Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Been having a conversation along these lines with a couple friends and I figured I'd toss it out for board consumption:

Is Chivalry, as in giving women special treatment essentially for the sake of them being women, actually sexist and degrading to Women?

The discussion has been in regards to Women being the equals of Men, and thus needing to be treated as equals to Men, but then the social mores of "Women and Children First", etc., and the patronizing that follows therein (like when members of both genders play up women being "more emotional" ). Is this point of view wrong? Is Chivalry patronizing and not equal treatment of Women? Should you treat Women as you would treat Men in the same circumstances?

I believe treating all humans with kindness and equality unless I want to **** them, then chivalry.

Sexist? Not necessarily. For myself, offering, say, one's subway seat to a woman, is a gesture of kindness, same as offering it to, say, a senior citizen (would that be "ageist?". People who object to this sort of courtesy, I suspect, have "self-esteem issues."

Men and women are equal in status, no question about it. But clearly, they are not equal, down the line, in each and every ability. There are also, it seems, many women who try to have it both ways. Eg, "I am your equal, but I still expect you to pay for dinner."

Originally posted by Mindship
Sexist? Not necessarily. For myself, offering, say, one's subway seat to a woman, is a gesture of kindness, same as offering it to, say, a senior citizen (would that be "ageist?". People who object to this sort of courtesy, I suspect, have "self-esteem issues."

Men and women are equal in status, no question about it. But clearly, they are not equal, down the line, in each and every ability. There are also, it seems, many women who try to have it both ways. Eg, "I am your equal, but I still expect you to pay for dinner." That reminds me "They say they want to be equal but if you listen closely... they only want the good sh!t. Pay for dinner? Nah fuk that". Bill Burr.

Chivalry is sexist- just not to women. Chivalry is basically sexism toward men.

edit- Hmmm. Actually, I'll think about it for awhile before giving a final answer.

Originally posted by Mindship
Sexist? Not necessarily. For myself, offering, say, one's subway seat to a woman, is a gesture of kindness, same as offering it to, say, a senior citizen (would that be "ageist?". People who object to this sort of courtesy, I suspect, have "self-esteem issues."

Men and women are equal in status, no question about it. But clearly, they are not equal, down the line, in each and every ability. There are also, it seems, many women who try to have it both ways. Eg, "I am your equal, but I still expect you to pay for dinner." And what inequality necessitates giving a woman your seat?

Side note: I've never given anyone my seat after I sat down. **** them.

Originally posted by NemeBro
And what inequality necessitates giving a woman your seat?Woman, elderly, disabled. A child, so s/he can sit next to mom. If I see someone I feel is going to have a tougher time standing out a trip, I offer my seat...unless I'm having one of my at-war-with-the-world moments.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Side note: I've never given anyone my seat after I sat down. **** them. You're not going to be young and cute forever.

How do women have an intrinsically harder time standing up then men?

Weaker back muscles, makes balancing harder.


Also bewbs.

Originally posted by Mindship
Woman, elderly, disabled. A child, so s/he can sit next to mom. If I see someone I feel is going to have a tougher time standing out a trip, I offer my seat...unless I'm having one of my at-war-with-the-world moments.

So you believe a woman is just as physically disadvantaged as the elderly or the disabled?



Right on the first account, definitely wrong on the second.

Indeed. "Cute forever" implies cuteness at one point in time.

'Bro has been an eldritch monster since conception.

I feel like this is one of those things that doesn't have a broad answer, just because every situation is different. The context and intent determines the answer.

Thanks for that, Dig.

Originally posted by Digi
I feel like this is one of those things that doesn't have a broad answer, just because every situation is different. The context and intent determines the answer. Spoken like a true misogynist.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Spoken like a true misogynist. Is that your people's way of saying 'gentleman'?

Yes, chivalry is sexist.

Gender equality does not include special dispensation or treatment for women.

Women can stand on public transit just as well as men.

I don't think it really matters whether it's sexist or not anymore, seeing as it's dead as ****.

Being a gentleman is too gay cliche for young ladies these days.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Thanks for that, Dig.

Lol, what? You'd rather I stick my foot in my mouth with a half-baked opinion? For example...
Originally posted by Oneness
Being a gentleman is too gay cliche for young ladies these days.

Anyway...

Originally posted by NemeBro
Spoken like a true misogynist.

No, I'm racist, remember?

I hold the door for women, so i can take a gander at their hineys.

Originally posted by NemeBro
So you believe a woman is just as physically disadvantaged as the elderly or the disabled? Of course not (you "forgot" the child I mentioned, who often has quite the energy for standing).

A few years back I was on a bus, sitting across from a live-action version of the Simpson Comic Book Guy: he was two-seats huge, had long hair, and was reading comics. He dropped one, and I started to get up to get it for him, figuring it would be easier for me to do so (I was half his size and athletic; does this make me "weightist"?). He looked at me, smiled and said, "That's okay, thanks," and he proceeded to pick the comic off the floor himself. As he straightened up, he looked at me again, smiled and nodded. He appreciated the gesture of kindness.

The world needs more kindness, no? What it certainly doesn't need more of is...
Originally posted by NemeBro
**** them.
Originally posted by riv6672
I hold the door for women, so i can take a gander at their hineys. If they ain't J-Lo or Kim K calibre, they're getting their own doors.

Considering who you arent, i dont think they'll care.

Originally posted by Mindship
Of course not (you "forgot" the child I mentioned, who often has quite the energy for standing).

A few years back I was on a bus, sitting across from a live-action version of the Simpson Comic Book Guy: he was two-seats huge, had long hair, and was reading comics. He dropped one, and I started to get up to get it for him, figuring it would be easier for me to do so (I was half his size and athletic; does this make me "weightist"?). He looked at me, smiled and said, "That's okay, thanks," and he proceeded to pick the comic off the floor himself. As he straightened up, he looked at me again, smiled and nodded. He appreciated the gesture of kindness.

