Alyssa Royse believes that teaching children the tradition of “Ladies First” only serves to reinforce sexism on many different levels.
There’s an article on Today Moms, an offshoot of NBC’s Today show, that asks if teaching little boys the cardinal rule of “Ladies First,” is teaching future generations some sort of sexism. Why is this even a question? Of course it is. Totally. And that’s not nearly as problematic as what it isn’t teaching them.
Obviously, good manners are not only important, but an increasingly rare commodity. Personally, I want them back. I want doors held open for people, I want people to help each other carry their heavy loads, offer an hand up when someone trips and, please, pretty please, can we have some more “please” and “thank you”s in the world?
But I want that as part of a civilized social intercourse in the world, not a gender-based entitlement. I routinely hold the door open for my man. He does the same for me. Whoever gets there first holds the door open. Simple as that.
♦◊♦
So, why is “Ladies First” sexism? Simple. “Ladies First” implies that women are entitled to “better” treatment simply because of they’re women? No different than implying that men are entitled to “better” treatment because of their genitals. Or white people because of their skin color. And that is the wrong lesson to treat future generations if what we want is a world of equality.
I think this plays out in our society in some ways that are perhaps unforeseen. On its most basic level, it reinforces the gender stereotypes that women don’t do the “hard” things, the physical things. That men have to make concessions for women, either because of their weakness or society’s expectation that kid gloves must be worn with women. That doesn’t sit right with me. I don’t think we get to say, “I want to be treated equally, but way more nicely.”
Yes, it is good manners to hold a door open for someone who is going to follow you through it. It is bad manners to sit in a car and wait for someone to walk around and open it for you, when you could perfectly well do it yourself.
I am not willing to accept an equality that still has women dependent on men to create the world we want to live in for us.
♦◊♦
But for me, the problem is much larger than that, and it speaks to an absence of manners and civility across the board.
I posted the Today Moms article on my Facebook wall, and a friend of mine who recently had a baby told a tale of a long line for a Port-O-Potty at a festival. She was about to burst with her new baby, and no one let her go to the front of the line.
That is just plain rude. Not because she’s a woman, because she was hugely pregnant and everyone should recognize what that means for her physical comfort and ability to “hold it”. Every man, woman and child in that line should have let her go first. (If you’ve not had the pleasure of being pregnant, imagine having to pee, really badly, and then having a 6 year-old sit on your bladder. Now wait.)
We need to be teaching kids manners, and consequences. When it’s time to line up, those who get there first are first in line. That’s the way the world works. If you got the first by pushing and shoving, you should go to the back of the line, and feel the social shunning of your peer group for behaving rudely. But at the same time, we need to teach children to assess the needs of others, outside of a rigid system. We can, in fact, police our own behavior by agreeing on a level of basic manners that we all adhere to, and all take responsibility for enforcing with our own manners.
Is there one kid who is clearly holding their crotch doing the uncomfortable “gotta pee ” dance that we all know? Let that kid go first. And it’s okay to point out that next time they probably ought to excuse themselves to go pee before it becomes a pee emergency. Is there a kid with a broken leg who needs to sit down? Get that kid a chair. A kid who has poor eyesight and really needs to be in the front? Get that kid to the front. Were you lollygagging when it was time to line-up, and therefore were last in line, and now can’t see at the Assembly because you’re in the back? Lesson learned, less lollygagging next time. This is how the world works. (Is that not fair? I hate to repeat what every parent, ever, promised they would never say to their kids, until suddenly they too were saying it all the time, “life’s not fair.”)
We need to learn to pay attention to what is really defining our experiences in the world, and what we need to do to help each other get the most out of our lives, and our contributions to society. We need to learn to identify our actual struggles, not the ones we assume based on gender. We need to learn to see how we can help each other, not just what we have to do to get ahead.
♦◊♦
I live in Seattle, which is really a bubble of progressive thought. I forget that there are still schools that line up in boy lines and girl lines. I taught my daughter that if she is the first to the door, she should hold it open for those who come after. And that if someone thanks her, she should look them in they eye and say, “You are welcome.”
