In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

5 things that are wrong with this way of thinking

Chally

“This woman-hating world needs dash of chivalry” by Laurent Le Pierrès in The Chronicle Herald.

  1. ‘But my instincts still tell me it’s not right for a lady to be left standing while a gentleman sits.’ It’s not instinct telling a man to give up his bus seat for a woman, it’s social conditioning. And as much as it’s nice to be given a bus seat, it’s not so nice when someone’s doing it because of that same social conditioning which has harmed you in a thousand little ways.
  2. ‘And no gal would want him to.’ If ‘no gal’ would want to be given a seat, (which I don’t accept, lots of pregnant and disabled women, for instance, would need that seat irrespective of your motive in giving it up) in what way is doing so prioritising women and their wishes? That’s right, it’s not really about women at all, it’s about the seat giver-upperer’s internal comfort.
  3. ‘Women (and children) receive priority over men during mass evacuations or hostage dramas. On TV, anyway.’ …
  4. ‘Why? Because they still do not have it as easy as men, even in this day and age.’ You know what men could do to make women’s lives as easy as men’s? Stop oppressing us. Give us that equal pay and representation, let us live our lives. ‘A touch of gallantry’ is a condescending smokescreen allowing you to feel better while doing nothing of substance. You’re not making it easier by perpetuating a system like chivalry.
  5. ‘Women are so undervalued everywhere else on the planet that I think we should overcompensate here in the West.’ So many kinds of no.

I get so frustrated with this way of thinking, because, to mix metaphors, you can see the tipping point where it went off the rails. Because you know the person in question wants to do right by women, they just went hugely off track. Respect for women means respecting our wants, irrespective of your ideas of what’s best for us. It means making our lives easier through substantial change rather than through “courtesies” that make you feel good and make us feel less than. It means working for that everywhere and constantly.

Via Anna once more – that woman is on the ball!

73 thoughts on 5 things that are wrong with this way of thinking

  2. Chivalry has always weirded me out.

    I remember locking my keys in my truck in rural Virginia while parked next to a convenience store. Several guys practically fell over themselves to help me out. I was extremely grateful. I was terribly stressed out over the whole matter and I really appreciated the help. Their help turned a potentially awful day into something far better.

    Nevertheless, I realized something that day. I had medically transitioned only a year or two before, and strongly suspected that this wouldn’t have happened if I had still looked like a guy. I had several automotive emergencies in the past—pre-transition—and guys just didn’t respond this way. When I still passed as a guy, unless I actively asked for help, I would have been largely ignored.

    I felt pretty weird about the whole matter. I appreciated the courtesy, but I was really saddened by the notion that I was (most likely) only offered help because I was a woman. Can’t we just be nice to each other regardless of the genitals we might be sporting? We all need help from time to time, regardless of what’s between our legs.

    In the end, I have mixed feelings about that day. The guys at the convenience store correctly assumed that I needed help. However, did they automatically assume that I needed help simply because I’m a woman—and women are assumed to be helpless—or was it just ingrained courtesy born of old chivalrous patterns? Or was it both?

    One of my more crass friends said that the men at the convenience store helped me because, on some unconscious level, they just wanted to have sex with me. I’d rather not be quite *that* cynical, but she was quite serious about her take on the matter. I’m going to stick with less negative interpretations.

  3. Great takedown, Chally. That last point, ‘Women are so undervalued everywhere else on the planet that I think we should overcompensate here in the West,’ is so idiotic I don’t even know where to begin. Of course, it’s only those bad Muslims and Africans that oppress women, right? There’s no “real” oppression in the nice white shiny Western world.

    And chivalry is not overcompensating for anything except dumbass Nice Guys’ insecurity and fear of women.

  4. [I]t doesn’t mean what so many think it does.

    Yeah, I’ve noticed that too. Whenever the discussion of chivalry comes up in my circles, I’ll hear people say things “I don’t mind it if it’s not done just because I’m a woman.” or “I hold doors open for people or give up my seat to anyone, regardless of gender…that kind of chivalry isn’t really bad.” Some of ’em still don’t get it even after it’s explained to them what the difference is between chivalry and common courtesy.

    That column was wrong in so many ways. It wouldn’t surprise me if the guy was a closet misogynist. But it’s good to see that most of the commentators so far are disagreeing with him and calling him on it.

  5. I wonder if his definition of “lady” includes women he isn’t even remotely interested in fucking.

  6. I just read the article. Hmmmm. This reminds me of how some men will embrace feminism out of an ingrained role of needing to serve as women’s “protectors.” On some level, I find this approach to be annoyingly condescending and besides, it entirely misses the point.

  7. Just to clarify, I’ve encountered men who think it’s their duty to fight for equality between the sexes as an outgrowth of their role of serving as women’s “protectors.”

  8. Just to answer a few of the prior comments on this thread, if I may.

    I don’t think there’s anything intrinsically wrong with chivalry, provided that with it comes the attitude that women are equal to men, not that they need some kind of Paternalistic means of protection. Nor do I believe it my role as a male feminist to shield women from the world. I do, however, believe it my role to protect everyone, regardless of gender or identification, in ways that are empowering rather than emasculating.