The world needs more kindness, no? What it certainly doesn't need more of is...

If they ain't J-Lo or Kim K calibre, they're getting their own doors. So why do you give your seat to otherwise perfectly healthy women, but not otherwise perfectly healthy men?

If you do give your seat to perfectly healthy men, then you basically give your seat up to everybody, in which case you're not being chivalrous and your anecdote isn't really relevant to this topic.

Originally posted by Mindship
Of course not (you "forgot" the child I mentioned, who often has quite the energy for standing).

A few years back I was on a bus, sitting across from a live-action version of the Simpson Comic Book Guy: he was two-seats huge, had long hair, and was reading comics. He dropped one, and I started to get up to get it for him, figuring it would be easier for me to do so (I was half his size and athletic; does this make me "weightist"?). He looked at me, smiled and said, "That's okay, thanks," and he proceeded to pick the comic off the floor himself. As he straightened up, he looked at me again, smiled and nodded. He appreciated the gesture of kindness.

The world needs more kindness, no? What it certainly doesn't need more of is... While I'm sure the air smells so much sweeter on your high horse is there any reason why you give up your seat to healthy women?

No, not tremendously fat or old or crippled or anything (and the reason I didn't mention the child is because you gave a reason for giving up your seat that wasn't about them being physically disadvantaged), just a normal, perfectly healthy woman.

Originally posted by NemeBro
is there any reason why you give up your seat to healthy women?
Young, healthy women are least likely to get my seat. On them, I like to enforce the equality...except when I feel like being a gentleman. And they always accept.

I'd offer you my seat.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
So why do you give your seat to otherwise perfectly healthy women, but not otherwise perfectly healthy men? Healthy men are my physical peers. But I'd offer you my seat too.

I'm flattered, though if you'd basically offer your seat to anyone, with old people and the disabled getting priority, that's not really chivalrous so much as it's being a nice person in general.

Originally posted by NemeBro
While I'm sure the air smells so much sweeter on your high horse.
haha!
If one doesnt mind the horse dung.

Chivalry isnt in and of itself sexist; sexist people can be chivalrous.

Chivalry is sexist, ageist, healthist etc.

It doesn't mean it's bad. People need to stop assuming sexist is inmediately a bad thing

Chivalry, at least in the way I think it is generally used, is sexist. And, I disagree with Bentley, I think all sexism is bad (however, I think that may stem from different definitions of sexism, more so than a real disagreement).

Now a general politeness not based on any sexist assumptions of gender, and treating everyone with respect and kindness, is a good thing. And, imo, we should strive towards living our lives in accordance with that (to a reasonable degree, of course).

Gender's always going to be a factor, no matter how hard you try.
But its good that you try.

I don't mind it. And seriously seeing a girl putting heavy suitcase on the top shelf in a train with like 5 guys watching is just fcked up.

Originally posted by Bentley
People need to stop assuming sexist is inmediately a bad thing

I assume you mean "sexism." If so, when is sexism good?

Originally posted by Mindship
Young, healthy women are least likely to get my seat. On them, I like to enforce the equality...except when I feel like being a gentleman. And they always accept.

I'd offer you my seat.

Healthy men are my physical peers. But I'd offer you my seat too. What does you being a nice guy in general have to do with this thread?

Originally posted by Clovie
I don't mind it. And seriously seeing a girl putting heavy suitcase on the top shelf in a train with like 5 guys watching is just fcked up. That's only Chivalry in the context of this thread if you're doing it because she's a woman.

If you're doing it because she's obviously struggling with the weight, then it's just helping a physically weak person out. Someone who considers themselves a "nice guy" wouldn't just help out a woman if she's struggling to lift the suitcase, they'd do the same for a 100 pound beltway pansy of a man as well. Similarly, if the woman is strong enough to hoist the load/is a lesbian, I don't see why you'd offer to help them with something they can obviously do themselves and with no issue.

Just curious... why being a lesbian makes woman capable to carry heavy things?


I can take care of myself, but It's always welcomed when someone is willing to help. and that being some handsome guy is an extra value
but seriously, recently it's more common to see another girl helping and guys pretending to have back pain

Originally posted by Tzeentch
I'm flattered, though if you'd basically offer your seat to anyone, with old people and the disabled getting priority, that's not really chivalrous so much as it's being a nice person in general. Originally posted by NemeBro
What does you being a nice guy in general have to do with this thread?
I don't necessarily see being nice as a separate issue. My first thought when I saw this thread was, "So now what? I can't do something nice for a woman without being labelled? More political correctness gone amuck?" Hell wit dat. Back to basics for me with golden rule in hand.

As Bardock mentioned, a definition of chivalry might've been helpful. For example: "chivalry - I'm a man, you're a woman. By virtue of that fact alone, I am superior to you, physically, morally, etc. Therefore, it is my duty to be nice to you, to protect you, and so on." That's sexist, and can have negative consequences elsewhere (eg, "I need servicing, woman!".

OTOH, if chivalry means helping someone who may have a tougher time with a task/situation, or simply following the golden rule (eg, holding a door for a man/woman, giving a woman my seat, helping the pansy man lift a heavy suitcase), then, no, I don't see this as "-ist" in any fashion.

For what it's worth, I have my share of "**** them" moments. And while in the throes of an anger fantasy -- and especially if I act-out ("Hold your own goddamn door" -- I feel deserving and empowered. But afterwards, once the fog of war has lifted from my brain, I feel bad, because that's not the type of person I want to be. I don't like when my anger and egotism get the better of me.

