that when someone doesn't open a door for people you can look at them and think about how rude they're being.

[rowan]

Everybody here holds doors for everybody else. I wasn't even aware (growing up) that there were places where only men held doors for women.

Actually it's kind of a running joke, the calculus of when it's too far to hold a door for someone vs when it's being rude to not hold a door and that grey area when it's just a liiiiiittle bit too far and then they feel like they have to hurry because you're holding it....

[octarineoboe]

I agree that politeness should be gender-neutral.

That being said, I had a friend in high school who insisted on opening doors for women, regardless of the geographical logic of the situation (ie, even if I got to the door first). It drove me bonkers, and I hadn't yet learned enough to explain why benevolent sexism was bad. So I just ran for the door every time we approached one together and made a point of opening it for him. It was different from a stranger, because he had explicitly stated that his intent was to hold doors for women and I had explicitly stated that I disagreed. Now, if the same situation arose, I would try to start a conversation about why this bothered me and how benevolent sexism is still sexist. At base, since this would only apply to people I was close enough to that I saw them frequently and knew their habits, this might look a bit like phantasmalkitty's not allowing men close to her to open doors. In other words, phantasmalkitty, I see where you're coming from, but I think you should try to have a dialogue rather than just a fight at the door.

[Aum]

I have a question... is it wrong to knowingly use one's privilege? For instance, I've known women who are feminist and pro equality, but in moments of desperation they have played the chivalry card to get men to feel sympathetic and help them. Is this wrong?

Likewise, is it also wrong for a man to use his privilege to affect change to the patriarchy?

Or should we be relentlessly and unabashedly pro-equality first?

[Wolfgirl]

Ok, I have to ask this question. Is it possible for a women to act chivalric? For if it is possible, (and I do believe that it is) then no, there is nothing wrong with a woman appealing to the chivalric code for assistance. According to the Online dictionary, Chivalry is "The qualities idealized by knighthood, such as bravery, courtesy, honor, and gallantry toward women." I have no problem with either men or women behaving with bravery or courtesy or honor or gallantry. I actually wish more people would have the above listed traits. It would make living in a city a lot easier to bear.
Now, I realize that the opposition to the use of chivalry rises from the medieval habit of placing women in the role of the "damsel in distress." We have all had to fight for the right to fix our own problems. For society to recognize that women have the intellect and strength to deal with any issue that they may come across. However, living in a society means occassionally needing help from outside sources. If women are allowed to help as well as be helped, then where does the problem arise?

[Neko]

I'll admit it, I do get a bit giddy with wicked delight whenever I hold a door for someone and it clearly makes them uncomfortable. Typically older men, but also with some of my male friends who grew up so strictly programmed in benevolent sexism. The look on their face and awkward body language is just so damn amusing to me.

I don't enjoy it in an emasculating or humiliating sort of way, rather that my actions make me an active participant in the deprogramming process. It forces them to accept the act from me, a female, the gender they've been taught "needs protecting," and I get to bear witness to the emotions that play out as they struggle with it.

What annoys me, though, is when I get the response (especially from women), "Oh, let them, they just want to feel useful." Maybe I want to feel useful too? Maybe I want to do my own heavy lifting? Maybe I want to be looked upon as a functional, reliable entity without my pussy being a deciding factor? Just sayin'.

[flashfact]

I'll admit it, I do get a bit giddy with wicked delight whenever I hold a door for someone and it clearly makes them uncomfortable. Typically older men, but also with some of my male friends who grew up so strictly programmed in benevolent sexism. The look on their face and awkward body language is just so damn amusing to me.

This has actually happened to me with a female friend of mine. She would hold the door and I would insist on "letting the lady go first" (all in good jest). This would either evolve into a micro Cold war stand off where one of us would have to move with a debate raging at a still open door or devolve into kicking and arm pulling till one of us conceded (usually me due to my friend's ferociousness when it comes to the honor of door holding.)