    And as a self-professed nice guy, I’m not afraid of women and my insecurities are well noted, but if I open the door for a woman I don’t have a smug sense of reinforcing gender inequality in the process. It’s just me trying to do the right thing. I’d open the door for a man if I could, but that would be perceived as effeminate behavior, strongly connoting homosexuality.

    This article, however, is part and parcel of the fact that most men do not think before they respond. They react and they do not take the time they need for introspection. I’m much more concerned with finding ways to address that matter, and I’ll leave the concept of chivalry for another conversation another day.

  9. When I was young and pretty, men treated me with chivalry, whether I wanted them to or not. Then I broke my leg. For six weeks in a cast and on crutches, the chivalrous ones all managed to not see me. I opened my own doors, put on my own coat and found my own seat.
    Chivalry has nothing to do with courtesy, graciousness and respect for women. It has everything to do with wanting to get into the little lady’s pants.

  10. Just to clarify, I’ve encountered men who think it’s their duty to fight for equality between the sexes as an outgrowth of their role of serving as women’s “protectors.”

    Yes, likewise. You can see the real motives of that type whenever you try to tell them what they’re doing isn’t welcome or helpful to you. Their reaction is inevitably outrage that you’d even think about resenting or rejecting their interference. Who are you to know what’s best for you, after all? A person? With autonomy? Ha!

    A guy who’s really all about it takes it in stride when a woman tells him to back off or reconsider. But then, that guy isn’t invested in seeing Sir Lancelot every time he looks in the mirror. That’s really my main issue with chivalry, nicely spelled out in Chally’s point number two above: Chivalry is fundamentally about making men feel good, I guess because we don’t have enough things in this life to do that already.

  11. “I don’t think there’s anything intrinsically wrong with chivalry, provided that with it comes the attitude that women are equal to men”

    That sentence is essentially an oxymoron. The idea of chivalry is based on the attitude that women are not equal to men. You can’t have it both ways.

    ” I do, however, believe it my role to protect everyone, regardless of gender or identification, in ways that are empowering rather than emasculating.”

    It isn’t your role to protect me or anyone else. We are not obligated to protect other people. We are only obligated to do our best to help them if we can and treat them with basic respect for their humanity.

    I have no desire whatsoever to have you or any other man protect me. I just want men to stop trying to harm me and oppress me. One does not equal the other.

  12. I’d open the door for a man if I could, but that would be perceived as effeminate behavior, strongly connoting homosexuality.

    How do you figure, Comrade Kevin? I ask because my husband holds the door for everybody, regardless of gender, and I’ve never seen him get a negative reaction for it. (We live in Oklahoma, fwiw.)

    As far as your thoughts on chivalry go, it’s nice that you don’t have feelings of superiority when you hold the door open for a woman (something you don’t do for men,) but consider the woman for a moment. Every time a man does something for her because she’s a woman, it chips away at her feelings of self-confidence and empowerment in ways that are slow and subtle but devastating. In other words, your motives don’t really matter so much; the woman has no idea whether you’re being “good chivalrous” or “bad chivalrous.” It’s the effect chivalry has on women that makes it so disastrous.

    My advice would be to stick with good ol’ common courtesy across the board, with everyone you meet. You can’t fail with that.

  13. I have always railed against unequal treatment based on gender. I’m in complete agreement about the difference between courtesy and chivalry. I don’t want to be given a seat or have a door held because I am a woman.

    I do have a sense, ingrained, but despite the lack of logic, I have not been able to shake it. I do believe it is a worse thing for a man to strike a woman than for a man to strike another man.

    This bothers me. I hate holding illogical ideas, but this is one I have not been able to distill down to the logic that true equality would mean that striking one person is just as hideous as striking another, regardless.

  14. FWIW, when I commuted on the bus regularly, I only offered my seat to women who looked like they really needed it: elderly, pregnant, or carrying a heavy/awkward load. Only the elderly ones ever accepted (with one exception: a young woman with two toddlers).

    I learned the hard way never to offer it to a guy, even if he was 102 and had oxygen tubes up his nose. They get mad.

  15. Well, Deltabob, maybe it’s something to do with the extra weight a man striking a woman carries because of patriarchal oppression? So, as the world stands, that kind of violence carries a whole other heavy layer of meaning.

    This conversation is reminding me of the must-read On the Bus.

  16. This article, however, is part and parcel of the fact that most men do not think before they respond. They react and they do not take the time they need for introspection.

    And ironically, your comments serve as proof of this assertion.

  17. I’d open the door for a man if I could, but that would be perceived as effeminate behavior, strongly connoting homosexuality.

    I’ve seen male friends hold doors open for other male friends, all of whom were straight. They seemed pretty comfortable with the whole thing. Maybe my friends have fewer hangups over sexual orientation than other people, but I can’t imagine that this perception of door-holding-as-indicative-of-homosexuality is universal.

    One of the situations that I’ve seen create a fair amount of awkwardness is when I try to hold open a door for a guy. Some guys nearly trip over themselves trying to remove the door from my hand and shoo me inside. That kind of annoys me.

    And, sometimes, if I try to enter a door right before I guy does, and I forget to pause at the darned door, he’ll reach for the door just as I do, thus forcing me to back up, and then he ushers me inside. That’s very, very annoying.

