Even though biology might not be destiny, Hugo Schwyzer writes, there’s nothing wrong with a man being chivalrous.
Two weeks ago, we hosted a PTA meeting at our house. (I’m heading into my second term as president of the parent-teacher association for my daughter’s school.) After the other board members had left, our dear friend (and PTA vice-president) Sheva stayed to chat. As my wife and I stood with the veep in the kitchen, noshing on hummus and crackers, the conversation turned to gender roles.
Though Sheva is in many ways a thorough progressive, she takes the position that men and women are fundamentally different and that those differences have significant meaning in terms of how we function in public and private spaces. At least to some extent, she believes that biology is destiny; I tend to reject that claim as unreasonable straitjacketing of individual potential. (For more on Sheva, visit her Grown Up Girl blog.) In my courses and in my writing, I take the stance that gender is a spectrum rather than a binary. Men and women may be different, but the differences between members of the “same” sex are so vast that it’s unreasonable to extrapolate any universal truths about how “men” and “women” should behave.
When you teach gender studies for a living, this is the sort of argument you expect to have on a weekly basis with friends and family. When I’m debating in good faith with good friends, I enjoy these discussions immensely. At least some of the time, they generate more light than heat.
And when it was time for Sheva to leave, I walked her to her car.
We don’t live in a particularly dangerous neighborhood, but this is Los Angeles, and it was rather late on a Wednesday night. Sheva didn’t ask me to walk her; I volunteered and she accepted. We strolled to her car, continuing our animated but friendly debate all the way. As she unlocked and opened the door, I said good night—and then we both laughed at what seemed like a potential contradiction between my words and my actions.
My wife is a first-rate kickboxer; she spars with guys and has a thundering left hook. If it came to fending off a mugger, I suspect that she’d provide more protection for Sheva than I would. But what led me out the door with our friend while my wife stayed inside had little to do with hard-headed insight into the practicalities of protection. Instead, it had everything to do with a clear-headed embrace of the pleasure in performing certain traditional gender roles, particularly those that revolve around “chivalry” or “common courtesy.” (Both terms are rooted in medieval notions of how aristocratic men and women ought to treat one another.)
♦◊♦
One of the common misconceptions that a lot of people have about feminism is that it requires its adherents to act as if they are blind to gender. For example, it’s remarkable how many young women, convinced that a fondness for playing traditional gender roles is at odds with egalitarian ideology, cite a fondness for “being treated like a lady” (or a “girl,”or a “woman”) as a primary reason for rejecting the feminist label. There’s an enduring false assumption that taking pleasure in playing certain traditional roles cancels out one’s right to demand equality.
It’s not just women who buy into this canard. As one young man in one of my women’s studies classes once sulkily put it, “Women can either expect me to be a ‘gentleman’ or they can expect to be treated as equals. But they can’t have both.”
This false choice doesn’t just misrepresent feminism. It robs all of us—men and women, gay and straight alike—of the chance to create something pleasurable and workable out of our complicated, inherited beliefs about men and women.
The key, as feminists have pointed out for decades, is seeing gender as something we choose to perform for pleasure. Perfomance isn’t an academic theory; it’s how most of us live, whether we know it or not. A woman who says, “I like wearing heels because it makes me feel more feminine,” is surely aware that she doesn’t become more biologically female by putting on stilettos—or less so by putting on Crocs. She knows she’s playing a part. Sometimes that part may be burdensome (like having to wear heels because of work); sometimes it may be pure fun (like putting them on to go on a hot date); sometimes it may be a mix of both.
♦◊♦
So when I walked Sheva to the car, I was performing a traditionally masculine role. I knew Sheva well enough to know that my escorting her would be appreciated; frankly, I enjoyed her appreciation. Playing that part didn’t undercut my contention that men and women are fundamentally equal with (a tiny number of biological limitations aside) essentially interchangeable roles. We all knew that if there had been a more serious danger, my delightful but potentially lethal wife would have made a far better escort for Sheva. If necessary, that would have been a subversion of traditional expectations. But it wasn’t necessary.
