Chivalry = sexism?!

[HEMI6point1]

I am going to "break off" a piece of another thread I created, because it deserves its own thread.

After recounting an incident that a friend of mine told me that I wrote about in that thread, it got me google searching.

I'm not going to give links, but if you google "Are women offended by Chivalry" or the like, you'll get plenty of hits. Now granted, many of these blogs and articles are written by new-generation feminists, so I don't know how unbiased they are.

But the gist of the feminist written ones was:

Women "should be offended" by common acts of Chivalry such as: Holding the door for her, pulling her chair out, taking her coat off, opening the car door for her, etc because it "insinuates that women are not independent enough to do those things herself and they need a man to do it for them."

Besides the obvious indoctrination ("should be offended"), I seriously doubt that a man ever did those things insinuating that a woman cannot do those things herself.

----

Then there is the subject that keeps popping up on articles and blogs that I browsed about is another form of Chivalry: who should pay for meal on the first date?

To me, it's simple: THE MAN ALWAYS PAYS ON THE FIRST DATE, or maybe even the second date. It sends a subtle message that he's going to be a good provider.

Some time ago as I was driving to work, the Paul and Young Ron radio show were talking about this subject. (If you live or ever lived in South Florida, you know how they are). A woman called in about a recent first date she had, and this was part of the conversation:

Woman: Well at the end of the dinner I offered to pay, and he accepted!

Paul: Ok, so what's so wrong with that?

Woman: I mean, is he cheap or something?! Should I go out with him again?!

Paul: That's your call but don't offer to pay then call him cheap!

After the call ended a local comedian sitting in with them said it best: "She was testing him and he fell for it so bad."

[NecCat]

I think you might be asking the wrong questions. I don't know what 'women' are offended by, or how they all feel about who pays what on a date. I can tell you what I feel (woman) but I don't think there is a group consensus, any more than there is on how women feel about the colour pink, about bunny rabbits, about having children or about yellow cars. I don't know that it's inherently sexist to act chivalrous, with the examples you gave. It's a form of sexism to not bother reacting to how an individual woman feels in a situation, because you think (or friend in the previous example thinks) women should... whatever.

My personal preference, for the chivalry, every now and again is ok, but if a guy wants to hold doors and chairs and coats for me all the time, I'm going to get annoyed with it quick. As far as paying, after the first date, if I think there is going to be a second, I don't mind if he wants to pay himself, or to split it. If he wants me to pay the whole thing I will, and there won't be a second date. If, after the first date, there is not going to be a second date I AM splitting the check with him, even if that means the waitress gets a 80% tip (ie he wont 'let' me pay my share), and if he payed for the first date I will be paying for the second. Again, if he won't 'let' me pay, huge red flag, makes me feel like he is going to try to use money to control me in the relationship, so I just won't have one with him.

**opinions expressed belong only to the poster, and do not reflect the opinions of the entire gender**

[Gravekeeper]

I think you might be asking the wrong questions. I don't know what 'women' are offended by, or how they all feel about who pays what on a date. I can tell you what I feel (woman) but I don't think there is a group consensus, any more than there is on how women feel about the colour pink, about bunny rabbits, about having children or about yellow cars.

Yes, this was the original problem in the thread this came from. Chivalry in the example wasn't the issue. The Friend was not listening to what his date wanted was the problem. He continued to be "chivalrous" after she asked him to stop twice. Then on the third time when she objected he told her he thought women liked it. Despite her saying otherwise twice already.

To me, it's simple: THE MAN ALWAYS PAYS ON THE FIRST DATE, or maybe even the second date. It sends a subtle message that he's going to be a good provider.

Man, what decade are you posting from? No wonder the modern world confounds you so. >.>

[KabeRinnaul]

many of these blogs and articles are written by new-generation feminists, so I don't know how unbiased they are.

...

Besides the obvious indoctrination ("should be offended"), I seriously doubt that a man ever did those things insinuating that a woman cannot do those things herself.

Just gonna stop here a moment and point out the assumption that feminist ideas are grounded in bias and indoctrination before moving on.

...okay, let's proceed.

There's nothing wrong with holding doors, in and of itself. However, once a woman has expressed to you that she'd rather you not do that, as she's perfectly capable of doing it herself, it's time to stop. When you ignore her and keep doing it, or suggest she should just accept it as proper, or in any way put your ideas about what's polite above how she wants to be treated, you're wrong. At that point, you're not respecting the woman, you're dismissing her agency as an individual and asserting yourself as superior to her.