The world needs more kindness, and fortunately, life provides endless opportunities to "get it right" the next time.

Originally posted by NemeBro
they'd do the same for a 100 pound beltway pansy of a man..... if the woman is strong enough to hoist the load/is a lesbian ermm

Well if it is then I guess I'm not that sexist after all.

Originally posted by The Renegade
I assume you mean "sexism." If so, when is sexism good?

Why should it be good or bad? Frankly, the concept of every action fitting into the mold of good or bad is nonsensical and ridiculously naive.

Originally posted by Mindship
I don't necessarily see being nice as a separate issue. My first thought when I saw this thread was, "So now what? I can't do something nice for a woman without being labelled? More political correctness gone amuck?" Hell wit dat. Back to basics for me with golden rule in hand.

As Bardock mentioned, a definition of chivalry might've been helpful. For example: "chivalry - I'm a man, you're a woman. By virtue of that fact alone, I am superior to you, physically, morally, etc. Therefore, it is my duty to be nice to you, to protect you, and so on." That's sexist, and can have negative consequences elsewhere (eg, "I need servicing, woman!".

OTOH, if chivalry means helping someone who may have a tougher time with a task/situation, or simply following the golden rule (eg, holding a door for a man/woman, giving a woman my seat, helping the pansy man lift a heavy suitcase), then, no, I don't see this as "-ist" in any fashion.

For what it's worth, I have my share of "**** them" moments. And while in the throes of an anger fantasy -- and especially if I act-out ("Hold your own goddamn door" -- I feel deserving and empowered. But afterwards, once the fog of war has lifted from my brain, I feel bad, because that's not the type of person I want to be. I don't like when my anger and egotism get the better of me.

The world needs more kindness, and fortunately, life provides endless opportunities to "get it right" the next time. Well, considering that a definition of chivalry was provided...

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Chivalry, as in giving women special treatment essentially for the sake of them being women


Yeah, "being nice to everybody in general" is an entirely separate concept and topic.

Originally posted by Clovie
Just curious... why being a lesbian makes woman capable to carry heavy things?

It's pretty well documented that lesbians can lift heavy things. In fact, "lesbian" comes from the latin word "lesbianis". It translates, roughly, to "she who lifts heavy things."

Also, yes. Chivalry is sexist.

I thought real chivalry had little to do with women and that the only mention of women was defending the weak (a knight who practiced for a decade or more would most certainly be much much stronger and aptly skilled than the noble females that they were grouping with the "weak" in that code...it also included children, sick, and old).


Allow me to show you what I am talking about:


Knight: "Men, we have practiced our art for 15 or more years, every one of us. Protect the weak and do right by God and country."



Modern Idiot: "ZOMG! They are calling women weeeaaaaak! Bastards!"


Is Chivalry sexist? **** not it is not sexist. No body uses the word correctly, these days. A warfare code intended for a warrior class is hardly applicable, today.


A better label is, "Victorian Gender Roles: Are they Sexist?"

Yes. They definitely are. Get over it.



Should everyone stop being gentlemanly? Nope. Many women enjoy that. Educate the people, make sure everyone is given an egalitarian opportunity, and let people figure out what they want. Eventually, the men will adjust, appropriately. I am seeing a backlash, from American females, against the feminist movement, lately. It has only popped up in the last 3-5 years. Women, after experiencing too much shit from the male gender (not gentlemanliness), they want the Victorian-esque gender roles back...at least partially.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Well, considering that a definition of chivalry was provided..."Special treatment" is vague. I provided specifics, in attitude as well as concrete behaviors.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Yeah, "being nice to everybody in general" is an entirely separate concept and topic. No, not entirely, as "special treatment" can include "being nice" to women simply because they are women.

Originally posted by StyleTime
It's pretty well documented that lesbians can lift heavy things. In fact, "lesbian" comes from the latin word "lesbianis". It translates, roughly, to "she who lifts heavy things."

Also, yes. Chivalry is sexist.

That's not where the word 'lesbian' comes from... in case you're being serious.

Originally posted by Mindship
"Special treatment" is vague. I provided specifics, in attitude as well as concrete behaviors.

No, not entirely, as "special treatment" can include "being nice" to women simply because they are women. If you're being nice to women specifically because then you're not being nice in general, you're treating women differently because of their gender.

Which is what this thread is about. Chivalry is defined here as "giving women special treatment because they're women". Under that definition, is giving women special treatment because they're women sexist?

I'm not sure where you're getting confused at.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
If you're being nice to women specifically because then you're not being nice in general, you're treating women differently because of their gender.

Which is what this thread is about. Chivalry is defined here as "giving women special treatment because they're women". Under that definition, is giving women special treatment because they're women sexist?

I'm not sure where you're getting confused at. I'm seeing things quite clearly, thank you. Forgive me my inappropriate post.

Hug me.

Originally posted by Bentley
Why should it be good or bad? Frankly, the concept of every action fitting into the mold of good or bad is nonsensical and ridiculously naive.

Sexism is defined as discrimination and/or disdain toward an individual or group of people because they are a certain gender. It should be bad because discriminating or disdaining someone based on something like gender is unreasonable and morally reprehensible.

Also, "every action" doesn't fit into a black-and-white "good or bad" state. However, not everything should be within a grey area either and I think sexism is definitely something I wouldn't consider in the "grey area."

You've essentially implied that believing sexism is bad is a nonsensical, naive opinion so don't ask me why I'm even bothering to give you the time of day.

Originally posted by The Renegade
Sexism is defined as discrimination and/or disdain toward an individual or group of people because they are a certain gender. It should be bad because discriminating or disdaining someone based on something like gender is unreasonable and morally reprehensible.

