Is "Chivalry" Sexist?

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?

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.

Yet you never see the feminists campaigning for rights saying anything about this.

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.

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

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?

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.

Are you 14 years old?