That little performance from our house to her car made me feel good. Because I know her well, I knew the gesture would be appreciated. If I hadn’t known Sheva as well as I do, I would have been far more cautious about the offer to escort her. We don’t get to play parts that make us feel good at the expense of others. A “gentleman” shouldn’t foist his manners on to others; to use another example, if a woman doesn’t want a man to race ahead and open doors for her, he shouldn’t be miffed if she doesn’t thank him profusely every time he does so. The performance of traditional roles is about mutual pleasure, not about mutual obligation.
Even for those of us who don’t think biology is destiny, there’s still something comforting about playing out an old and familiar script. And while it’s worthwhile to analyze the source of that comfort, it’s not worth letting that analysis block us from the simple pleasure of performing a role we enjoy.
♦◊♦
The conversation continues with Aaron Gouveia’s article.
♦◊♦
—Photo pasukaru76/Flickr
Chivalry can be manipulative if a man acts desperate and needy. It can also be abused if a man is getting too close and doing too much, especially if a woman is married, engaged, or in a relationship. Men need to know when to back off and also accept women being chivalrous too. Ask if a woman is comfortable with you doing these things first and then she’ll answer.
I think one of the misconceptions about Chivalry is that the guy is doing it to get into a girl’s pants or has other motives of “I do this for you, you do this for me.”
Chivalry has nothing to do with that. Chivalry is simply about being polite and honorable, it also draws from an older warrior mentality of a protector and supporter. That’s it, it’s not about expecting anything back. Never has been.
We feminists overcorrect past wrongs by throwing modern-day chivalry under the heading of gender-based oppression. Come on, now. I’m from Texas, and I can’t recall one time a man opened my door, called me ma’am, ceased cursing in my presence or gave up his seat for me in a crowded room where I felt the intention was patronization. I always feel a sense of humility and honor from the man performing these acts, which in turn causes me to feel honored yet humble, myself. That’s a beautiful, unspoken exchange to occur between two strangers, and why in the world we’d… Read more »
The problem is that it’s gender-roled inequality based on tradition. Once you open the gender-role unequal door, there is no argument to be made against other gender-role unequal traditions. If that tradition is valid because women enjoy it, so are the other gender-role unequal traditions, such as the woman showing her kindness by being the one to cook. Not that he can’t do it himself but it’s nicer if she does it for him, and brings him his plate. Once you open the gender-role unequal door, there is no argument to be made against other gender-role unequal traditions.
Discussions of chivalry usually are restricted to opening doors. This is inadequate for two reasons; the motivation may be unclear or one of several not connected with chivalry and there’s no way to tell, there is no cost to the man to open or hold a door for anyone. Let’s discuss other possibilities. The gender disparity on the Titanic is noted but passed over, although I believe some feminists consider mentioning the Titanic a really Bad Thing. For some reason. The expectation–not the personal choice–that Farrell calls the “unpaid bodyguard”. Women, do you want to argue your date/partner ought not… Read more »
So, we can pick the gender-based inequalities we prefer to perform and have performed for us and still claim equality? That must be why we like me being the head of the family and bringing home the bacon while my wife is at home caring for the family otherwise. Are we equal? Yes, just filling different roles (or playing different parts – if you want to put it that way).