Because we have to acknowledge the impact that our behavior has on others, for better or worse. And we have to learn to look at the things that actually define our opportunities, strengths and struggles, realistically. We have to learn to help others, and accept help from others. Because we need to, because it’s the right thing to do. Not because ancient gender norms tell us to.
No, not “ladies first”—manners first.
—
This post is republished on Medium.
—
Photo credit: Shutterstock
This article is well intended, but I insist that some men in the “ladies first” and “yes ma’am” club are of the mindset that the women in our lives are to be respected and thought of before ourselves.
Well that is in itself sexist against men.. Why should women be thought of before men?
For fans of counterfactuals, would there have been more ink were the genders reversed?
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/10/13217164-hero-boy-4-dies-after-saving-3-year-old-girl-in-pool?lite
I think that “ladies first” is sexist not because it implies that women are better than men, but because it implies that they’re helpless, can’t do things for themselves, and need to be treated like fragile flowers. I don’t think it’s pro-woman at all; I think it’s sexist against women.
Women shouldn’t be treated well because they’re special or beautiful or whatever – they should be treated well because they’re human.
Anne.
The question is not about being treated well. The question is about special treatment in certain circumstances.
I don’t view holding open a door as “special treatment”, I view it as common courtesy. I hold doors for both men and women all the time.
Anne. I hope I made my point that door-holding is a poor metaphor for what we’re talking about. Among other things, half the doors in public open automatically, some are revolving so there’s not much you can do, and the rest open easily. In addition, there is the issue of who got there first, who’s carrying something…. IOW, doors aren’t an issue, or if they are, there is no, zero, zip applicability to anything else. Let me give you one of my favorite anecdotes on the subject. Some news footage a couple of years ago featured a little girl in… Read more »
Surely you can tell the difference between a CHILD and a grown woman? Do you think the story would have played out differently had it been a little boy?
Also the difference between the victim and a trained professional, i.e. the guardsman? If it had been a man in the tree, likely the TRAINED PROFESSIONAL would have put him in the harness first.
But, um, thanks for sharing your anecdata.
I think it is sexist against men because it implies that women are worth more than them.
Alyssa –
How do you feel about the use of the word “lady?” I was recently chastised for saying “young lady” to woman. She indicated the word “lady” was an indicator of virtuousness…. As such, it should not be used…. I should have said “young woman.”
Just curious how you feel about the word.
It doesn’t bother me at all. I am not one to read endlessly between the lines, or letters. I try to pay attention to the tone and intent of the user and take the word as it was intended when used, and you can usually tell by tone and demeanor. All sorts of people call me all sorts of things in our commercial interactions – baby, honey, sweetie – and it doesn’t generally bother me, unless there is an obviously lascivious undertone. For what it’s worth, I call my fiance all those same things. I also call my daughter a… Read more »
This is a good point, Alyssa, and you correctly noted the multiple levels of the issue. Yes, equality necessarily means the end of chivalry, but that doesn’t have to mean the end of courtesy.
Is the biggest , most visible example of this , VAWA, after all every single crime included in VAWA is already covered in other laws. YET, someone (a large group of very smart people) saw fit to say “Crimes against women are more important , so much more important that we have to have a special law just for them”
I open the door for everyone, doesn’t bother me at all and it makes for a more friendly society. Ladies first and especially the boys don’t hit girls meme is problematic. Women n children being let off the boat first for saving lives, males not defending themselves at all from females whilst some females would hit the guys with no repercussions. Sexist behaviour that is often overlooked but means men are more disposable, their issues don’t matter as much. It’s sad really… Treat people without gender, it was commonly expected to help women lift heavy stuff but I let them… Read more »
Not sure if manners are declining or that the current state is so bad we don’t want to believe it was always this way. That said, if it really happened, if women were really treated equally, not one jot nor tittle differently, instead of hoping something about doors would change, they might be unhappy. I am interested in the fact that this is always expressed in terms of doors. In public, half of them are automatic, anyway. And none of them are difficult. So a woman has no more problem than a man, and it doesn’t make any difference, anyway.… Read more »
When she left, I stood. That’s because her status as a woman requires it of a man. Her status as a woman? Maybe in the 19th century that was true, but its 2013 now. Equality between the sexes remember? Theres no more special woman’s rewards any more Im afraid. Equality is what women asked for, its what our society has embraced, so as men lets do exactly as requested. However, let’s take it back to the nitty gritty. Somebody is attacking a woman. A guy sees it and intervenes. He’s a good guy. A guy sees it and walks on….… Read more »
Apollo. You do it your way. I’ll do it mine as long as the knees hold out. Equality? Never had a woman offer to help me change a tire, even if it were hers. Closest was a lady who wanted to hold an umbrella over me–in a thunderstorm. I told her I was already wet and she should go inside. Didn’t get struck by lightning. So equality means I pass on by when a woman is having tire trouble. Right? You sure? Didn’t think so. No more special rewards for women any more. Luck with that. Point about passing by… Read more »
Well, I’m of the “everyone help everyone” model, not the “nobody help anyone” model. I absolutely adore good manners, generosity, helpfulness – and it should be to and from all of us. And personally, I would help anyone I saw being attacked in any way. All 5’3″, 120 pounds of me.