  18. reminds me of my old morning commute on the T in Boston where an older “gentleman” physically put me into his seat after I declined his offer to sit there.

    YOU WILL TAKE MY GALLANT GESTURE WHETHER YOU WANT TO OR NOT, LADY!

  19. Maybe my friends have fewer hangups over sexual orientation than other people, but I can’t imagine that this perception of door-holding-as-indicative-of-homosexuality is universal.

    No, no. It’s not an indicator of homosexuality. It will actually make you gay, like tight jeans, hair gel, and putting your cell phone in your hip pocket. Trufax. You should tell your friends. I think you can ungay by being inconsiderate and shovy, but I’d have to check.

  20. Laurent: “Because they still do not have it as easy as men, even in this day and age. They tend to be poorer, earn less on average, and they are under-represented in the halls of power. So why shouldn’t men make their lives a little bit easier?”

    And…

    “A touch of gallantry here and there need not be a throwback. Consider it back pay. Better yet, think of it as “paying it forward” with random acts of courtesy. Women have been under-appreciated for so long that a little belated over-appreciation seems overdue.”

    Um, like Chally said, none of this “chivalry” is really necessarily. Simply refraining from oppression would really be much preferable.

    Also, for men worried about “making [our] lives easier”, “back pay”, or “paying it forward”, how about things like truly doing half or more of the housework, truly doing half or more of child raising, educating other men to stop rape, doing your best to promote women at work, speaking up in situations where misogynist comments are made, refusing to take unfair raises, refraining from talking over or interrupting women, participate in anti-violence work, taking women’s concerns to heart when voting, resisting government restriction of a full range of reproductive options for women, boycotting movies and other media that promote misogyny and rape, or, you know, any other thing that would actually CONCRETELY benefit women, instead of the occasional mini-ego-stroke of shallow public “chivalry”.

    Oh, and we don’t need your protection. We don’t need you to *do* anything. We need you to NOT do things, like oppression, misogyny, and rape, for example.

  21. Comrade Kevin: “I’d open the door for a man if I could, but that would be perceived as effeminate behavior, strongly connoting homosexuality.”

    Heavens, it WOULD be terrible to be thought of as gay. Gays are so icky. I can see what you mean that your chivalry should stop if it would ruin your burnished heterosexual image.

  22. “Chivalry” is about social class. Don’t use the term in place of “courtesy”. Chivalry means treating women of your social class and higher with special courtesy. Women of a lower social class are free to be ignored or treated abysmally by the chivalric man.

    Who holds the door for homeless women?

    Everyone who talks about chivalry being ok needs to memorize Sojourner Truth’s “Ain’t I a Woman.” Full stop.

  23. @piny: Ha! I’ll have to inform my friends of the path back to manly heterosexuality.

    Did I hold the door open for the wrong people, piny? Somewhere along the way, I wound up becoming a lesbian… or does the door thing only work for guys?

  24. I had an once interaction with a male friend of mine about holding doors open. Personally, I make a very deliberate habit of holding doors for people wherever I go, because, as I explained to my friend, I consider it a (usually) very simple and straightforward way for me to communicate to the people around me that I acknowledge their needs and respect their existence. (Obviously, this works for me because I do not have any impairment that makes it difficult for me to open and hold a door – I don’t resent others for not holding doors or assume that their intentions are diametrically opposed to my own if they don’t.) The reason this came up was, being a gracious fellow himself, my friend had been holding doors for me. Holding all of the doors for me, and waving me on whenever I held one for him, including at double sets of doors, where he held the first and I attempted to get the second. I explained to him that I understood his motives, and it was for that very reason that I preferred that we shared any door-holding opportunities between us. He came around after that, but it struck me that although I don’t exactly keep a tally of doors held by me to doors held for me, the persistance and pervasiveness with which he denied my autonomy to be curteous to him in the same manner with which he was being curteous to me was probably one of the most frustrating and annoying social experiences I’ve ever had.

    It also occurred to me after that I probably need to continue to take care with my own door-holding activities, because although I am identified as a woman, I am also young, middle-class, and appear TAB – I could very easily come off as controlling and condescending myself if I forgot that door-holding is something I mean to do for someone else, and not for my own benefit. Actually, I’ve found that throwing in a quick and neutral, “Can I get that for you?”, and then listening to the response in case it’s in the negative, can work quite well in some instances.

  25. Melissa at Shakesville wrote the most concise definition of chivalry I’ve ever read:

    “In exchange for other inequalities that will be perpetuated against you to maintain our privilege, we’ll protect you from the worst of our lot.”

  26. I don’t think there’s anything intrinsically wrong with chivalry, provided that with it comes the attitude that women are equal to men, not that they need some kind of Paternalistic means of protection.

    If you’re considering women equal to men, “chivalry” is not the right word.

  29. Rebecca (#26) writes: If you’re considering women equal to men, “chivalry” is not the right word.

    I dunno; this sounds to me a lot like saying “If you’re considering same-sex relationships equal to heterosexual relationships, ‘marriage’ is not the right word.”

    In other words, it seems to me as if feminism would have a much easier job of trying to eliminate the sexist connotations of the term chivalry than trying to eliminate the positive connotations. If the current definition of chivalry is, for example, ‘honorable behavior and courtesy, especially by men towards women’, we ought to promote a non-sexist interpretation of chivalry, whereby honorable behavior and courtesy by anyone towards anyone is accounted as chivalrous.