A wonderful article. I was raised with good manners which included chivalry. I have also considered myself a feminist since the late 70’s believing women are equal to men and deserve respect for who they are and what they do. As I have gotten older I am finding that I really like chivalry. Being polite to women and older people. I hold the door open, let an woman go first, offer to carry something. I don’t expect anything for these little courtesies. But generally get a thank you or a smile. It make the world a nicer place to live… Read more »
I agree this is mostly about good manners and being caring about others. I am also a woman who is all for equality but I like when men treat me with respect, open doors for me, and treat me like a lady. To me it shows manners. The problem I see is that many men think just like Hugo’s student, if you want equality then forget about chivalry, which takes them into behaving rude with women even with their own significant others. I remember opening once a door for a pregnant woman who was carrying a toddler and a whole… Read more »
“Treating you like a lady” isn’t common respect, it’s a complement, a gift, and it’s NOT one that all women (or people for that matter) deserve by default. If my goal is to impress or please you (for instance, on a date), I might choose to pay for everything, open all the doors, help you in and out of the car as well as drive you around, etc.. because I’m being “extra nice”. That doesn’t mean if I’m not bending over backwards to please some random woman off the street I’m being “rude”. For the most part, men don’t have… Read more »
You know, why not just be kind to people regardless of what gender they are? And when dating or in a relationship, spreading the kindness through simple acts of support like holding doors, helping move heavy items, etc. should just be natural – and coming from whomever is in position to do them in the relationship. The grab-bag narrative around “chivalry” (part made up fantasy, part medieval gender script, part early-mid 20th century gender script) that we operate on these days is just causing a lot of confusion, irritation, and misunderstanding. I’d rather chuck the idea that men are supposed… Read more »
I love it when men are gentlemen. Chivalry was something I took for granted as a youngster since my father was a stickler for the niceties. They extended beyond his family too. Holding doors, pulling chairs, carrying things, picking up the check- that was what a “man” did whether a woman was working or not mind you. I had thought that this sort of behavior had mostly died out but then had a boss (who was of the same generation as I was) who felt it was really unheard of for a man to NOT do those things and questioned… Read more »
“I love it when women are domestic. Pampering was something I took for granted as a youngster since my mother was a stickler for domestic duties. This extended beyond her family too. Making sandwiches, getting cool-aid, doing laundry and cleaning up the mess – that was what a “woman” did whether the man could make his own sandwich mind you. I had thought this behaviour had mostly died out, but then I met a woman who felt it was unheard of for a woman to no make sandwiches for or clean up after men and felt it was really unheard… Read more »
Women should do nice things for men too Tamen. Infact, I love doing domestic acts for my boyfriend when I have a boyfriend. I don’t have one right now but I like cooking for boyfriends or brining them the beer they like or leaving him little notes to flirt and let him know I care. I also hold doors open for men! Instead of being bitter over the pleasure women get from kind acts done for them by men and acting like women are being unreasonable because they consider it kind when a man opens a door for her, instead… Read more »
Yeah, no beef with you enjoying to do domestic acts for yur boyfriend. But I bet you would be miffed if he expected and felt that those acts are compulsory for you and if you should fail to do any of them he would question your womanhood and would feel free to berate you for your failure. No, no-one is being unreasonable for considering it kind when a man opens a door for her. That’s the least they should do. They are however being unreasonable if they’re annoyed when a man doesn’t open a door for them (and they have… Read more »
When you’re damned for opening the door or damned for not opening it, you’re being damned by two different groups of people, really. Taking any stand on anything related to gender is going to offend someone. One may just have to choose who one is willing to offend. Maybe the best approach to social existence is to do what you think is right and let those who get offended get offended. I try to minimize my potential offensiveness as best I can, but past a certain point it’s way beyond my control, it’s other people’s issues. One of the sticking… Read more »
How’s this for the modern sexual politics of chivalry:
That woman that you hold the door for may in fact be an MTF trans woman, in which case opening the door for her may be very meaningful, flattering, and encouraging. By holding the door you may be very supportive of someone who has gone through a lot to make it to that point in her life. You would be showing your acceptance of her feminine self-definition. By NOT holding the door you may be deeply insulting someone.
Sure, a rare case, but you never know….