It seems outmoded to stand when a woman enters or leaves a table, but I think a man has the right to do so if he wants to. Extra courtesy that’s not expected is not necessarily a bad thing.
Just don’t bump the table and spill other people’s coffee…. : – )
Whaaaat? Your version of equality is to never help anyone ever? Uh, I guess that would mean that you’re being as much of a jerk to women as you are to men, so that is, technically, equality…
Richard Feminists, and not just the overly obnoxious ones, do continually claim that men and women are equal. They claim that anything a man can do can also be done equally well by women. In some of the more stringently Feminist countries (e.g. scandanavia) they even reject the idea that the sexes are different AT ALL apart from the brute differences in their reproductive plumbing, and this belief persists to a lesser extent in countries such as the US. You’ll see people with this opinion, that gender is a social construct, posting on this very site. This is Feminism, and… Read more »
I’ll totally give up having the door held for me or having a man stand up just because I’ve entered a room (which has never happened, by the way) if that means the end of the wage gap, or better access to birth control and abortions, or a crack-down on street harassment. It doesn’t feel like preferential treatment to me; it feels like a few little perks that I’m being offered in exchange for a lot of big things being taken away.
Yup. Totally.
“I’ll totally give up having the door held for me or having a man stand up just because I’ve entered a room (which has never happened, by the way) if that means the end of the wage gap, or better access to birth control and abortions, or a crack-down on street harassment.” Well if you want true equality between genders then the perks you have like lower risk of violence, no risk of conscription, etc would disappear and women would either have to die 4-6x more often from violence, or men 4-6x less/or an equalization there somehow. Same with death… Read more »
It kind of blows my mind that people think that feminists are hypocrites who want men to do all the hard work but want, like, free money and doors held open for them or something. As far as conscription goes, I’m a pacifist, so if I was the boss of everything, it wouldn’t exist. Sadly, though, I’m not the boss, so it’ll probably continue to be a thing. I am totally fine with women being subject to conscription in the same way that men are. I am fine with women fighting in wars. Equality, etc. Why do women face a… Read more »
“But that kind of stuff is tough, because people change their minds, and really, at the end of the day, the person who loses out isn’t the woman or the man, but the child.” RIght. And if a society and government isn’t going to be willing to provide basic health care, services etc for the good of the child growing up, someone has to. I’d say the best bet is discussion beforehand, condoms condoms condoms, free access to oral contraceptions, and more contraception access/variability for men to have that control over their own bodies/sperm. As per everything else, I don’t… Read more »
I’ve always wondered why a community raised child wasn’t more popular vs the 2 or 1 parent system we have now. 2 or 3 parents at a time to look after 10 families kids, everyone swaps n rotates shifts giving time for people to do other work but also increases the kids socialization. I think it’d be especially good for single parents to have that load shared, also with 2-3 caregivers at a time the chance of abuse is probably lower.
I’m all for that, absolutely. Doesn’t really work with our “everyone has to have a job” kind of lifestyle and economic system. I suspect it was much more like that pre industrial era.
Pretty close to how my friends and I do it. I know a lot of people who do that. Then again, I live in Seattle…. I totally agree with you. More sharing / community.
@Julie
“Doesn’t really work with our “everyone has to have a job” kind of lifestyle and economic system.”