Also, "every action" doesn't fit into a black-and-white "good or bad" state. However, not everything should be within a grey area either and I think sexism is definitely something I wouldn't consider in the "grey area."

You've essentially implied that believing sexism is bad is a nonsensical, naive opinion so don't ask me why I'm even bothering to give you the time of day.


Bentley is normally one of the most level headed and logical people in these types of discussions. I had to go back and read his words. It doesn't make sense.

Maybe he meant "Chivalry does not have to be bad"? That makes more sense and fits better with what he was saying. I think he misspoke.


Though he may have meant that and my image of Bentley being this nigh omnibenevolent being has been shattered...

I think he's referring to gender roles when he says sexism.

Right, but I even clarified by saying I assumed he meant sexism and he's like, "Why should that be good or bad?"

Dude straight up meant sexism.

In his defense, he's French.

He more or less hates everything.

Originally posted by The Renegade
Right, but I even clarified by saying I assumed he meant sexism and he's like, "Why should that be good or bad?"

Dude straight up meant sexism.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
I think he's referring to gender roles when he says sexism.


Lemme look through again because I just clicked quote links to get to the original post of his...


Edit - I see, I see. I missed that middle post where he said "people should not view sexist as bad." That was the second time he used it that way so it is not a language barrier issue.


Bentley, sexism is pretty much always bad. I am hard-pressed to think of any situation in which it would be acceptable.

Wait!


WAIT! I thought of one. During a mass execution, when people are being executed one by one, sexism should be brought up and it should always be ladies first....that should give me enough time to escape...

Originally posted by The Renegade
Sexism is defined as discrimination and/or disdain toward an individual or group of people because they are a certain gender. It should be bad because discriminating or disdaining someone based on something like gender is unreasonable and morally reprehensible.

When you define something as disdain towards another it's going to sound pretty bad no matter what. This is why I consider definitions to be unreasonable and morally reprehensible, they pollute the conceptual honesty of dialogue by putting up bias against stuff. They are a form of discrimination!

*Ahem*


My argument was that things don't fit the mold of good or bad. The oposition was meant to enhance the distance between a concept and its use to describe our every action.

Then you -more or less- said sexism is bad.

Then my argument becomes "things don't fit the mold of sexist not sexist".

All that, regarding to my previous post.


---


There is a chance I had a trouble at translating what I meant, so let's try again. I was under the impression that sexism meant something akin to "the belief that certain sex is superior per gender and sexual features compared to the other(s) sex(es)", and in order to avoid philosophical issues we'll add "and the performance of actions according to that belief". If this was way off the common definition then I grossly missaplied the concept.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2988310/How-smile-reveals-man-s-SEXIST-Beliefs-women-betrayed-facial-expressions-claims-study.html

Bumping to add this link to an article regarding a study that claims "chivalry" may in fact be sexist.

While I think chivalry is sexist, I don't necessarily think that means that people that are chivalrous are sexist. Definitely not consciously usually. But it still contributes to and is caused by sexist gender roles.

I think people who are not sexist at all are usually not what we call chivalrous, but courteous to everyone.

Of course chivalry isn't sexist. Sexism, per definition, is discrimination towards a given sex.

Paying for a dinner or holding a door open for a lady is not discrimination.

Originally posted by Astner
Of course chivalry isn't sexist. Sexism, per definition, is discrimination towards a given sex.

Paying for a dinner or holding a door open for a lady is not discrimination.

That's a very simplistic understanding of sexism. Additionally it doesn't take into account the emotional level of being infantilised, due to it.

Not sure if holding the door for someone is "infantilizing" them.

I wouldn't say Chivalry is sexist as much as it is just being nice.

If I offer to help an old woman put her groceries away I don't think I'm being mean as to say "YOU CANT DO THIS WITHOUT DYING PROBABLY."

It's just helpful. Giving a woman your seat or opening the door is just being courteous. I'd do the same for a guy but I doubt anyone would call that "chivalrous."

I mean, would someone say "Women and Children first" is sexist?

Originally posted by MF DELPH
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2988310/How-smile-reveals-man-s-SEXIST-Beliefs-women-betrayed-facial-expressions-claims-study.html

Bumping to add this link to an article regarding a study that claims "chivalry" may in fact be sexist.

According to that article "hostile sexists" enjoy topless calendars. What a load of horseshit.

I hold the door open for everybody.

They still won't get my ****ing seat.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's a very simplistic understanding of sexism. Additionally it doesn't take into account the emotional level of being infantilised, due to it.
So it's sexist of me to expect a grown woman to be able to reject an offer she's uncomfortable with?

Originally posted by NemeBro
I hold the door open for everybody.

They still won't get my ****ing seat.

Same. Once I manage to plop my ass down somewhere, I'm not moving.

Originally posted by Quincy
I wouldn't say Chivalry is sexist as much as it is just being nice.

If I offer to help an old woman put her groceries away I don't think I'm being mean as to say "YOU CANT DO THIS WITHOUT DYING PROBABLY."

It's just helpful. Giving a woman your seat or opening the door is just being courteous. I'd do the same for a guy but I doubt anyone would call that "chivalrous."

I mean, would someone say "Women and Children first" is sexist?

Yes, women and children first is sexist.

The thing is chivalry is not just opening doors for women. It's the expectation in society that men should open doors for women (based on them being weaker and less capable)...and that is sexist. If you use chivalry to mean courteous, and do not discriminate based on gender, then that's fine, but it's not really what chivalry means.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure if holding the door for someone is "infantilizing" them.

Being told by society that people have to look out for you because you can't look out for yourself is infantilising.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Being told by society that people have to look out for you because you can't look out for yourself is infantilising.

Or it could just be politeness and not someone thinking: "this person is like an infant".

Originally posted by Astner
So it's sexist of me to expect a grown woman to be able to reject an offer she's uncomfortable with?