I like chivalry. It makes me feel like a girl. I like feeling like a girl when I am with a guy. I like that we are different. It’s interesting. It turns me on actually. I also own a small farm by myself. This involves throwing haybales, splitting wood and repairing many things with tools. I get pretty dirty. I also play hockey and basketball with the boys (most of them are better than me). I am an educated professional with a career and if I get a flat on the way to work, I get out and fix it… Read more »
I think the core message of Hugo’s piece is found in this comment: “One of the common misconceptions that a lot of people have about feminism is that it requires its adherents to act as if they are blind to gender.” Hugo then goes on to describe one young male student who feels it’s unfair for women to enjoy traditional “gentlemanly” acts while also being treated as equals. As if it’s somehow unfair that women like to be treated femininely but want equality as well. As if there isn’t enough room for both because apparently femininity and equality can’t coexist.… Read more »
Erin, I have no argument with your position as long as these traditional gender roles extend into the person life otherwise, and don’t stop at chivalry.
I grew up with three older brothers and have lots of guy friends. I know enough about them, warts and all, to know that sometimes a guy opens a door for a woman because he wants to check her out, wants to hit on her, all the stuff that men do when they think no women are looking. I was pissed at 14 when I discovered this, but I got over it. I’m not excusing this behaviour, and I make fun of it when I see it, but usually I try to just take the consideration where I can get… Read more »
At the risk of getting bogged down in detail, I would suggest a compromise: you have the right to hold open the door for anyone you want, and that person has the right to refuse. Plenty of times I have held the door open for someone and that person, male or female, has said “after you” and held the door for me instead. We could stand there bickering all day, or come to a somewhat balanced result. Why not take the opened door as an offering instead of a set of expectations? To me, refusing is not ungrateful. Similarly, walking… Read more »
“This was perfectly well-intentioned and totally discriminatory, unethical, and probably illegal. (The people in charge of that decision were mostly women, actually, so I guess it’s not necessarily chivalry.)”
So if women perceive that the office is unsafe at night so they have men take those shifts it is “perfectly well-intentioned”? Really?
I see your point. “Perfectly well-intentioned” is an odd way to put it now that I think about it. I meant to say that the main motive by the two women in charge of those decisions were (from what I heard them say) not motivated by some desire to hold other women back. I think they were sincere in being worried about the safety of women working in the building at night. If motivations for sexist behavior really matters. I do see the flipside – women were given a little more preference for the daytime positions as a result, so… Read more »
In the context of the article, I think Hugo’s actions are fine. But this is actually a situation that includes 3 people: Hugo, Hugo’s unnamed wife and Sheva. What is missing is the conversation between Hugo and his wife about who does what before Sheva walked out the door. The reason I’m bringing this up is that I have observed many times how men simply choose to be somewhere more pleasant over showing up to do their fair share of the work. Or to put it another way: While Hugo was chatting with his friend, was his wife catching up… Read more »
This is one of the better replies to Hugo’s article. I also sensed that Hugo walked Sheva to her car because he wanted to get out of doing housework and childcare. A friend told me that whenever her husband offers to walk a woman to her car, she casually says, “I’ll join you” and walks with both of them. I have never heard Hugo call his spouse by her name. He just says, “My wife.” Very male chauvinistic. My favorite comment about chivalry is, “The problem with chivalry is that it gets in the way of good manners.” There are… Read more »
Just FYI, my wife generally requests that I refrain from using her name and identity as much as possible.
And we did the dishes together after I got back that night. Wife was doing work emails when I returned to the house after escorting Sheva. But thanks for speculating!
This is one of the better replies to Hugo’s article. I also sensed that Hugo walked Sheva to her car because he wanted to get out of doing housework and childcare.
Not that Hugo needs the defending but I’m curious to know just how you got that sense. It seems to me that he was in a good discussion and walking her to her car was the best way to take the talk as far as it could reasonably go (bearing in mind that Sheva probably wanted to head home at some point regardless of how good the conversation was).
Yes. Very interesting topic, this consensual chivalry
The opening of doors is a fairly straightforward chivalrous act, but it can devolve quickly if I change my mind, part way, when entering the porn shop.
I suggest revolving doors to get around this dilemma – then if I change my mind, I can simply go full circle and exit where I entered. Chances are that the man who let me in ahead of himself will not even notice I went full around. His fragile male ego remains intact. Win win.