    In the same way, if gay people want to participate in the institution of marriage, feminism doesn’t say “No you don’t; marriage is fundamentally sexist and homophobic”; it says “Right! The sexism and homophobia should be eliminated from the idea of marriage!” I think the task would be a lot easier to treat chivalry the same way.

  30. “I think the task would be a lot easier to treat chivalry the same way.”

    But we already have that concept. It’s called “courtesy.” Chivalry is a very different animal.

  31. Preying Mantis: Saying “Chivalry is a very different animal” seems like begging the question to me, or assuming defeat. There’s no rule against having two words that mean the same thing, and convincing people that chivalry means ‘courtesy’ seems a lot easier than convincing people that chivalry is bad, is all I’m saying.

  32. Ghigau – to play a sort of devil’s advocate regarding your comment “Every time a man does something for her because she’s a woman, it chips away at her feelings of self-confidence and empowerment in ways that are slow and subtle but devastating”

    When a man is chivalrous, because very often misogyny underlies chivalry (as noted by other posters), instead of feeling less powerful I think “This misogynist has given me a coded message about how to exert power in my dealings with him.” I am afraid I got this from my grandmother, a woman who knew how to operate in a man’s world. These are mostly broadly unhelpful codes, such as smiling and looking pretty, but they work on these men, and they can make men who believe themselves to be powerful into the weaker party. These are men who buy into the myth of women as sexual gatekeepers, hence they are basically self-seducing. Of course I realize this is selling out on many levels, but it is, at least, a form of power accorded only to women (and it is not as beauty-based as is believed – it is mostly about wit and charm), that only works on these particular men (so one doesn’t accidentally end up tricking one’s real allies). Plus once you have made them laugh, you have an “in” to change their minds about equality, because you’re not the enemy, which I’ve successfully done before. And frankly, once they’ve written the investment check or given you the raise or passed the law you made them think was their idea, then you’ve already won; the net effect is, the patriarchy has gotten weaker. It is more comfy than hunger striking and chaining oneself to railings, and sometimes more effective.

    I guess what I mean is, mostly, the system is screwy and needs to be dismantled from outside, through rational debate and showing men and women that their enlightened self-interest lies with equality. But there are times in life that the system just needs to be played instead. Chivalry is a useful indicator that it may be one of those times.

  33. “So much for community. How sad -”

    No one is obligated to protect others in a community. Chivalry is based on the idea that women are less than men and therefore need their protection. I have no use for someone treating me as if I can’t take care of myself, thanks. Communities are also not about protecting one another, they are about -helping- one another based on a sense of common decency and respect for the individuals involved in any given community. And, it is also based on offering help only when it is desired. Chivalry does not take into account whether or not women actually want men to protect us or not. Chivalry assumes that we need to be protected because we’re inferior to men and, at least if we are to be regarded as “proper” women, we are to accept that protection without complaint.

    So, yes, you and Comrade Kevin can keep your protection to yourself.

  34. Deltabob: “I do believe it is a worse thing for a man to strike a woman than for a man to strike another man.”

    Other posters have mentioned that of course it’s worse because of the context (that women have less redress, are oppressed etc).

    But also it is worse because most of the time the man is much stronger, even if he’s not taller. Indeed my husband is 8″ taller and 90lbs heavier than me; if I met a woman that size I’d say she and I couldn’t have a fair fight. It’s part of the whole “pick on someone your own size” thing.

  35. “I think the task would be a lot easier to treat chivalry the same way.”

    Except that chivalry is unquestionably inherently sexist. There is no getting around that. It is a concept and practice which needs to die a horrible death in a fire.

    (I actually also have similar feelings about heterosexual marriage, but that is another discussion for another thread.)

  36. “I’d open the door for a man if I could, but that would be perceived as effeminate behavior, strongly connoting homosexuality.”

    LOT of gay men at my college, then. Well, all right, so there ARE a lot of gay men here, but you see my point.

  38. “But also it is worse because most of the time the man is much stronger, even if he’s not taller. Indeed my husband is 8″ taller and 90lbs heavier than me; if I met a woman that size I’d say she and I couldn’t have a fair fight. It’s part of the whole “pick on someone your own size” thing.”

    I might agree with you if I hadn’t witnessed much larger men beat the living hell out of much smaller men while no one raised a hand to stop it from occurring. The idea that it’s worse for a man to hit a woman is far more complicated than a simple matter of size difference.

  39. It isn’t your role to protect me or anyone else. We are not obligated to protect other people.

    –

    So much for community. How sad

    I don’t think that’s what Faith meant. As I understood it, she was merely pointing out that it’s not the responsibility of men to go out of their way to protect women out of some sense of duty or obligation for no other reason than because one is a man. Yes, one should always keep in mind the higher risk that women face for violence and sexual assault and do as much can be reasonably done to protect them from it*. But that should always be tempered with common sense and good judgment when exercising it. In other words, don’t get into the role of playing the saviour or knight-in-shining-armour out on some crusade to protect women from the evils of the world.

