Originally posted by Clovie
Just curious... why being a lesbian makes woman capable to carry 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"Special treatment" is vague. I provided specifics, in attitude as well as concrete behaviors.
Well, considering that a definition of chivalry was provided...
Originally posted by TzeentchNo, not entirely, as "special treatment" can include "being nice" to women simply because they are women.
Yeah, "being nice to everybody in general" is an entirely separate concept and topic.
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 MindshipIf 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.
"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.
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 TzeentchI'm seeing things quite clearly, thank you. Forgive me my inappropriate post.
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 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...
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.
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.
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.
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?