Does the man also get to choose when chivalry counts? When the plane crashed in the hudson it was women first. Using hugos logic can a guy say “im not into all that chivalry crap” and take a spot in the ladies line? If not why not?
Ugh. I didnt know they did that. Patriarchy lives on!
Also happened on the Titanic. There were members of the crew that actively kept men from getting into lifeboats for the sake of “women and children first”. And I’m not just talking about the Leonardo DiCaprio movie here I’ve watched quite a few documentaries on this. Even though many of the lifeboats launched at less that full capacity.
So as long as we’re talking about the parts of chilvalry where men do things to boost their own egos can we also talk about getting rid of the parts where men get the short end of the stick too?
If the motto were men & children first would it then be called matriarchy? Or would we as a society be smart enough to realize what it would be: anti-woman? Maybe its time to drop the catch phrases and call a spade a spade ( ie women first is just anti-man not patriarchy)
Women being treated as commodities of men to be protected by men is anti-woman. Just as chivalry is.
Of couse, PHMT.
But this isnt 1910. Its 2011. If women expect all the perks of equalit then they should expect the detriments too. But this isn’t the case. The vast majority of women and feminists fight for and get equality when they want it and 1800s feminine privilege when they dont. This isnt a stance of equality but one of supremacy.
Ah yes, the mythical lifeboat feminist. It’s as real as this equal rights we get whenever we want them.
Actually, life-boat feminists are not only real, but alive well and thriving. If you wish to locate one, please consult the nearest mirror.
I disagreed with the idea of women first above and required chivalry throughout the comments. As I suspected, you are seeing something that doesn’t exist.
Watching a person who throws around words like patriarchy lecture about what is real or not is worth a good chuckle. Ill say this for you dk: at least you’re entertainig lol.
Correct. My position is no chivalry for feminists. They get the same basic common courtesy that men get. What’s wrong with that?
I haven’t heard a good argument as to why someone who claims to be for equality can rightly expect superior treatment based on their sex.
I agree. However PHMT is useless lip service.
A woman can’t be a “commodity” of a man if the man is DEAD!
On the Titanic, only the upper class women were “protected” by chivalry. All the women in steerage were killed alongside the men.
You sure about that? I just pulled that up on wiki Women, First Class 144 97% 3% 140 4 Women, Second Class 93 86% 14% 80 13 Women, Third Class 165 46% 54% 76 89 Women, Crew 23 87% 13% 20 2 Men, First Class 175 33% 67% 57 118 Men, Second Class 168 8% 92% 14 154 Men, Third Class 462 16% 84% 75 387 Men, Crew 885 22% 78% 192 693 The numbers here are (from left to right), 1. How many were on board 2. Percentage Saved 3. Percentage Lost 4. Number Saved 5. Number Lost The… Read more »
Actually, from a purely biological perspective, “woman and children first” is a survival mechanism. It takes far more females to sustain a population than males. Males can reproduce far more frequently than females in all mammalian species.
(I am not saying that it was actually thought about in those terms on the Titanic, or in any other circumstance for that matter … I’m just saying.)
So, from a purely biological perspective, there are certain aspects of chivalry that make sense.
(Ha! Take that, feminism! …
…. I’m kidding.)
Why save children either, or pregnant women, ahead of everyone else? I value my life more than some stranger’s kid. I’m a woman, but why is my life less valuable than a 3-year-old’s, or some woman who is pregnant?
I think in an emergency situation, everyone should just fight form the exits. Shove the weaker men, women and children and old people aside and let them drown! The strong should live, that’s Darwinism!
We call it “lifeboat feminism”.
So Schwyzer realized that his own behavior collided with the theory which is his bread and butter and had to develop an argument to help him wrangle out of that mental Chinese finger trap.
Exactly. There is no consistent equality within feminism. When inequality is advocated, as is often the case, it is invariably in the woman’s’ favor and there is some contorted logic behind why this case of sexism is really OK.