I would have to agree with the "being polite to everyone policy" that was talked about on this thread though. After all, it's rude to just slam a door when a person is only a few steps away from it. This goes doubly so for those older and much younger than you (or at least, from my upbringing it is).

[phantasmalkitty]

I like this "be the change you wish to see" approach that everyone's suggesting! I also open doors for people no matter their gender, and so far, men don't seem to mind.

As wolfgirl pointed out, historically chivalry was not just about how to treat women. It was like How to be a Good Person, for Knights. It was mostly about being kind to your inferiors, to the weak, and to those in need. These principles survive today, but the word chivalry is usually associated with holding doors for women, letting a lady go first, letting a lady speak first, etc. The problem is that women are included in "inferiors and the weak" when we really shouldn't be.

I have a question... is it wrong to knowingly use one's privilege? For instance, I've known women who are feminist and pro equality, but in moments of desperation they have played the chivalry card to get men to feel sympathetic and help them. Is this wrong?

Likewise, is it also wrong for a man to use his privilege to affect change to the patriarchy?

Or should we be relentlessly and unabashedly pro-equality first?

I don't think that a woman "playing the chivalry card" is anything like using privilege. Chivalry gives men privilege, not women.

[Aum]

^ I disagree in instances where a woman is knowingly playing the receptive role in order to get something she wants from a chivalrous man. I've seen it happen, and I've had female friends who have done this. Privilege can simply be defined as being in a position of power based on some social factor. So again I ask, is it wrong for a woman to sometimes use a chivalrous situation to get what she wants, just as we would deem male dominated chivalry to be wrong?

I do agree that the privilege is mostly men's but it can be turned around. It reminds me of the Victorian era where women would use fainting and pretend illness to get what they wanted because they had little social power.

[Axiomatic]

Sure, you can use "the vapors" to get what you want, so long as what you want are scraps from the table.

As for chivalry, yeah, the best revenge is holding doors open for the people who hold them open for you. You can cackle like an evil mad genius inside while you do it, secure that your terrible vengeance has no mercy.

[Eravial]

This is a different situation than the "accepting chivalry for personal gain" you're asking about, Aum, but it might still be relevant as "promoting chivalry for women's gain." A rape survivor once came to speak to a class I took on sexual violence, and she had a very different view on how chivalry affects women. I'm not sure if she considered herself a feminist, but she viewed chivalry as a tool to prevent rape. In particular, she told us about her son and how she teaches him to ALWAYS open doors for women, ALWAYS pull out chairs for women, and in general always treat women with the highest respect and deference. I can't remember, but she may have said that she also taught her son to use his privilege to protect women. To her, this seemed like the most effective way to ensure that her son never hurts a woman as she was hurt.

I disagree with her sentiment, both because it continues to place distance between the positions of men and women relative to one another, and because history shows that chivalrous cultures do not prevent rape. I appreciate her teaching her son that he is given privilege by society for being male and that privilege should never be used for harm, but it seems to me that she's also teaching him to embrace his privilege by doting on those without it.

However, what gives me pause is that a boy brought up with chivalry specifically directed at preventing rape may indeed be less likely to rape a woman later in life than a boy not taught anything at all about interactions between men and women outside of what he gleans from rape culture. It's not the mutual respect/autonomy/consent upbringing I would choose, but if it prevents rape, I mean, that's a good thing, right? Is it good enough to outweigh the negatives that are inherent to chivalry?

[Axiomatic]

I don't know, I think that it might backfire because humans like reciprocity.

If I'm always doing good things for someone, I start feeling that I deserve a little something back. I start feeling entitled. Like she owes me, you know? I'm always pulling back chairs and opening doors, the least she could do in return is put out.

And when you get to that place, well, it's not really BAD if you just take what's owed to you...

