Is chivalry sexist?

I don't think it is. Of course, I'm generally nice to everybody regardless of gender.

Traditionally, yes. At least somewhat. But it's a code of conduct which can be easily altered to apply to everyone equally, like I have for the knights in my fantasy books.

ETA: If you're talking about a real-world modern setting, true chivalry would just be strange more than anything. I doubt most people I know even know what it is, other than a code of conduct for knights in fantasy books, lol.

Chivalry, as traditionally defined, is in fact sexist. If you go back far enough it also only applied to women of a certain class, so it was classist, too. That said, if someone wants to define "chivalry" as "I open doors for EVERYONE regardless of gender, so there!" they can certainly do so; it's one of those big fuzzy words that ends up not meaning an awful lot these days because people use it so differently.

I suppose it is technically, but I'd still love some chivalry in my life.... sigh (I mean, when you see a little woman carrying 2 bibles, a book, a bag of toys, a diaper bag, with three kids running around.. help the girl out...)

Yes. It also seems to have a strange relationship to fashion. I'm not corseted, so I can pick up my own hankie. I'm not wearing a hoop skirt, so I can scoot my own chair. I'm not wearing mile-high heels, so I don't need help out of the car.

fadeaccompli said:

Chivalry, as traditionally defined, is in fact sexist. If you go back far enough it also only applied to women of a certain class, so it was classist, too. That said, if someone wants to define "chivalry" as "I open doors for EVERYONE regardless of gender, so there!" they can certainly do so; it's one of those big fuzzy words that ends up not meaning an awful lot these days because people use it so differently.

Click to expand...

Yeah, this is basically what I was trying to say. The word 'courtesy' came from the same roots of Medieval courtly behavior as chivalry. It has a more general meaning, though, as chivalry was actually a specific code (or rather, many specific codes) that dictated the behavior of knights towards different classes and genders. Chivalry doesn't really apply to the modern world, though courtesy certainly does.

As it was traditionally understood and applied, it may have been, but if exercised in the sense of showing courtesy to anyone at a disadvantage--i.e. the lady with her arms full of packages--it's my favorite quality in a character (or a person).

Chivalry is certainly sexist. That doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong. It's about a set of principles whereby the stronger help the less strong. Speaking of genre literature, it's one of the tactics of making a character likeable.

I think anti-chivalry is a pretty hard sell if you want readers to like your main character, but then again I wouldn't want to read about a character who kills cats. We all have our standards.

ChessPiec3 said:

Also, should violence against women have any greater moral impact that hitting a guy? If it is the case, wouldn't that be counter-intuitive to gender equality?

Click to expand...

When there are problems, sometimes you want to solve the biggest one first.

Violence against women is a big problem, historically. The greater stigma attached to a man hitting a woman arose due to society ostracizing the aggressors in order to try to curb that type of violence. The mindset came about as a reflex attempt to find a solution.

The issue doesn't exist in a vacuum; it's got historical baggage. It's not simply a case of "Shouldn't men and women be protected from violence equally?" (because yes, of course they should,) but also "Who is getting hurt the worst, right now, and what can we do to help them quickly?"

I see the greater stigma attached to violence against women (by men) as a symptom of society trying to deal with the worst thing first (or what they perceive to be the worst thing), rather than as sexism against men.

I do see sexism against men in the fact that men are not expected to press charges or even feel outraged if they get jumped and dragged into a fistfight they don't want.

Being perceived as able to "fight back" does not mitigate the fact that the victim should never have been assaulted in the first place.

Chivalry does not mean what people seem to think it means.

It's about the horses, frankly.

The stuff about women? That's an after-the-fact invention, derived from a literary convention about adultery.

*chuckles at Medievalist* I'm usually the one who's using the oldest definition. I'm glad to be reminded that chivalry was all about the horses.

Interesting topic. It's your world, so you can create your characters any way you like and there is no reason to change what's in your heart to fit a societal norm or expectations.

In my opinion, chivalry can be sexist to some degree but it depends on the reason for the action and how the character feels about his actions. For instance, a man opens a door for a woman. Some women might be offended because they don't want special treatment just for being female. But the action might not have anything to do with her. Maybe the man wanted to open the door not because she was lady, but because he is a gentleman. He holds himself to a standard of his own choosing, instead of simply behaving in a way he thinks is expected by others.