    *Of course, I think it’s a much more worthwhile endeavor for men to do things like work with other men on things like education and changing our current rape culture so that violence and sexual assault aren’t so prevalent in the first place. Anything else is really just a band-aid solution.

  40. “As I understood it, she was merely pointing out that it’s not the responsibility of men to go out of their way to protect women out of some sense of duty or obligation for no other reason than because one is a man.”

    Well, that was part of what I was saying. But I really did mean that we are not obligated to protect other people. I’ve already addressed this in my other comment.

    “Yes, one should always keep in mind the higher risk that women face for violence and sexual assault and do as much can be reasonably done to protect them from it*”

    I don’t want men to protect me from sexual assault either. I want men to stop sexually assaulting me and other women. The idea that there are bad men who rape, and good men who protect women from rape, is part of the patriarchal structure that oppresses women. I’m not at all a big fan of patriarchy, to say the least.

  41. Faith: Except that chivalry is unquestionably inherently sexist. There is no getting around that.

    Except I am questioning that; you’re just begging the question. What’s inherently sexist about honorably treating all people with dignity and courtesy?

  42. Except I am questioning that; you’re just begging the question. What’s inherently sexist about honorably treating all people with dignity and courtesy?

    Nothing. Except that’s not what chivalry is. Not sure how commenters could be any more clear on this one. It’s kind of like Person A saying, “Hey, we should quit it with the men’s-only clubs already” and Person B saying, “But what’s wrong with being nice to everyone, including men?” and person A saying, “Well, that’s not exactly what men’s-only clubs are” and then person B saying, “BUT WHAT’S WRONG WITH BEING NICE TO EVERYONE, EVEN MEN?!” and person A saying, “Like I said, that’s not what ‘men’s-only’ means” and then person B saying “Well let’s re-define it! Easier than doing away with it,” and person A saying “Actually there are phrases that mean ‘being nice to people, including men’ and there are ways to be nice to people including men that don’t totally shit on women, so, we’ve already kind of developed that angle and maybe we should go with that” and then person B saying “But what’s inherently sexist about being nice to EVERYONE including men?”

    And then person A quits the internet.

  43. Jill: you say that that’s not what chivalry is, and you’re right. But it’s what chivalry could and should be, and changing the definition of chivalry to be something non-sexist is a way more winnable battle than convincing everybody that chivalry is sexist. People don’t think of chivalry as a bad thing, even when in real life it actually is; and people don’t like to think of themselves as sexist. So convincing people chivalry is sexist goes up against two walls: the wall of convincing people that something they think they value is actually harmful, and the wall of making people confront their own unexamined sexism—people aren’t going to do either willingly. But changing the definition is win-win: people get to continue admiring “chivalry”, and they get to continue thinking of themselves as non-sexist. And then this can lead more easily to positive social change.

    Again, I say: it’s working with “marriage”. We’d be in a much worse position today with respect to gay equality today if, instead of pushing for the definition of “marriage” to include same-sex couples, we had pushed for the elimination of marriage on the (correct!) grounds that it was sexist and homophobic.

  44. To add: “And then this can lead more easily to positive social change.” … Because under this scenario, admiring “chivalry” is now more compatible with non-sexist behavior, and thus people who like to think of themselves as valuing “chivalry” are less likely to engage in sexist behavior because of it. Now, it certainly wouldn’t reduce the amount of sexism in the world as much as convincing everybody that “chivalry” is sexist would, I agree (any more than the existence of same-sex marriage has eliminated homophobia as much as convincing everyone of the inherent homophobia of traditional marriage would have). But I feel like it’s way more likely to actually happen.

    I guess kind of what I’m saying is that feminists and everybody else use slightly different intensional definitions of the word “chivalry” (although they refer extensionally to the same thing), and it would be easier to change the definition that everybody else uses in the direction of non-sexism than it would be to convince everybody else to use the definition that feminists use.

  45. It bugs me when I can tell a guy is, say, holding a door open for me because I’m a girl, but a lot of the time I’ll just play along and let them enjoy the brief ego boost of feeling they’ve done something proper and helpful for a nice young lady.

  46. But it’s what chivalry could and should be, and changing the definition of chivalry to be something non-sexist is a way more winnable battle than convincing everybody that chivalry is sexist.

    Wouldn’t that be like re-inventing the wheel though? Changing the definition of chivalry to me seems pretty pointless since the English language already has quite a few words — like manners, courtesy, decency, consideration — that describe the sort of “non-sexist chivalry” you seem to be thinking of.

  47. The definition that feminists use is the definition that everyone uses. Chivalry is pretty well understood as male action for female “benefit.” Also, marriage is a cultural institution and a legal concept; chivalry is not.

  48. “I might agree with you if I hadn’t witnessed much larger men beat the living hell out of much smaller men while no one raised a hand to stop it from occurring.”

    I agree with you that there’s more going on than just a physical mismatch if a guy hits a woman, but you do also see guys beat the living hell out of women while nobody raises a hand to stop them. There’s a pretty big gap between what we as a culture say is not okay and what we’re not willing to step in and try to stop if that might put us in the line of fire.

    “Saying “Chivalry is a very different animal” seems like begging the question to me, or assuming defeat.”