[Aum]

Eravial, that's a really interesting perspective that I hadn't considered before. In the absence of chivalrous values, the fact that rape culture could take more control over conveying misogynist values does maybe hold some weight. If that's the case though, wouldn't it mean that chivalry is just *relatively* better than rape culture, but does not necessarily hold strong value on its own? I mean, in some ways rape culture has gotten worse due to the mass media, and maybe that's causing chivalry to look a little rosey by comparison. Thinking about the eras where chivalry had a strong presence, like the colonial and Victorian eras, I don't think it reflects too kindly; but transport a Victorian to today's world and have them watch T.V. for an hour, and they'd probably be shocked.

Nonetheless, you have shed light on a way that chivalry could be used for relative good. Even though the speaker's approach does distance the genders as you put it, it's still better than teaching your kids to outwardly abuse women. I'm just wondering how she arrived at the conclusion that if she didn't teach her son chivalry, he would become a de facto misogynist. I wasn't taught chivalrous values, I was just taught to be considerate of everyone. Even though I feel for her and what she's been through, it seems like post-trauma is what has guided some of her parenting, and that's not necessarily balanced either.

[Sonic#]

In the absence of chivalrous values, the fact that rape culture could take more control over conveying misogynist values does maybe hold some weight. If that's the case though, wouldn't it mean that chivalry is just *relatively* better than rape culture, but does not necessarily hold strong value on its own?

Eravial's point, and the way Aum evaluated it, are very close to what people say about how early chivalric courtesy developed. Originally, chivalry was tied to the skills of riding a horse in war. (If you know French, you'll see the similarity with the word for horse.) These early chevaliers had a lot of power, which was great in wartime but inconvenient in peacetime; there had to be a stronger code to discipline their behavior towards women in particular. Courtly love, which developed at around the same time, provided a relatively positive model of interactions, where knights would supplicate themselves and treat a woman as a superior to be doted upon. It was relatively much better, giving women much more power to consent to relations with others, even if by our own standards it would be judged sexist. Finally, the noble treatment of women and inferiors was codified in romances and in knightly oaths; restraint and good service to women, to one's lord, and to those in need were taught as appropriate outlets for chivalric might. So women gained substantial benefits.

Was it perfect? Heavens no. The knight had the power to submit or to disobey, and the only recourse when a knight was bad was other aristocrats, which kept the choice of dispensing power between men. The great contradiction of one of the greatest romances, one which treated chivalric conduct in great detail, was that its author twice abducted women, stole goods, and did other crimes. (That's Sir Thomas Malory, if you're curious.) But compared to what happened before chivalry became a mode of conduct, it was indispensable.

Today, our society is a lot less martial than it once was. We do a better job of preserving and enforcing the rights of people in our society than we once did. Accordingly, the protective benefits of chivalry are less necessary most of the time. Holding doors is more symbolic than useful; the white knight is less desirable than the earnest ally, because women can speak for themselves. I think it's good to encourage treatment that is more generously equal across the board. At the same time, we don't live in an ideal world yet, and those protections can actually offer more protection for women. It isn't strictly as good as unreserved kindness, but the good it does can't be dismissed.

[androkguz]

Sonic: As an added comment: the word for "knight" and "gentleman" in spanish is the same one (Caballero).

Anyway, my exgirlfriend used to be very much into gender equality even thought she had never read about feminism. She loved to open the door for me* and pay whenever she could. And it did made me very uncomfortable because everytime I didn't open the door for her around any of my parents or told them she paid I would get criticized for being rude and "that's not how we raised you", so I would often end up begging her to let me do those stuff just so the voice in my head would shut up.
A couple of years latter and some feminist forums afterwards I am ok with just being nice to people (whom I consider deserve it) regardless of gender. And as it turns out, my current girlfriend does love men who open doors, move chairs and give roses to her (she still like to pay once in a while, thought). It is kind of a weird position to be in.
"Why won't you be chivalrous with me?" "Because it is sexist" "So?" "Sexism is bad. Women suffer a lot from it" "So your solution is to avoid treating women better?" "Well, I... ehh... here! I opened the door for you"

*TANGENT:

Jesus Christ! Almost every post here talks about Chivalry as if it was only about openning doors! I know you all know this ain't true, but I find if funny and weird that 90% of the time this is the example we go to. Chivalry is about a lot more, as Wolfgirl points out

[octarineoboe]

"Why won't you be chivalrous with me?" "Because it is sexist" "So?" "Sexism is bad. Women suffer a lot from it" "So your solution is to avoid treating women better?" "Well, I... ehh... here! I opened the door for you"

Might I suggest: "No, my solution is to treat women better by respecting their capabilities and treating them as equals."*

*Obviously you know your girlfriend better than I do and whether you've had this conversation before and if it'll cause strife whether that strife is worth it. I leave all that to your judgment and will not be held responsible.

What if we reimagined the concept of chivalry to mean not just protecting/"respecting" women, but to mean, in general, ensuring that power was used, if not wisely, at least not harmfully? From Sonic's description it seems like that's what chivalry originally was, except that in such a hugely unequal world, strength was divided by gender and thus chivalry became the protection of women. The idea that the powerful should exercise some kind of discipline is, I think, a good one - how would it look in an more gender-equal world?

[Eravial]

The idea that the powerful should exercise some kind of discipline is, I think, a good one - how would it look in an more gender-equal world?

Probably the rich, instead of disparaging and ridiculing the poor, would respect them as human beings who simply have less power in society, and thus should be considered and protected from extreme poverty. Shame that capitalist pride will probably never allow this to happen.

Anyway, my exgirlfriend used to be very much into gender equality even thought she had never read about feminism. She loved to open the door for me* and pay whenever she could. And it did made me very uncomfortable because everytime I didn't open the door for her around any of my parents or told them she paid I would get criticized for being rude and "that's not how we raised you", so I would often end up begging her to let me do those stuff just so the voice in my head would shut up.

This is very much how my boyfriend feels. He's totally down with feminism and we bend gender roles all the time in our relationship, but it's just such an ingrained habit for him to open doors for women that he does it automatically. As he puts it, his (very independent, very badass) momma would kick his ass if he didn't open doors for me. It bothered me a bit at first, but after I got more comfortable with him and the fact that he wasn't doing it because he thinks I'm weaker, I just let him have his mild chivalry.

[Mathmo]

The idea that the powerful should exercise some kind of discipline is, I think, a good one - how would it look in an more gender-equal world?

Probably the rich, instead of disparaging and ridiculing the poor, would respect them as human beings who simply have less power in society, and thus should be considered and protected from extreme poverty. Shame that capitalist pride will probably never allow this to happen.

Mmm. And I think a lot more "there but for the grace of God go I*" type sentiment between people in positions of privilege/power and people who aren't, rather than "if they weren't so lazy/stupid/uneducated they would be where I am!".

(*citing this as a saying, of course, you don't have to be religious for this to apply!)

[androkguz]

As he puts it, his (very independent, very badass) momma would kick his ass if he didn't open doors for me. It bothered me a bit at first, but after I got more comfortable with him and the fact that he wasn't doing it because he thinks I'm weaker, I just let him have his mild chivalry.

It is very much like this, although in the particular case of my girlfriend she is in fact much weaker than I am. However, I am perfectly aware that pouring drinks on women first has nothing to do with thinking they are weaker. If anything, it probably came from some ancient tradition of asskissing to get laid or from this other sexist current that puts women in mythical pedestals.
And a lot of chivalrous practices have very little connection to "defending the weak" (and might instead be more about honoring people, with gestures)

[deanimal]

Haha, I'm sure your girlfriend is capable of opening doors, even if she is weaker than you. (not that you should stop for that reason, I just thought it was a funny thing for you to mention). I hope men aren't running around opening doors for women because they think women are literally incapable.

Also, I would like to know when pouring a drink ON a woman ever got anyone laid.

I'm sorry, I'm totally being an ass and have nothing of substance to contribute--you just said some things that made me giggle.