I suppose the interesting idea is, if something dangerous had happened, who would have dealt with it? Would the Mrs run out of the house and protect you both? My choice is that we use our skills and talents. If I am at your house and walk in the dark to my car, I want the steps well lit and the kick boxer at my side, I don’t really care at all about the genitals. And the kick boxer is safer walking back to the house alone too.
My understanding from police educators and others is that people are always best if they’re not on their own. You’re so much better avoiding an attack than defending from it, and to an attacker, groups (especially ones containing ‘tough-looking’ men, sadly) look less like an easy target.
And it sounds like Schwyzer found an actual attack very unlikely, knowing the area, etc. It’s more about consenting friends enjoying a practice that may not be politically correct, than how to be safe on the street, which is a whole other set of rules.
Well, I strongly disagree that men & women are basically the exact same except for a teeny tiny biological difference (I’ve had 3 kids & let me tell you, guys, the differences are not so teeny tiny!), and while of course I acknowledge that all people are different & unique, I still believe there is a REASON men feel good when they are allowed to help out a woman, and it’s NOT just because they were taught manners. It’s because spiritually they are programmed to want to give and when a woman allows a man to give, it makes them… Read more »
So how are women spiritually programmed? Do we not give and not feel good for it?
I think the important thing is that the woman is ‘ok’ with an act of chivlary and is able to refuse or accept it. Some women love it and some don’t. It is respecting what that person feels that counts. It is also important men don’t behave chivalrous in order to meet their own needs or have alterior motives.
Offer to walk a woman home, but don’t insist or pressurise her into saying yes. Also don’t expect a cookie!!
I’d give you like ten likes if I could Chris. I hold doors open for men, women and children myself. As a heterosexual woman, when another woman holds a door for me, I’m appreciative in our comradery as women. I tell her thank you and think to myself “aww, that was nice”. But when a man holds a door for me it’s nice on a different level unique to the relationship of men and women. I tell him thank you and notice that I give men that hold a door open for me a different kind of smile than women… Read more »
You mean it’s a different level between men and a heterosexual woman. What if you were gay? Or the men and women who opened the door for you? Chivalry shouldn’t be a special cookie for men doing common niceties to women.
DK, I explained pretty early on in my post that I was a heterosexual woman. My account was based on my personal account. If I were gay, then the women that openned the door for me would get that special smile. But I think asking “what if I was gay” is pretty irrevelent when I am clearly already experssing my heterosexual experience. I’m sure you would have better luck asking a gay woman what her opinion on door openning was if you are interested in that then making up hyopothetical situations about the choices I would make if I were… Read more »
I’m not suggesting you are insulting gay people, I’m questioning the idea that there is something special about chivalry “unique to the relationship of (hetero) men and women.” it sounds more like it has nothing to do with gender differences and everything to do with receiving attention from the gender you’re attracted to.
I totally think a gay man can perform a chivalrous act for another gay man. I think a gay woman can even perform a chivalrous act for another gay woman. But for me, there *is* something unique to the relationship of heterosexual men performing chivalrous acts for heterosexual women. I understand that in this point and history gay people are fighting for equality in a world that doesn’t always recognize their right to that. And I think gay people deserve the same rights anyone else of any other sexual orientation deserves. But I also think that we are so sensitive… Read more »
I’m OK with chivalry as long as it’s in the context of traditional gender roles. So, it’s ridiculous to expect traditional chivalry without accepting traditional gender roles otherwise.
“It is respecting what that person feels that counts. It is also important men don’t behave chivalrous in order to meet their own needs or have alterior motives.” This goes for women, too. I’m thinking about free drinks and dinners for women, here. It’s funny how it could work, though – on a date I could be thinking, “I would prefer to split the check but we’re in the south US so I should pay,” and she could at the same time be thinking, “I would prefer to split the check but he probably wants to pay. Why else would… Read more »
Yes, we know that you are a raging white knighting chivalrist Hugo.
“My wife is a first-rate kickboxer; she spars with guys and has a thundering left hook. If it came to fending off a mugger, I suspect that she’d provide more protection for Sheva than I would. ”
Every article has a chuckle in it.