    I’m assuming it’s kind of stupid to mount some kind of campaign to make chivalry mean the exact same goddamn thing as courtesy, an already widely-known and -practiced concept without all the ugly sexist baggage. What, exactly, is so super double-plus awesome about that specific term that it’s worth trying to pry it away from anti-feminists and casual sexists who use it as camouflage?

  49. “I guess kind of what I’m saying is that feminists and everybody else use slightly different intensional definitions of the word “chivalry” (although they refer extensionally to the same thing), and it would be easier to change the definition that everybody else uses in the direction of non-sexism than it would be to convince everybody else to use the definition that feminists use.”

    What next, AJD? Redefine rape so that it isn’t sexist? Really, it makes about as much sense. There are people who have different ideas about rape too. There are many who do not view it as a negative act to engage in. Shall we all shift our viewpoint on rape to be more in line with those people’s view of rape?

    Also, you keep bringing up marriage. It is extremely questionable as to how effective the attempt to “redefine” heterosexual marriage actually has been. There are those of us who do not believe that the effort to redefine marriage has been anymore successful than the effort to try to redefine chivalry would be. Women are still abused in heterosexual marriage. Women are still largely expected to change our names when we get married. We are still by and large viewed as property of our husbands, regardless of whether or not the husband actually views his wife in such a regard. We still do the majority of the childcare and housework in a married household. I can keep going, but I’m hoping that you will see the point…

  50. “I’m assuming it’s kind of stupid to mount some kind of campaign to make chivalry mean the exact same goddamn thing as courtesy, an already widely-known and -practiced concept without all the ugly sexist baggage. What, exactly, is so super double-plus awesome about that specific term that it’s worth trying to pry it away from anti-feminists and casual sexists who use it as camouflage?”

    Because even with a change away from the sexist connotations, it wouldn’t mean the same damned this as courtesy. There’s a reason multiple words exist for the same thing, because they don’t all mean the same thing.

    Chivalry has much deeper meaning than the basic, simple “courtesty.”

    Chivalry:
    1 : mounted men-at-arms
    2 archaic a : martial valor b : knightly skill
    3 : gallant or distinguished gentlemen
    4 : the system, spirit, or customs of medieval knighthood
    5 : the qualities of the ideal knight : chivalrous conduct

    Courtesy:
    1 a : courteous behavior b : a courteous act or expression
    2 a : general allowance despite facts : indulgence b : consideration, cooperation, and generosity in providing something (as a gift or privilege); also : agency, means —used chiefly in the phrases through the courtesy of or by courtesy of or sometimes simply courtesy of

    Both from Websters.

    So, yeah, very different from courtesy and worth shifting it’s meaning enough to keep around without being sexist. Courtesy is opening the door for someone, but ducking the hell out of any greater responsibility towards another person in life. Chivalry puts such acts on a larger continuim of acts.

    And the last time I was called chivalrous, was by a dude, and it was for holding the door for our whole group of friends, including the dudes. So, yeah, people do use it that way.

  51. “but you do also see guys beat the living hell out of women while nobody raises a hand to stop them.”

    Agreed. But the reasons for that are different. People do not step in to stop a man from beating another man because of the belief that all men can take care of themselves and by stepping in, they would be emasculating one or the other. People do not step in to stop a man from hitting a woman because of the belief that men are perfectly entitled to beat women into submission.

  52. Niall:

    I kind of think, though, that that’s what most people think “chivalry” really means anyway. If you look it up in a non-specialist dictionary, you see something like “Honorable and courteous behavior, especially by men towards women”. The especially means that the sexism associated with chivalry isn’t seen as a fundamental part of the definition, but a mere social connotation that can be superseded without changing the definition. In the discourse of feminism, that’s taken as a fundamental part of the definition, but I think that’s different from how the general population actually thinks of the word.

    Well, I dunno; looking back at the article that started this discussion, I suppose that the impression that I have, and that I get from looking at the dictionary, might be wrong; the author of that article seems to take it as a fundamental part of the definition.

    But in any case, my gut feeling is that changing that aspect of the definition is a more likely route towards changing people’s sexist behavior than emphasizing the sexism of the definition (or connotation) would be. I could be wrong. But I feel like Faith and Jill’s responses to me above sound like they think that I’m arguing for something that I’m not.

  53. “What next, AJD? Redefine rape so that it isn’t sexist? Really, it makes about as much sense.”

    I got some gasoline if you wanna burn that straw man.

  54. But it’s what chivalry could and should be, and changing the definition of chivalry to be something non-sexist is a way more winnable battle than convincing everybody that chivalry is sexist.

    How about this, instead of insisting that other people (in this case, feminists) change the definition of an sexist, outdated term like chivalry, how about you start using a more correct, already non-sexist term like courtesy?

  55. “So, yeah, very different from courtesy and worth shifting it’s meaning enough to keep around without being sexist.”

    P.T. Smith,

    You’re a man, right? (Sorry if I’m mistaken, but that was my impression.)

    If so, do you think that maybe you might be showing just a tad bit of male privilege and entitlement by trying to tell a group of women that how we should treat a sexist behavior/attitude?

  57. I kind of think, though, that that’s what most people think “chivalry” really means anyway. If you look it up in a non-specialist dictionary, you see something like “Honorable and courteous behavior, especially by men towards women”.