I mean like Bob, Jane, n Jim look after kids one day, next day they work, Julie, John, and Susie look after kids another day when they worked the first day. Everyone just rotating shifts, that way everyone can work and get child care. You’d need good employers though to allow it.
Yes, Archy I know that. We don’t have that kind of employment system in the US. We barely have workers rights.
@Alyssa
“Pretty close to how my friends and I do it. I know a lot of people who do that. Then again, I live in Seattle…. I totally agree with you. More sharing / community.”
Sounds great, I suspect those kids grow up with stronger community bonds, more self esteem probably and better social skills. Not to mention I’m sure the parents feel more at ease. Childcare here is like 200-400 a week or more I’ve heard, crazy prices, and it’s probably not worth working unless you earn decent money.
I think that would be great if it could be pulled off! I would’ve loved something like that when my son was young. It was hard having all of our family live so far away. I think things were easier in terms of childrearing when extended family lived all under one roof, or at least all on the same block.
@Anne, it’s my idea of Utopia, sharing the load and also getting more than just 1-2 role models.
Not trying to point out you don’t want equality, just saying that good also comes with bad. Did I say feminists were hypocrits somewhere?
Not in so many words, but it felt like you were. And it has for sure been said by other people on this site (not about me in particular, just about people who want equality in general).
Also it gets a bit exhausting constantly answering questions like, “Are you SURE you want equality? Do you REALLY know what that means?” Like, yeah, I do! I am a grown up who knows what she’s talking about!
The so called wage gap has been explained by Warren Farrell as resulting from the different choices men and women make with respect to employment. In essence, men sacrifice more, work longer and choose at more difficult and dangerous jobs to earn more money. This one is a common feminist trope that really should have been discarded by now, yet keeps getting repeated ad nauseum. As for birth control and abortions, cant you buy most forms of birth control at chemists and supermarkets pretty much everywhere? And arent there a number of places in most western countries where women… Read more »
That’s one person’s opinion on the wage gap. There are plenty of other, reliable sources proving that it does exist, and that men and women doing identical jobs are paid different rates. I am not, in fact, referring to who pays for birth control or abortions. I’m referring to the fact that 87% of American counties lack an abortion provider, and that there are tons of other obstacles that prevent women from getting abortions: http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/blog/2013/01/23/violent-naked-carnie-rampages-through-florida-home-pooping-and-masturbating/index.html I’m also referring to the fact that there are pharmacies that won’t sell the bc pill or the morning after pill because it goes against… Read more »
“It’s funny how every time I say that I want equality, there are like a thousand dudes ready to tell me that that’s not what I actually want.” Dunno if you have ever noticed but there are many many many women who say they want equality, yet their version of equality means taking the positives men get, adding them to women’s lives, removing the negatives women get, ignoring the negatives men get and calling that equality. That’s not equality, that’s special treatment. Equality requires the positives of both genders equalized, and both gender’s negatives to be removed or at least… Read more »
Although I fundamentally agree that equality has to be equality, there us a huge red herring flopping around in this particular argument. Men do die at a higher rate from violence than women do (if you remove domestic violence from the equation.) However, that’s a red herring for a couple reasons: 1) It’s not an inequality that is enforced by legal / institutionalized standards. 2) They are killing each other. When I worked in the prison system, mostly with men who were in for violent crimes, they made very clear that they were shooting each other or beating each other… Read more »
The statistic is worldwide, you know, including many countries where it IS INSTITUTIONALIZED, such as conscription or oppressive regimes, or for example when armies go in and allow the women n children to escape but for fighting age men they assume all are combatants? “(if you remove domestic violence from the equation.)” No, if you tally up all violent deaths, men are 4-6x more likely to die. It’s a worldwide statistic from the world health organization’s 2004 DALYS report, haven’t found a more recent version but it was an excel spreadsheet that was very interesting to see as it listed… Read more »
I should have been clear that I was thinking and speaking of the US.
Yes, this, exactly. Thank you.
And why, exactly, do you think men die 4-6x more often? Conscription aside (because I’ve already addressed that), why does that happen?
As Alyssa said above, we want equality under the law. We want freedom from institutional and legal inequality. I’m not sure what your statistics regarding violent deaths have to do with legal equality.