Actions tell us more about the person performing them, less the person receiving, so I guess the answer lies within the personality of the individual characters.

As far as violence against women having more of an impact, I think the more issue lies primarily in the fact women are usually smaller than men, with less strength and muscle, and a body that can't sustain physical injury as well as a man. These are generalities, but are true more times than not and any person who assaults someone smaller and weaker is usually considered a bully.

I do not think men and women are created equally, though I do think we all have equal value. I tend to believe some differences go beyond societal conditioning and are simply hard-wired in our brain. That being said, everyone has their own standard of conduct, including the the fictional ones we design.

Is it me, or could the OP actually read, is chivalry anti-feminist? As the question seems to be more about equality [and honestly, women have yet to reach a stage of 'being equal.'

To me, sexism is about discriminating against a particular gender, because of their gender. Now, I'm going to flip the question on the head. Is it sexist of me to help a woman with three kids, a buggy and a tray, and her shopping in a cafe; but just watch a man struggle? I don't know about sexism, but it is certainly downright rude of me. Technically, I would be guilty of discriminating towards the man, as well as viewing the woman as not being strong enough to deal with her problem.

I also wonder, does this question extend to transexuals and trans-gender? Would you open a door to a transexual?

Me, I hold a door open for anyone, because that's how my parents brought me up.

Chivalry as defined as a man giving a woman preferential treatment solely because of her gender is, in my eyes, very sexist (although this is one example of sexism which women contribute to just as much as men!). Even if it is meant to be 'nice', the underlying message is that women need protecting from the realities of life. When a guy apologises for swearing in front of a woman, it is only a tiny step to being appalled at a woman's bad language when the same would be tolerated in a man. Carrying someone's bags is lovely if they need the help, but if you don't do the same for everyone, it is kind of twatty. Why should one person deserve/need your help more than another? It's a subtle, creeping sort of sexism that is really hard to complain about. 'But I was just trying to be nice' unfortunately doesn't hold much weight when it's plonked on top of a whole horrible history of a patriarchal society that treated women as second class citizens incapable of doing the same things that men can.

As soon as you start treating a woman differently solely because she was born with a vagina (and I say that deliberately as I doubt that many of the people out there who claim to 'just love and respect women' would extend their chivalry to trans women or, in fact, any of us who don't quite look or behave as we should), then you set women apart from men. And that is a horrible slippery slope towards women not getting the same treatment at work because 'they can't handle it', or being expected to act in a certain way that conforms with a horrible stereotype of femininity that not everyone wants to live up to.

I like it when someone buys me dinner, but when it isn't even up for discussion it makes me uncomfortable. Especially when I am the one who is made into the bad guy for making a fuss about paying my own way! 'What a bitter, humourless feminist who can't even accept a nice gesture!' That's the problem for me - chivalry isn't really a gift to women if it expects something in return. That women will act in a certain way and be grateful for all those little gestures that we didn't actually ask for or want. And that is kinds of oppressive if you ask me.

I answered yes, because it can be, and often is when we're talking about people decrying that "chivalry is dead!". Of course, the sort of thing most of us think of as chivalry isn't what historically was.

The notion that a man should pay for dinner/a date is sexist, for example. It has its roots in the times when women either weren't expected to have an income, or generally had a piddling income compared to the average man. That doesn't mean any time a man pays for dinner that he is sexist, or that the woman is sexist for accepting. It just means that the idea of there being an obligation for one person to pay for another is problematic.

An example is the Nice Guys (not to be confused with guys who are actually nice) who claim "women aren't interested in nice guys, they only want jerks!" and then go on to list all the nice things they do *for pretty women*. Opening doors for people who need it is nice. Opening doors for pretty women because subconsciously you think sex is a reward earned if you win enough Nice tokens at the Lady Slot Machine, is not.

I'll open doors for/give up a seat to/help with heavy items anyone who looks like they need it, because it's common courtesy. It's when the behaviour becomes something that men specifically are expected to do for women, and more specifically the right sort of women, that it's sexist.