    Well P.T Smith has already provided one dictionary’s definition of chivalry (which is the same one I got). And one can infer from that definition that it’s a gender role based practice. Or at the very least, it should be obvious that it’s something of an anachronism, given that the customs of medieval knighthood is part of its etymology. That, in and of itself, should render the whole concept obsolete and useless. But that’s beside the point. I can agree with you that that too many people are ignorant of what the word really means (as I mentioned, my own experience has borne this out). But that doesn’t mean that ignorance should be pandered or catered to by re-defining it to suit the needs of people who are either too lazy to educate themselves or just unwilling to listen when others try to set them straight.

    [L]ooking back at the article that started this discussion, I suppose that the impression that I have, and that I get from looking at the dictionary, might be wrong; the author of that article seems to take it as a fundamental part of the definition.

    As has already been established, people are finding the author’s views objectionable for a number of reasons. That would probably be the least of them.

    I could be wrong. But I feel like Faith and Jill’s responses to me above sound like they think that I’m arguing for something that I’m not.

    Well maybe based on the things others have said, you might consider working with the former explanation. Just a thought.

  58. Faith: It’s a straw man because people are horrified not only by rape by by “rape”, the word. (In fact, as you suggest, lots of people are probably more horrified by the word than by actual rape.) If you tell someone he’s a rapist, he’s going to take that as an attack and make excuses and try to convince you that he’s not (even if he is). If you tell someone (who’s not very familiar with feminist discourse) that they’re chivalrous, they’ll take it as a compliment. I see this as a serious issue; I think it’s easier to change people’s sexist behavior by changing the sexist connotations of a word than to do so by changing the word’s positive or negative evaluations. I may not be right, but that’s the only argument I’ve been trying to make here.

    Also: yes, marriage is still in general a sexist and partriarchal institution. But it’s less sexist and patriarchal now than it was fifteen years ago! And it seems to me that the (occasionally successful) pressure from feminists and equality advocates toward including same-sex couples within the label “marriage” has contributed to that progress in a way that major public advocacy toward eliminating (the label) “marriage” entirely would not have. People are very attached to their labels!

  59. The concept of chivalry doesn’t necessarily involve sexism–a man can be chivalrous in his conduct with other men, and women can do the same. In common parlance, chivalry is functionally distinguished from courtesy by an air of nobility, sacrifice, or selflessness.

    Holding the door for the person behind you is courteous. Noticing someone who is approaching a door with their arms full, and walking to the next store over to help them with the door, when you weren’t near it anyway, is chivalrous. Especially if it’s raining. 😉

    So no, courtesy isn’t simply chivalry without the sexist part.

    And people are, often, chivalrous because it makes them feel good about themselves. You know, like they did a mitzvah for someone, or that they did the “right thing.” Courtesy doesn’t have that, not really.

    The undercurrent of AJ’s comments, I think, are going to that difference. Should you tell people to stop trying to be chivalrous and merely be courteous? Well, that would work insofar as the chivalry-sexism would stop.

    But then again, we probably all agree that it’d be even nicer if people could maintain their desire to help others, and their tendency to do so, but stop doing so in a sexist fashion.

    I think it’s reasonable to ask whether you can get there faster through “no chivalry!” or whether you can get there faster through “change chivalry!” Or, perhaps, whether you should give up on that goal entirely and just focus on the “stop the sexist aspect of chivalry!” part instead.

  60. “How precisely would that be a straw man?”

    Seriously? You decided that discussing the shifting meanings of chivalry was the same thing as discussing meanings of rape. The only response to that discussion is to either roll over and say, “Oh, yes, Faith, you are so right.” Or it is to point out that no one was saying anything remotely close to that and that you’ve set up a straw man.

    “do you think that maybe you might be showing just a tad bit of male privilege and entitlement by trying to tell a group of women that how we should treat a sexist behavior/attitude?”

    Participating in a discussion=”trying to tell a group of women how we should treat…”?

    I’ll be sure to keep that in mind next time.

    And you know, it’s probably not for nothing that the person, AJD, who is on the same page as me on language, links to the UPenn Linguistic’s page.

  61. Right folks, different people have different ideas about what chivalry is and should be, we’ve got it. Let’s talk about the harm these behaviors cause to women and/or the article now, please.

  62. In common parlance, chivalry is functionally distinguished from courtesy by an air of nobility, sacrifice, or selflessness.

    And classism. Just as the nobleman didn’t lay his jacket down on the street so the peasant woman didn’t have to muddy her shoes, men in suits-and-ties aren’t opening the door for the maids (or women who fit that general appearance).

    Chivalry is the “nice” way to drive home just how devalued some women are.

  63. It’s a straw man because people are horrified not only by rape by by “rape”, the word.”

    All people are not horrified by rape, AJD. There are people who do not believe that raping women is negative in the slightest. Particularly when you speak of particular types of rape like marital rape and raping prostitutes. So, nope, not a strawman.

    “But it’s less sexist and patriarchal now than it was fifteen years ago!”

    That’s a matter of opinion.

  64. “And you know, it’s probably not for nothing that the person, AJD, who is on the same page as me on language, links to the UPenn Linguistic’s page.”

    I’ve addressed the main point of your comment in my comment to, AJD.