We don’t get to play parts that make us feel good at the expense of others. A “gentleman” shouldn’t foist his manners on to others; to use another example, if a woman doesn’t want a man to race ahead and open doors for her, he shouldn’t be miffed if she doesn’t thank him profusely every time he does so. The performance of traditional roles is about mutual pleasure, not about mutual obligation. So does this also apply the other way around? The reason I ask this is because one damaging part of chivilary that doesn’t come up often (or maybe… Read more »
I want to add a bit of explanation to what I say above.
The reason I say what I say above is that while people are really all for making sure men don’t do these “chivalrous” things for women to make themselves feel better not too many people want to talk about how women hold these things over men’s heads as a way that a man is supposed to act.
Carrying heavy things when you’re physically stronger is chivalry? I thought it was just common courtesy.
No one calls me chivalrous when I do things that are physically taxing for my husband due to his size and height but are easy for me due to mine, but he gets a cookie for vice versa?
Carrying heavy things when you’re physically stronger is chivalry? I thought it was just common courtesy. No DK its more like, “Since you’re a man you must be physically stronger therefore you must do that heavy lifting, or else you aren’t a “real man”/”gentleman”/ect…..” I’ve had people ask me why I didn’t do something along those lines for a woman before to which I replied, “Sure as soon as you let me borrow your spine for a few moments.” (Despite my being over 6ft and over 200lb I have a slightly damaged spine that causes very slight but nearly unending… Read more »
I agree with you completely. Chivalry is dependent on a gender binary with men as the protector and women as the lesser. It’s tied into our gender identity and not common courtesy and individual needs or abilities. The idea should be abandoned. It’s toxic and destructive.
Toxic and destructive? Chivalry is toxic and destructive?? Give me a break. Women complain about men who are deadbeats. Now we’re talking about men that politely open doors and do things for women and somehow it’s still toxic and destructive. Is anything we do ever going to be right or good enough?? I can’t even believe I’m hearing this bullshit. When I lived in Boston I routinely gave up my subway seat for women when there were none other available. I didn’t want anything from them. Hell, I didn’t even talk to them. I did it because it was a… Read more »
The toxic and destructive part is the expectation behind the actions. As in if you didn’t do things that you’re “supposed to do” or did things you’re “not supposed to do” then people hold that against you as evidence of not being a “real man/woman”. When I lived in Boston I routinely gave up my subway seat for women when there were none other available. I didn’t want anything from them. Hell, I didn’t even talk to them. I did it because it was a nice thing to do. That’s the good behavior that should be extended to everyone alright.… Read more »
I understand your point, but I still disagree.
I readily admit I judge a guy who doesn’t give up his seat if he looks able-bodied and there are tons of women, children, or elderly people on the subway. I don’t know about a “real” man, but a nice, polite man would give up his seat. And yes, I believe there is an expectation to do so. But again, I don’t see this as a bad thing. I see it as polite and courteous.
Not all tradition is bad.