Re: physical violence. Physical violence against anyone, by anyone is wrong. Spousal abuse can be a man abusing a woman, a woman abusing a man, a man abusing a man or a woman abusing a woman. My understanding is that as a society, we prioritise the abuse of men towards women partly because the vast majority of violence in society is committed by men, and because of how overwhelmingly common abuse is for women. But yes... also because of sexist notions that men "can't" be abused that way, because of ideals of what a "real man" should be able to handle and because of the way violence by women towards men is played up as harmless or adorable (how many times have you seen a woman slap a man in the media?). And heteronormative notions of what should be going on in a relationship in the first place - which excludes transgender people and queer folk.

I answered yes because it often is, and generally speaking I will help a woman out if I see her struggling and I am not afraid of other women the way I am of men. I'm quite wary of helping men out due to my experiences with men and generally just being afraid of what they could do to me as I'm quite small and weak muscled. But this is all down to past experiences that's all. And before if I help a man out I usually get a dirty 'compliment' or a rude comment made about my appearance as if to flatter me or how I am pretty, or comments about my body in general in response so I try to avoid helping men out.

I tend not to think of it as sexist, but as a way of showing deference, courtesy, and most of all, respect. IMO, the latter has, to society's great misfortune, become a casualty of the feminist movement.

There's been a lot of discussion about the chivalry* of manners -- opening doors, holding chairs, carrying bags for women** -- but what about deeper, more primal forms of chivalry? I.e., men who risk or sacrifice their lives to protect women? For those of you who think chivalry deserves to be dead and buried, do you think that applies in this area as well?

*Medievalist is right that the way we use this word today is different from its original meaning, but usage evolves and we lack a good, modern substitute.

**Such offers are obviously not always necessary and need not always be accepted. But the offer itself is meant as a courtesy, usually, not a form of condescension.

Historical chivalry? Yes. A man being unnecessarily polite to a woman? No.

IMO I only see sexism, at least sexism that we should do something about, as discrimination with a negative impact. Opening doors and pulling out chairs for a woman can be seen in the same light as etiquette (albeit optional etiquette): it's not necessary, but it makes a lot of people happy.

So... honestly, who cares?

BethS... why only men doing it for women? That's the issue. The notion of one person laying down or risking their life for another is heroic, and admirable. But both men and women serve in armed forces, as police, as firemen. Women will run towards a burning car to help get a crash victim to safety as readily as men will.

Why does it matter specifically what men do for women? Getting rid of chivalry doesn't mean getting rid of respect or good deeds. It means getting rid of the rules that dictate who is allowed to perform good acts and who is allowed to be the recipient. That seems much more noble to me.

ChessPiec3 said:

*Hey, before anyone says anything-I just want to discuss an interesting piece of dialogue for the purpose of furthering my literary knowledge and understanding.
Bite me.

Click to expand...

Well, now...that's a hell of a thing.

I think yes. I've had a boyfriend who did the unnecessary things like holding doors and pulling out chairs when I'm quite capable of doing it on my own. Not only that, but when I went to do something like that myself, he would get miffed with me like it was his job to do such things for me. I personally do not like being coddled by a male. Even when I'm struggling with something I can usually take care of it myself. Chivalry, in my eyes, is male self-gratification, for the most part, and it irks me greatly. If it's just a guy that I don't know is holding a door open, I'll appreciate it because he has no obligation to do so.

Unless a woman is the damsel-in-distress I'm-so-incapable I-need-a-man type, which I absolutely abhor, she won't need a man's "helping-hand" with every little thing. If a woman asks for help, is a completely different story.

This has a very feminist sound to it, which I don't like because I'm not a feminist. I think a guy helping out sometimes can be really nice, but I am a very proud and independent individual. I like being treated as such.

If you are talking true chivalry, what Medi said. If you are talking courtesy, there is nothing wrong with courtesey or politeness, those work both ways. I don't get offended when someone holds a door for me. I also open a door if I see someone with their hands full, hold the door if I went through first. A little bit of kindness and civility makes life a lot more comfortable for everyone.

As for the hitting thing, it's always a problem. Physical violence isn't acceptable, whether the person doing the hitting is a man or woman. It is especially a problem if the person being attacked is more vulnerable. This is why there are campaigns against hurting women, children, the elderly and the disabled. It isn't a sexist thing, but a vulnerability thing.