Probably, though that's not what I said.

If we are going off on that tangent though, I would say it is sexist of you to expect it, because, once again, you are disregarding the circumstances, i.e. that women are taught not to speak up about their wishes as well as that women have good reasons to not be frank or confrontational with men.

Originally posted by Robtard
Or it could just be politeness and not someone thinking: "this person is like an infant".

I feel like you are disregarding my point.

Being courteous does not mean you think that the person is a child. Chivalry as it exists in our society does infantilize women.

Don't quote me if you're not going to address my arguments.

Originally posted by Astner
Don't quote me if you're not going to address my arguments.

I'm sorry, which argument do you feel I haven't addressed?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I feel like you are disregarding my point.

Being courteous does not mean you think that the person is a child. Chivalry as it exists in our society does infantilize women.

Fair enough. But you're essentially saying that a person is not sexist for being polite and holding a door open, but the act itself is sexist.

I'm going to start pulling the door shut behind me

Originally posted by Robtard
Fair enough. But you're essentially saying that a person is not sexist for being polite and holding a door open, but the act itself is sexist.

Yes, that is exactly what I said here:

Originally posted by Bardock42
While I think chivalry is sexist, I don't necessarily think that means that people that are chivalrous are sexist. Definitely not consciously usually. But it still contributes to and is caused by sexist gender roles.

I think people who are not sexist at all are usually not what we call chivalrous, but courteous to everyone.

Chivalry as a concept is sexist, and there are many men that are sexist that are chivalrous. But being courteous to people is not sexist itself, it doesn't exist in a vacuum though.

Maybe to rephrase that, I think we should never teach our kids that men should hold open doors for women, we should teach them that people should open doors for people cause it's a nice thing to do.

So acts of chivalry aren't sexist, but chivalry as a concept is sexist?

How does that make sense to you?

Is Chivalry sexist? Yeah it is. Why because the mentality that lead to specified gender roles that have come with Chivalry contributed to a lot of the gender issues we are currently dealing with. Women are to be coveted and treated like objects for men to take and men are to be the heads protectors, essentially guard dogs, to women. It's a system that has lead to a lot of stress on both genders. More so for women I will say.

If you're going to do something nice for someone like hold the door you should do it for everyone. If you would offer your seat to a woman you should do it for everyone.

Now that being said pretending that men and women are the exact same isn't helpful either. Now I'm not talking in a sense women are inferior to men as a gender. I'm saying biological things like a woman is more likely to be weaker than a man on average. Flip side women are more often more flexible. Women deal with biological issues that I as a man will never have to and vice versa. As well as cultural things, women are perceived to be easier targets and therefore are often attacked more than a man.

So I might be more inclined to ask a female friend if they want walked to their car late at night than I am a male friend. Now I would still base this on the individual person but I still understand that there is a difference between a man and woman in this situation most of the time.

What I'm saying is that we are all people. We should all treat each other as people first but understand we are different and be okay with that. I do not feel Chivalry as it has become does that. It puts our genders first and sometimes as the most important thing while seeing us as people second.

Wish a woman would weigh in on this discussion.

Originally posted by Quincy
Wish a woman would weigh in on this discussion. That would be nice.

Originally posted by Newjak
Is Chivalry sexist? Yeah it is. Why because the mentality that lead to specified gender roles that have come with Chivalry contributed to a lot of the gender issues we are currently dealing with. Women are to be coveted and treated like objects for men to take and men are to be the heads protectors, essentially guard dogs, to women. It's a system that has lead to a lot of stress on both genders. More so for women I will say.

If you're going to do something nice for someone like hold the door you should do it for everyone. If you would offer your seat to a woman you should do it for everyone.

Now that being said pretending that men and women are the exact same isn't helpful either. Now I'm not talking in a sense women are inferior to men as a gender. I'm saying biological things like a woman is more likely to be weaker than a man on average. They deal with biological issues that I as a man will never have to and vice versa. As well as cultural things, women are perceived to be easier targets and therefore are often attacked more than a man.

So I might be more inclined to ask a female friend if they want walked to their car late at night than I am a male friend. Now I would still base this on the individual person but I still understand that there is a difference between a man and woman in this situation most of the time.

What I'm saying is that we are all people. We should all treat each other as people first but understand we are different and be okay with that. I do not feel Chivalry as it has become does that. It puts our genders first and sometimes as the most important thing while seeing us as people second.



Originally posted by Quincy
Wish a woman would weigh in on this discussion. Originally posted by Newjak
That would be nice.

The GDF and sub forums thereof have a bit of a gender issue...

Anybody here ever read Preacher?

Originally posted by Quincy
Anybody here ever read Preacher?

Yes, where is this going.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, where is this going.

Reminds me of Preacher.

Like, Tulip is Jesse's girlfriend right? And she's always got his back and is badass and kills everybody and can really take care of herself.

But he always tells her "Look I trust you and I love you but what I'm doing is dangerous and I don't want you to come."

I always kinda was with Jesse there, but you're right it's a sexist thought process.

Question: What's sexist?

Answer: Everything

Yes, as it's conventionally understood, it is sexist. Ideally, women and men would hold doors for each other and stuff like that without regard for gender, simply because it's polite and proper.

Originally posted by Quincy
Reminds me of Preacher.

Like, Tulip is Jesse's girlfriend right? And she's always got his back and is badass and kills everybody and can really take care of herself.

But he always tells her "Look I trust you and I love you but what I'm doing is dangerous and I don't want you to come."

I always kinda was with Jesse there, but you're right it's a sexist thought process.

Oh yeah, definitely. Jesse and Tulip do often address that as well. Like Jesse is a good person, but his actions are informed by a sexist mindset, and one that extended over society holds women back.