All you want is legal equality? Not to be seen as equals to men in the form of culture, n social issues? What legal issues stand in the way of equality for women? In the U.S there is selective service, and the lack of reproductive rights for men, for women the most I can think of is lack of universal access to abortion? It’s already illegal to pay different wages to women is it not? Thus a legal solution is already in place, isn’t the way to address the wage gap now up to changing the culture? I guess you… Read more »
It’s been suggested that women (on average) get paid less than men because women are less likely to ask for a pay rise, and if you don’t ask you don’t get.
As regards getting off a sinking ship, I agree that not everyone can wait til last, but I don’t see why women should go first just because they are women.
“better access to birth control and abortions:”
Outside of having to pay for them, what obstacles do you see?
How about the fact that 87% of counties in the US lack abortion providers, and 35% of American women live in those counties?
You can read more here, if you’re interested in educating yourself on the matter: http://www.thenation.com/blog/172345/roe-40-economic-divide-denies-low-income-women-their-right-abortion#
By accepting “compensation” (in the form of chivalry) for inequality you are upholding the inequality.
Excellent article. Good to see that there are some feminists who acknowledge that feminism and chivalry are irreconcilable concepts.
I would like to think I wouldn’t judge a man who gets into the lifeboat before a woman, but I’m not sure I can. He shouldn’t be judged any more harshly than a woman who gets in before a man, yet…I don’t know, maybe I’m clinging on to outmoded ideas too much.
Anyway, the true test will be a situation with lifeboats or hostages.
Thanks for this Alyssa. Just 3 days ago I was out for lunch with a couple of people and as the waiter seemed to be handing a menu in my direction I put out my hand only for her to change direction slightly and say “ladies first” as she handed it to my wife. It was utterly embarrassing and made me feel about 2 feet tall.
That was very rude of the waiter. Very rude. I’m a fan of opening doors if I get there first, and in the south I get some pushback mostly from older gentlemen, but hey, I just josh with them and tell them they can open the next one, tradesies etc.
I would also like to retire “don’t hit girls” and replace it with “don’t hit anybody.”
I think the point, for small boys, was don’t hit girls back. And don’t play hitting games with boys unless, 1, they want to play and, 2, the teacher isn’t looking.
If that’s the point, it’s sorely out of date.
Agreed. That would mean we should have a Violence Against People Act instead of a Violence Against Women Act….
We do have a violence against people act. It’ called ‘law’ and it kind of frowns upon violence, in case nobody noticed it…
You can make this argument one way or the other. You cannot, however, have it both ways. If a special law for men isn’t needed because current law covers everyone, then a special law for women isn’t needed because the current laws cover everyone. It becomes very hard not to assume that some fight to keep this (now expired) law entirely because it allows women to constantly dangle a sword over the heads of men. It allows women to have men sent to jail overnight on their say so alone (which makes for handy retribution in a fight, forcing men… Read more »
“Ladies first” can also be classist. The whole point of the word “ladies” is not just to distinguish men from women but also to distinguish between ladies and other women. Traditionally, the word refers to only certain kinds of women, so not all girls were ladies anyway. It’s a word that’s been used to shame girls and women who didn’t behave the way that they were supposed to, or just shame them for being born into the wrong family.
very good point wello
Almost forgot to mention that one may not be able to immediately tell the gender of the person headed for the door. If it’s “ladies first,” am I supposed to verify the person’s sex before opening the door? That seems really petty. Why not just open it either way?
When someone holds the door for you, whatever you do, don’t say what my grandma said, which is “thank you, that’s mighty white of you.”
Yes, a gender / sex verification system of some sort before exhibiting acts of kindness would be wrong on roughly a billion levels. Too many to list. But, what on earth did your grandmother mean by that? And how old is / was she?
She passed away many years ago. She was born in the 1910’s, in the segregated South, and grew up with the outlook of a white segregationist. She used the n-word all the time as if it was a neutral word like “bicycle.” It used to be a common expression between white Southerners in earlier generations. You showed appreciation for generosity by saying “that’s mighty white of you.” [Cuz, in her messed up world view, white people are inherently nice and black people are inherently mean.] By the time my generation came along, people were using it sarcastically.