    As for this part, frankly, you can take your smugness and shove it. The fact that he/she links to UPenn Linguistic’s is completely irrelevant to the conversation.

  65. “And you know, it’s probably not for nothing that the person, AJD, who is on the same page as me on language, links to the UPenn Linguistic’s page.”

    I’ve addressed the main point of your comment in my comment to, AJD.

    As for this part, frankly, you can take your smugness and shove it. The fact that he/she links to UPenn Linguistic’s is completely irrelevant to the conversation.

  67. Faith: As I said, many people are even more horrified by the word “rape” than by rape itself. If you tell a marital rapist that he’s a rapist, he won’t say “Yes indeed, thank you”; he’ll deny it and make excuses and say it was anything but rape. That’s because the word “rapist” is (rightfully!) such an insult, such a dirty word, that even those who are rapists don’t want to have the word attributed to them.

    The word “rape” simply is not comparable to the word “chivalry”—most people take “chivalrous” as a compliment! The word “rape” has intensely negative connotations, and the word “chivalry” has relatively positive ones—and, I believe, neither of those facts is going to change soon. If that’s the case, we gain little by telling people “We’re against chivalry!”, and more by trying to reform the meaning of “chivalry” and the social practices that underlie it, so that the positive connotations stop reinforcing a sexist social framework.

  69. Right folks, different people have different ideas about what chivalry is and should be, we’ve got it. Let’s talk about the harm these behaviors cause to women and/or the article now, please.

    COSIGN! (Also: note the use of the blockquote tags. I had a hell of a time following the recent argument with just quotation marks.)

  70. What frustrated me about the article most of all (and, really, I summed it up as “we must give up our seats on the bus to the ladies because of sex-selective abortions in China”) is that I think the dude who wrote it really wanted to say something about sex-selective abortions, but knew so little he didn’t know where to start. So, following from the anti-choice argument of “you women want equality, and yet you support abortion – DON’T YOU KNOW ABOUT SEX-SELECTIVE ABORTIONS?” he figured “I know, we’ll talk about treating women nice, and then everyone will REALISE THE TRUTH.”

    … I think. I don’t know. I found the article very cringe-worthy.

  71. I have always thought of chivalry as being the same as somebody who says: “I’ll pray for you/him/her/them.”, when they disagree with you or there is a crisis. It’s a way of appearing to do something while really doing nothing. It assuages the speaker’s personal comfort and allows them to feel righteous. People think it’s well-intentioned, but it’s really condescending and not helpful.

  72. I’m so glad I found your website! I feel condescended almost every day when men fall over themselves to hold the door for me (esp. those automatic elevator doors that don’t need holding). But when I say something about it to my friends or whoever, they all act like I’m crazy. “What, is he supposed to slam the door in your face?” “He’s just being courteous.” grrrrrrrr

    I don’t like standing in an elevator with a man and knowing that he’s sizing me up and determine whether I have lady parts so he knows whether to “hold” the automatic door for me. I know that’s a crass way to put it, but that’s what it feels like. It’s even better when the man actually inconveniences me in the name of assisting my frail self. (ex: If he has a big bag and is standing in front of me in the elevator, I have to actually kind of squeeze around him to get out first, which is just insane to me.)

    Two observations: I notice that men who are 30 years old and younger tend NOT to do this (which is promising). I also notice that women who are 50 years old and old tend to assume men will do this, to the point of “pushing” themselves first in line, etc.

  73. You can’t change the meaning of the word chivalry because it has a specific historical connotation – as the code of behavior for knights. Knights were specifically men, and lived in a time period in which compliance with gender roles was explicitly expected and largely unquestioned. Chivalry denoted a system of thought in which women were protected because they were too weak to do it themselves (making it the man’s obligation to impose his will on her for her own safety). Chivalry represented women as ideals not because it valued their contribution to society, but because it was easier or more pleasant to think of women as ideas than as real people.

    Equally importantly from a strategic point of view, WHY would we want to rehabilitate this word, only to create a synonym for common decency with disgusting patriarchal roots? Why not just use the word that already means the same thing, without the patriarchal history? At least when people sought to reclaim “queer,” they were using it to signify a concept that did not yet have a label, something which was considered a strategy to go beyond the limits of current words for conceptualizing sexuality…how does your proposed change to the meaning of the world chivalry represent this sort of opposition? Seriously, what’s the use of suggesting putting all this work into changing language when it’s really the actions and mindsets that are the problem? We don’t need the word chivalry to change…we need people to stop believing in and acting on chivalrous notions.

    Chivalry inherently signifies patriarchy. Not only was it built in an explicitly patriarchal model for patriarchal reasons, it also perpetuates those models. Putting women on a pedestal does not make us equals, because it does not mean we are being treated like people. It means we’re being treated as some sort of special higher ideal, to be conserved and protected from the daily grind of real life. But we don’t want to be protected from the grind of real life – we want to be a part of it! We want to be included as equally capable participants, not marked as different. Thinking of women as unequal is not a corruption of chivalry, it’s a consequence of its very nature – saying that women are “too valuable” to be collapsed into the general category of “person” has the same results as saying that women are too worthless to be collapsed into the general category of person – exclusion, marginalization, and oppression.

Comments are currently closed.