Originally posted by Bardock42
While I think chivalry is sexist, I don't necessarily think that means that people that are chivalrous are sexist. Definitely not consciously usually. But it still contributes to and is caused by sexist gender roles.

I think people who are not sexist at all are usually not what we call chivalrous, but courteous to everyone.

Or mean to everyone.

As long as you are consistent!

Chivalry denotes acts of kindness, not acts of discrimination or devaluation; and since sexism per definition is sex-based discrimination or devaluation chivalry does not fall under that category.

You feminazis should focus on the actual issues such as equal rights and opportunities instead of demonizing good people for good deeds.

I agree with Astner; I don't see how paying respect and honour to the gender that birthed us is sexist.


Edit: I'd like to point out I generally like helping people as much as possible, as long as it's within reason. So if we start calling THAT'S SEXIST!! on being nice to women, does that mean that I have to stop being helpful to everyone in fear of being branded a chauvinistic pig? Or you know, be respectful to everyone except women, to make sure my actions aren't misconstrued at all?

I think it is sexist to expect it. If I was a woman I would not expect a dude to be holding doors open for me or pulling out chairs for me. But if they did, I wouldn't get upset at it either. I think that is all there is to it.

I'm not to type to be chivalrous, though I did one time buy a woman a 99 cent chicken nugget at Wendy's. Even when she didn't offer to at least pay the tax for the item I said nothing.

Originally posted by Scribble
I agree with Astner; I don't see how paying respect and honour to the gender that birthed us is sexist.


Edit: I'd like to point out I generally like helping people as much as possible, as long as it's within reason. So if we start calling THAT'S SEXIST!! on being nice to women, does that mean that I have to stop being helpful to everyone in fear of being branded a chauvinistic pig? Or you know, be respectful to everyone except women, to make sure my actions aren't misconstrued at all?

Start holding doors open for men and paying them compliments on their physical features just to be safe!

Originally posted by Quincy
I wouldn't say Chivalry is sexist as much as it is just being nice.

If I offer to help an old woman put her groceries away I don't think I'm being mean as to say "YOU CANT DO THIS WITHOUT DYING PROBABLY."

It's just helpful. Giving a woman your seat or opening the door is just being courteous. I'd do the same for a guy but I doubt anyone would call that "chivalrous."

I mean, would someone say "Women and Children first" is sexist? ya women first is probably one of the most sexist things ever. Expecting a man to potentially give up his life for a woman based solely of the fact that she is a woman is pretty darn sexist.

Yeah, I agree. I can see wanting children first, but why women? This all harkens back to women and children in general. Look at this country and see how many times females are given custody of children in divorce cases over males. Almost always the child goes to the mother and it is not easy to get it to where the mother loses custody.

Yet you never see the feminists campaigning for rights saying anything about this. They want equal treatment when it benefits them, but otherwise no. Just look at the recent case of De'Andre Johnson. He was kicked off the football team for hitting a woman. Yet if you watch the video it clearly shows..yeah they grabbed each other, but SHE punched first, then he hit back. What happens? He is kicked off the team, and nothing happens to the drunk girl.

My bad..I don't need to be ranting here about the equal rights BS.

Sidenote, 'women and children first,' on evacuates was never a general policy, just something that happened in a few specific cases. Statistically, normally the male-crews had the highest survival rate, and having any specific order generally beats a mob.

And yea, it's sexist. It paints women as to-be-protected. Children, yes, of course they go first, but beyond that, it's about orderly evacing as many as possible.


Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah, I agree. I can see wanting children first, but why women? This all harkens back to women and children in general. Look at this country and see how many times females are given custody of children in divorce cases over males. Almost always the child goes to the mother and it is not easy to get it to where the mother loses custody.

Normally, that's because the mother is the primary caregiver, and because a lot of people will assume that's the case even when it's not.

If someone really is the one taking care of the kid more, then them getting priority makes sense. If not, then yea, it's BS. A male primary caregiver absolutely should have priority, because that's what the kid is used to and the kid's needs come first.



Actually, feminists do complain and fight against 'women are always the nurturer / it's a woman's job to do this.'

Stay at home dads while mom has a career if that's what the couple wants, is something feminists very strongly have been pushing for as an option for quite some time.


This is one of those things that feminists get accused of not caring about, when it's a natural result of fairly major stances of theirs. They just use different words.


The perception of what feminism 'doesn't talk about' often really doesn't reflect the reality.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yes, chivalry is sexist.

Gender equality does not include special dispensation or treatment for women.

Women can stand on public transit just as well as men. that's pretty sound reasoning... unless...

Originally posted by It's xyz!
I believe treating all humans with kindness and equality unless I want to **** them, then chivalry. unless you are trying to court them

then chivalry can act as a tactic in that regard

cause i don't think anyone can realistically say it's sexist/wrong to give people special treatment in the act of pursuing them sexually...

That's not really chivalry, is it? It's just being nice to the girl or guy you like.

Originally posted by Q99


Actually, feminists do complain and fight against 'women are always the nurturer / it's a woman's job to do this.'

Stay at home dads while mom has a career if that's what the couple wants, is something feminists very strongly have been pushing for as an option for quite some time.


This is one of those things that feminists get accused of not caring about, when it's a natural result of fairly major stances of theirs. They just use different words.



Are we talking internet femminists here? Jezebel and Tumblr.

Because, pardon my bluntness, they tend to be batshit insane idealogues, just like most internet cess pools.

Certainly, to say "every X must always be Z" is pure bigotry. On the individual level, however, a person should have a right to live as they see fit, as long as they're not stepping on someone elses rights.

