word!Flare Phoenix said:Well there is a difference between wanting to do nice things for people, and been expected to do it based on your gender.
word!Flare Phoenix said:Well there is a difference between wanting to do nice things for people, and been expected to do it based on your gender.
You mistake the thrust of my argument, good sir or madam, by equating chivalry with an unbending and overwhelmingly gender-based manner of conduct. There is more to the idea of chivalry than its constituent gestures, which indeed need not of necessity be based wholly on gender in the first place.Uskis said:First off, no, I'm not articulating your point in my post
You contradict yourself a bit in my opinion. You agree that the rigid dichotomy of sex-based gender is an anachronism, but still defend reproducing it through using constructs like "fairer sex". It's not apparently condescending, but it is attributing a certain characteristic to persons based on their sex, which becomes problematic, since the idea of a sex being fairer excludes them from certain actions. Women doing jobs or actions not being associated with what accords to the idea of "fair" will be seen as "not normal". My point is not that you should treat all people "SAME", but that we should move away from treating people on basis of their sex, and what the norm dictates. This will give us a freedom to not have to conform to sex-based gender stereotypes.
That's why I have a beef with chivalry. It's a one-way street with regards to gender. Holding the door is a bad example, because it falls under the category of general politeness, but holding the chair is a great example. Does it work both ways? Can a woman do this as a romantic gesture, or would that be seen as taking away the masculinity of the man? Chivalry is a tired stereotype in my opinion. It is exactly just those small gestures in our society, since no-one links it to all that other obsolete code-of-conduct described by another poster earlier.
This.Uskis said:You agree that the rigid dichotomy of sex-based gender is an anachronism, but still defend reproducing it through using constructs like "fairer sex". It's not apparently condescending, but it is attributing a certain characteristic to persons based on their sex, which becomes problematic, since the idea of a sex being fairer excludes them from certain actions. Women doing jobs or actions not being associated with what accords to the idea of "fair" will be seen as "not normal".
See, a lot of people have stated this but this appears to miss the point that the anti-chivalry crowd I'm espousing are stating. I'm not arguing that chivalry is bad because it's manipulative; people are all manipulative whether or not they like to admit it. I'm saying that chivalry is bad because it is ideologically worthless; it achieves nothing that can't be done in a way that wouldn't entail enforcing gender roles upon the unwilling. Unless there's some valid justification as to why women deserve different treatment to men (and 'I want to sleep with them' isn't good enough unless you want to sleep with all women) then there's simply no logical reason for chivalry.Altorin said:The idea of chivalry makes sexist men think they can somehow act nice to get past the defenses of women and when it doesn't work, they get indignant, and feel that they deserve some sort of cookie for being nice.
Not necessarily overwhelming, but still gendered. If a woman takes out a mans chair, would that make a person less chivalrous because he is being serviced and is not servicing?MarxII said:You mistake the thrust of my argument, good sir or madam, by equating chivalry with an unbending and overwhelmingly gender-based manner of conduct. There is more to the idea of chivalry than its constituent gestures, which indeed need not of necessity be based wholly on gender in the first place.
Though you are right to point out that the medieval code of conduct no longer adequately describes chivalry, it remains in truth a tired stereotype only in the minds of those seeking attention by way of a crusade that was won some time ago.
I agree, but women can't have their cake and eat it too.Jack Ebersole said:The breakdown of traditional gender roles killed it.
Missed the point. You hold the door open for everyone or noone. But "Chivalry" as the quoted poster expressed it is to hold a door open only for women and not for men. And that is sexist and not nice.TU4AR said:Being nice is sexist apparently.Kashrlyyk said:I just highlighted all the sexist parts in your post that mysteriously you missed, when you whined about women being treated like men a.k.a like an equal person.
I think it is incredible disturbing to see someone in the year 2011 crawling up womens asses that much, as expressed here in your post:
So I have a question to ask you, in Australia, are the drug and alcohol programs aimed at Aboriginies racist?
This, most will walk past without even seeing you, and when you are tired and don't, you are suddenly noticed and called rude :| But it is still worth it at the end of the day, I find. The few friends and my girlfriend who appreciate are worth b\it so what the hangJohnnyallstar said:Not in me. I always am chivalrous, even though a lot of women don't appreciate it as much as they should.
I always attempt to be a gentleman first, but it's a losing game.