It may be a polite way of saying "it's a man's place to do this, and a woman's place to accept it — know your place," but that remains the message you send.

Paying is similar. No reasonable person will fault you for offering to pay for the dinner. But once you force the issue, you're once again putting you ideals above her preferences.

Just imagine you were doing this stuff to a same-sex friend while going to lunch together. If you think getting every door for him and demanding he let you pay his share would be offensive to him, then it would probably be offensive to a female partner as well.

And that's the whole point. Feminism isn't a vast conspiracy to undermine the Good And Proper Male Upbringing, it's the desire to be treated as equals to men. If you start doing things to or for someone because she's a woman, and continue to do them against her wishes, it's a problem.

[Andara Bledin]

Besides the obvious indoctrination ("should be offended"), I seriously doubt that a man ever did those things insinuating that a woman cannot do those things herself.

Well, leaving aside that chivalry is about a hell of a lot more than just the whole women thing, the entirety of the reason for doing anything for women doesn't mention women, only "the weak."

Basically, being "chivalrous" by name is specifically treating women as weak.

Then we get into your word choices, which are troublesome at best.

New-generation feminists. Indoctrination. The male being the de facto provider.

There are an awful lot of assumptions in your posts that you don't state outright, but that are obvious by the way you choose your words and how you frame your argument. Whether or not the sources you found are biased, you most certainly are.

Now, onto the specifics:

If you want to hold a door for someone, but only because that someone is female, you're being sexist. You might think you're being 'chivalrous' or 'gentlemanly' but those are outdated ideals that passed out of relevance a long time ago, the former being centuries out of date and part of a much larger code that men seem perfectly fine ignoring while applying only the bit about women.

My fiance holds doors for me. I hold doors for him. We both hold doors for random people who might be passing through around the same time we are. Neither of us cares or worries about the gender, age, race, etc of those people, nor do we give a fig about who might hold a door for us. Because we do it to be kind, and not as some form of showing off to try to impress someone.

See, that last line? That's the problem, in a nutshell. People acting chivalrous with the goal of acting chivalrous are doing it for themselves with the aim of impressing someone with false kindness as opposed to just doing things that other people want and appreciate. This is particularly obvious when some who attempt chivalry then go on to be upset that someone requested they not perform those actions, as if it's somehow the recipient's duty to accept and appreciate what are typically romantic advances.

As for the whole who pays thing, that's a lot stickier since women are able to provide for themselves and no longer need to seek out a man to do the providing. Of course, it's been like that for far longer than most of us have been alive, so one might wonder why we're still clinging to outdated conventions. Again. Still.

Maybe if you want a prospective mate to view you as an equal, it would be good to start off by treating them as one.

[HYHYBT]

**opinions expressed belong only to the poster, and do not reflect the opinions of the entire gender**

This is an important point. If you're discussing things as if all women, or all men, or all (any group not specifically organized around the single specific idea you're assigning them) are alike, then that's a problem.

If you want to hold a door for someone, but only because that someone is female, you're being sexist.

Right. You avoid behaving in a racist manner mainly by doing your best not to treat people differently based on race; avoiding sexist behavior works the same way. Do not read that as saying you should treat your date like a stranger you have no interest in, but whenever you get into "I'm the man, so I do this; she's the woman, so she ought to like it and if she doesn't then she's the problem" you're on the wrong track.

As for paying... it would make sense to me that in most cases it would make more sense for the person who asked the other out to pay (or perhaps the one who chose where they went together, since that largely determines the cost) than to go by who happens to be male. Or something like when my brother, his wife, and I saw a movie the other day: they bought my ticket, not because of what sex any of us are or anything like that, but because they got to the theater first. I'll get them something another time, and it will even out or close enough eventually.

(And please don't turn this part into a derailment, but this seems to me one of those ways better acceptance and visibility for gay couples would benefit straight people. If both are women or both are men, defaulting to "the man does this and the woman does that" isn't an option.)

[Bloodsoul]

I'll derail it! Sort of… I was just thinking the other day that the next time I have a first date I'll suggest that the two of us order our favorite meals (or reasonable facsimile), and then swap them, each getting an idea of what the other likes.

I would also have to ask if the date has any food allergies, so that our first non-restaurant menu won't be our last.

[HEMI6point1]

Just to be clear: I hold doors open for everyone, if someone is behind me, I'll hold it open for them. It's just the nice thing to do.