Okay maybe I shouldn't of said you don't see ANY feminists talking about it, but I just rarely seem them addressing gender inequality issues that do not favor women. Custody is just one example to me. Have you ever seen women arguing that alimony should be done away with?(I know some females do pay alimony, but it is mostly males)or arguing a female should be given a harsher prison sentence due to the fact that a man would of been given one? Or that we should institute some kind of way for males to sign away any responsibility(financial, or otherwise) for children even after conception, since woman can decide after the fact they don't want to have to pay for a baby, etc. and can get rid of it via abortion, but if a man decides that..he gets put in jail for not paying child support and can have his life ruined.

If they do speak about these issues I just wish they'd be more vocal.

It used to, but feminism killed it. Women should be treated like equals. No special treatment for any race or gender.

Some women seem to want genuine equality and others seem to want it only when it benefits them.

no it is not sexist to give women special treatment because women have been mistreated for many years in are society which is a capitalist patriarchal society today and used to be a medieval patriarch society in the old days which was even worse. just because women are not outright slaves anymore does not mean the sexism is solved and this system needs to be torn down and replaced with equality . but imo there is a "sexism debt" that needs to paid back by giving women the priveleges that men have got and treating women as human beings and not property. we have not solved the sexism yet and there is a long way to go but we can all help end the sexism by accepting that it is a problem rather than denying it. thats why feminists get hate because they tell it like it is and patriarch people don't want to hear that. once the sexism debt is paid back then we will have full equality between the genders but the transition period will need some concession from the patriarch people who have kept women oppressed.

although i don't agree with the patronizing sort of special treatment where men try to overcompensate and try to do everything for women when women can take care of themselves. thats sexist imo. changing laws to fix sexism elements is what i support.

Originally posted by aalyasecura95
no it is not sexist to give women special treatment because women have been mistreated for many years in are society which is a capitalist patriarchal society today and used to be a medieval patriarch society in the old days which was even worse. just because women are not outright slaves anymore does not mean the sexism is solved and this system needs to be torn down and replaced with equality

Just..what? This is almost like saying it's okay for blacks to enslave white people because in the past whites enslaved blacks. Do you REALLY want to play this game? Fight sexism with sexism?



Are you 14 years old?

Originally posted by Surtur
Just..what? This is almost like saying it's okay for blacks to enslave white people because in the past whites enslaved blacks. Do you REALLY want to play this game? Fight sexism with sexism?



BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! Are you 14 years old? lol obviously i don't mean introducing sexism for men but i mean we should start treating women with more respect by implementing laws to level the playing field. so are focus should be on womens rights in the next few years to close the gap. i'm not talking about treating men inferior which would be sexism. just that the laws we make should be focused on improving women's lives which are still worse off compared to the men

no.

Originally posted by aalyasecura95
lol obviously i don't mean introducing sexism for men but i mean we should start treating women with more respect by implementing laws to level the playing field. so are focus should be on womens rights in the next few years to close the gap. not talking about treating men inferior which would be sexism.

no.

In what ways is the playing field not level now?

Women get equal pay, they are more likely to be believed over a man. They are more likely to get a more lenient sentence in prison for violent crimes when compared to men. In the sciences and math they are more likely to be hired now. They are more likely to see favorable results in custody battles in court. It's more acceptable for a woman to be violent towards a man than vice versa, etc. I don't have people holding open doors and pulling out chairs for me in this day and age, women still have that as well.

In what way do we need to give them even more respect? Give me an example. The wage gap and rape culture are bunk, but I'm sure you have other stuff.

Originally posted by Surtur
In what ways is the playing field not level now?

- in media like games and films, where women are still stereotyped

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6p5AZp7r_Q

- in jobs, where women are far less likely to be CEOs and other high ranking positions like president (which is why hillary's run is so special). they are also more likely to be fired from these jobs.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/17/female-ceos-more-likely-than-men-to-be-fired

- in wages where women have a gap with men but how far behind is up for dispute although women are definitely behind and some say 20 cents behind and even worse for the other cultures

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/if-you-care-about-closing-the-gender-wage-gap-read-this-before-you-vote/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=tw&utm_campaign=20161101feed_equalpay


- in maternity pay where women still aren't treated properly in america but rest of world has made progress. this is not a right that men have but women need to have it.

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/mt/2014/06/Screen_Shot_2014_06_20_at_7.47.55_AM/lead_large.png

- in workplace where women are more likely to be sexual harassed and treated unequally

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/19/1-in-3-women-sexually-harassed-work-cosmopolitan_n_6713814.html


just tip of iceberg.

Oh honey..did..I..lol. I just feel bad at this point, like picking on a kid in a wheelchair.

You seriously linked me to an article from HilaryClinton.com

Oh and the Huff Post. Bless your heart child.

At this point what can I say in the face of that massive amount of evidence you just bombed me with?!

well whatever the evidence is there and you can ignore it but the feminist movement will keep going whatever happens. your arrogant tone is so typical of patriarch types but you won't be so smug when hillary gets elected and changes start to happen. also nothing wrong with citing huffpost and hillaryclinton.com when they actually get statistics from well known research and have no reason to really lie at all... unlike far right websites that make propaganda.

I just..wow. This is why social justice needs to be left out of colleges.

I'm really getting tired of all the grammar in here. It's gotta stop guys.

Originally posted by aalyasecura95
well whatever the evidence is there and you can ignore it but the feminist movement will keep going whatever happens. your arrogant tone is so typical of patriarch types but you won't be so smug when hillary gets elected and changes start to happen. also nothing wrong with citing huffpost and hillaryclinton.com when they actually get statistics from well known research and have no reason to really lie at all... unlike far right websites that make propaganda.

Okay look I will genuinely try to engage you a bit. You talk about things like the wage gap and stuff, but there isn't a wage gap. That doesn't mean there isn't a gap, there is a gap. But it's not with wages, but earnings.