I suppose we’ll have to disagree. To me the fact that you would do so seems nice and polite because you are chosing to do something that in all fairness you really don’t have to do. You are going out of your way to do something polite and nice. If I hold it against you as a requirement then it becomes unfair in my book. That’s what’s supposed to be special and heroic about men that put their lives in harms way for a woman. Its because he doesn’t have to do it and (ideally) no one is demanding or… Read more »
Danny: Your military analogy doesn’t hold up. Granted, I’ve never been in the military so I’m just going by what I’ve heard from friends who have. But I think you actually are expected to protect fellow soldiers at all costs and give up your life if necessary. So it actually is expected. Required is more like it. That having been said, not everyone does it. Not everyone holds doors for people or acts chivalrous either, even though it is sort of expected. Therefore, because the people who do display common courtesy are in the minority, the act does stand out.… Read more »
Danny: Your military analogy doesn’t hold up. Granted, I’ve never been in the military so I’m just going by what I’ve heard from friends who have. But I think you actually are expected to protect fellow soldiers at all costs and give up your life if necessary. So it actually is expected. Required is more like it. I’ve never served in the military myself but I have a hypothetical situation of you and I getting ambushed that I’m about to use. Let’s say you and I get ambushed by the enemy and I get shot early on. If you come… Read more »
DF, my experience is that “chivalry” can at times feel manipulative, controlling, or demeaning even if that isn’t the intention. Case in point: I work on the 20th floor of an office building downtown. At 5:00 when I leave to go home, the elevator is typically full once it reaches the bottom. More often than not, the men on the elevator, particularly the suited men, will quite literally *require* the women to get off the elevator first. Even if I end up stuck in the corner somewhere behind several men in the back of the elevator — I will have… Read more »
I’m going to have to agree with Daddy Files on this one. In an ideal world, of course, people only do the right thing for the right reason. But, if the result is the same whatever the motivation, I’m not sure what the big problem is. It would be great if people only did the right things out of pure principle, but if that were the sole standard then charity groups would receive far fewer donations. Guilt, tax benefits, hiding assets, peer pressure, public relations, etc., all reap great rewards to non-profits all over the world. Far from ideal, sure,… Read more »
@Daddy Files “…that’s her problem. But it doesn’t change the fact that the man was being chivalrous and polite.” I don’t think that is chivalrous at all; that is giving yourself pleasure without giving a damn what the other person thinks. Making a woman uncomfortable isn’t something to be done in the name of chivalry. You have be mindful of the other party, male or female. “…it comes across that women are the arbiters of what’s right and wrong while men just have to abide by the rules. I think this is wrong.” I see this more from your argument… Read more »
To the previous posters: Wow. I just totally disagree. Look, I hold doors for everyone. Men, women, children. I was raised that way and I’m raising my son that way, because good manners are always good no matter the circumstances. This actually has less to do with gender roles and more to do with common courtesy. I just fail to see how being polite could ever be construed as a negative. And like I said, if you’re getting miffed about someone holding a door open for you, that’s on you. Not the person holding the door. And by the way,… Read more »
Yes, it is quite ridiculous, but you miss the contention. You, and I suspect many men, think of this as good manners. Feminists think of it as an extension of “patriarchy”. You think men are just being polite, they think men are playing to their “traditional” role.
It’s often a very fine line between the two for many men.
This is all more than a little ridiculous that we’re even having a debate about men displaying good manners.
Its not the manners that is up for debate but rather the motivations behind the good manners. Most men were taught to do these things because they are good manners with a twist of “its what a real man is supposed to do for a woman”. Well somewhere along the line that got twisted into “its what men do to inflate their own egos”.
Not to get bogged down in details, but I hold doors for people who are approaching the same time I am, and I offer to hold the door for someone who needs an extra hand. That is politeness. But I never had someone I didn’t know RUN AHEAD of me just to open the door. He didn’t do it for the other men around. This happened when I was traveling, I just chalked it up as a Southern thing. And yes, I could have said “no thanks’ but it was easier to walk through and smile, than explain to the… Read more »
Do you/would you raise your daughter the same way?
If it’s “simply good manners,” the answer’s clear.
Yes, I still am and they are young women now. I will be the first to admit my comments on holding the door are aimed at older people. I will let them figure out if they want to hold the door open for a guy younger than me. And I am gender biased. If I had a son, I would be teaching him to hold doors open for women regardless of their age. But mostly I am teaching my children how to be polite. We need more politeness in our society where people are programmed by Homer Simpson, South Park… Read more »
Daddy Files, I just want to say that I get the point you are trying to make. I feel the same way about politeness. I will open the door for everyone and anyone out of common courtesy. Your efforts are not motivated by a need to treat women like ladies but by a need to treat everyone with respect and generosity. What this article is addressing is the instances where a person is motivated by expected gender roles e.g women are ladies, men are chivalrous knights protecting their honour. Obviously a person can’t assume another persons motivations unless it is… Read more »