Scenario: You and I both are equally skilled at a certain profession. We both get a job where we are paid the exact same wage. After a year has gone by, it's not guaranteed we will have made the same amount of money though, because you have to take into account not just how much someone is paid, but how often they work. If I work 5 days a week and you work 4 days a week, I'm going to earn more money than you in a year, even though we are doing the same job with the same pay.

Stuff like that is what causes the gap. Studies show that, on average, women tend to work less hours than men. Studies show that, on average, women tend to take more time off of work than men do(not counting maternity leave).

There is an earnings gap, and that is where the whole thing of "a woman earns 77 cents for every dollar a man earns" comes from. On top of that, the gap seems to shrink even more when you consider the professions out there where your experience can play a part in your wages as well. There are a lot of variables here and when push comes to shove..if you could just legally pay a woman less then every business would hire nothing but females..right?

This is an example of ways people are mislead. People do the same thing with the rape culture in regards to the claims of "1 and 5 women are sexually assaulted". People put that kind of stat out there without really giving any context and looking at the specific studies they pull that stuff from. Now here is the problem with that: sexual assault still exists. Even if that stat is wrong, it doesn't mean it's not a problem. In other words, there is no logical reason to even inflate this issue into something it isn't..because we still have actual sexual assaults to deal with. So people just end up doing more harm than good with this type of propaganda.

So when I'm snarky she can respond but when I come with facts...*crickets chirping* . Alrighty then.

lol forgot about this. and i don't see any facts there so sorry. just typical propoganda that is spewed to apoligize for the patriarch people who pay women less...... there is no justification for there actions.

Originally posted by aalyasecura95
lol forgot about this. and i don't see any facts there so sorry. just typical propoganda that is spewed to apoligize for the patriarch people who pay women less...... there is no justification for there actions.

I don't even understand how you can respond like this given the "facts" you provided about the wage gap. It's not like I didn't read your links. Maybe you should look closely, because the link makes the claim that Trump's campaign pays women less than men, which even if true..I'm not quite sure if you understand that has nothing to do with the wage gap?

Furthermore, the rest of the "facts" in the article are just them saying the 77 cent thing, only now it's apparently up to 80 cents.

Which I already explained to you where that comes from in the first place, and how it has to do with earnings.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/if-you-care-about-closing-the-gender-wage-gap-read-this-before-you-vote/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=tw&utm_campaign=20161101feed_equalpay

Just in case you missed it, there is the very link you gave me about this. It's actually downright troubling an article like that is on what I can only assume is Hilary's official website.

Also when you complain about women and their portrayal in video games it just sounds like utter nonsense. 95% of all villains in games are men. In fact, pretty much any time you are fighting an enemy that isn't a robot in a game, it's a man you are killing. Do you see men whining that games are anti-men? Are people getting upset at every media portrayal which shows men as bumbling doofuses?

As for things like there are not a lot of women CEO's, do you think perhaps the fact women on average tend to not work as many hours as men do and tend to take more time off work than men do has anything to do with that?

You also talk about maternity pay as a reason that there isn't equality. Or in the fact the phrase I used was "in what ways is the playing field not level". I'm not saying our ways with maternity pay are perfect.

On the other hand, are men also given time off after the birth for maternity leave? Do men get maternity leave at all? I admit, I don't know much about the maternity issue. So you might indeed have a point with that I do not know. Since I just figure yeah..a woman has to take off once she gets to a certain stage in her pregnancy. But it's not like once she has the kid she is just back at work in a few days, right? The maternity leave usually extends to like..spending a few weeks or even months caring for the baby?

Kindness is love and isn't a bad thing.

Expecting some special treatment for yourself or group that you don't think another group should get is arrogant and selfish.

Opening the door isn't flirting, it's the patriarchy's way of saying I AM A MAN AND YOU ARE A FEEBLE WEAK WOMAN WHOSE ARMS ARE TOO FRAGILE TO OPEN DOORS.

I love equality though, no more of this "female push ups" bullshit. Do it like a man, ladies, not a pussy.

I can't wait for the MWNBA. Men and Women's National Basketball Association. It will be grrrreat. Even if only 3 people watched, that is 2 more people than the WNBA gets to watch their games.

Missionary and doggy position is sexist. It implies male dominance over the female. Cowgirl isn't sexist though, because I don't like you poking holes in my logic.

And also against girls who identify as reverse cows.

But now they're in reverse.

Doggystyle isn't just sexist, it's racist against dogs.

Speaking of sexism, I feel really bad when men are sexist against women. I lose sleep whenever a male judge gives a woman a more lenient sentence for a violent crime. It hurts me to know that awful patriarch has hurt her with his patriarch ways. If I had a daughter I doubt I could even look her in the eye knowing the utter monster that is my gender wouldn't treat her fairly in a court.

The concept of chivalry is only sexist if you interpret it as men viewing women as in a position of weakness, thus, aiding them.

But, here's the wubba lubba dub-dub: The entire feminist movement is based on the idea that women are in a position of weakness, thus, need an organized movement to aid them.

If chivalry is sexist, then by that same logic, feminism is sexist. It's a double-edged sword.

Is that something feminists are willing to accept in their crusade against chivalry?

Originally posted by MovieFreak92
The concept of chivalry is only sexist if you interpret it as men viewing women as in a position of weakness, thus, aiding them.

But, here's the wubba lubba dub-dub: The entire feminist movement is based on the idea that women are in a position of weakness, thus, need an organized movement to aid them.

If chivalry is sexist, then by that same logic, feminism is sexist. It's a double-edged sword.

Is that something feminists are willing to accept in their crusade against chivalry?

This entire argument is based on an equivocation fallacy.