Now I won't make the same mistake my buddy did regarding chivalry. If I take a girl out and she tells me, "Don't do that," regarding holding the door, etc, then I'll stop.

Regarding paying for the first date: I heard stories that if a woman insists on paying then that is code for "I don't think this is going well so this is the last time I'm seeing you," as in the case here.

Now if a woman offers?

As for the whole who pays thing, that's a lot stickier since women are able to provide for themselves and no longer need to seek out a man to do the providing.

I figured someone would bring that up. I would be okay with a woman offering to pay, but I would be a afraid that she's doing it as a "test" to see if the man is "cheap," like the woman who called in to the radio show.

Like the host told her, why offer then complain about it when he takes you up on it?

[TheHuckster]

I think Gravekeeper nailed it on the head: If you do things on a date that your date finds annoying or wishes you'd cease, then you should cease them. I mean, that sounds like Dating 101 to me, but I guess some people still haven't gotten it. If, for whatever reason, you cannot honor your date's wishes, your future relationship is doomed. This is especially true for first dates. If, after you've established a relationship and you've reached some sort of impasse, then you can talk about it, but for the first date, it's all about first impressions, and if her first impression of you is that you won't listen to her wishes, then the chances of any successful relationship is very low.

My wife is a very strong, independent woman. She has a higher degree than me, works as hard (or harder sometimes) than me, and contributes to our budget. She, personally, likes some of the flattery that comes on a date, such as holding the car door or being given flowers... and I do those things for her because she likes it. And she doesn't consider it a sexist gesture at all. Agree or disagree, that's her (or our) business. Had she expressed she didn't like that, I'd have stopped and wouldn't even think twice about it. We consider ourselves equals regarding career advancement, family planning, education, and household duties... and along with that comes listening to eachother and expressing what we want in the other. If she wants to be treated old-fashioned sometimes when we have a romantic night out, then so be it, but I only do it because she likes it, NOT because I feel like she should like it.

That's the difference in all of this. The OP disagrees with the notion that one "should be offended" by gestures like this, and to that part I agree. I don't think people should tell others what they should like or dislike, especially in something personal like romance and dating. However, the OP should extend that to understand that there also shouldn't be this notion that one "should be flattered" by chivalry.

[Kheldarson]

Besides the obvious indoctrination ("should be offended"), I seriously doubt that a man ever did those things insinuating that a woman cannot do those things herself.

I knew a guy who did. Except it wasn't cannot; it was shouldn't. And it drove me batty because I'm already in a situation where I feel like I'm having to prove myself (we were coworkers at a Boy Scout Camp) but further because we weren't dating! He'd literally take things from me saying they were too heavy, refuse to let me help him team lift, etc. Never mind I was perfectly capable of doing these things when he was off, or that I had an exercise regime for track that lifting helped with; nope, I'm a girl and shouldn't do these things.

[AccountingDrone]

<shrug> I started my dating career in the late 1970s and *unfortunately* there was a certain subset of men who would pressure a woman into putting out sex because they paid for everything, or by threatening to strand you if they drove somewhere more than a convenient walking distance from home/other transportation. [I did once walk home about 5 miles - little did the jackass know that while he opted to go to a particular great little place in a remote railway station converted into a hotel, I had a friend on a horse farm 'around the corner' - well country corners, so it was roughly 5 miles to the farm. He was nice and gave me a ride home.] I long made it a policy to drive myself *alone both directions* and always pay for myself. Then there was the 'nice boy' who was the son of a business associate of my Dad who tried to rape me in the dark back corner of the Penny Arcade in Rochester when a band I was friends with and occasionally subbed for bass player or light/sound human for was playing and he got his ass handed to him by the band, the crew and 3 bouncers who were also friends. Oops. Don't mess with someone if you don't know the venue or their friends.

[Kuari]

I can tell you this: if a guy were to not listen to my requests and claim it is due to some sense of chivalry I will likely do one or all of the following:

1) laugh in his face
2) call him an asshole
3) educate him on what chivalry really is (several years in the SCA as well as a lot of independent research on the subject).
4) walk away and tell him to forget my contact information because I am so done

There is being a gentleman and there is being a huge dick, and any man who refuses to acquiesce to a woman's requests is a dick. Especially when it is over something as small as always holding a door open for them, pulling out their chairs, insisting on paying for the entire date, etc. That smacks of the man's need to have some sort of control over the woman and getting pissy about getting called on it by trying to label it 'chivalry' or being a 'gentleman'. If the man - and I am using the term losely here - cannot respect a woman's request then he is being neither chivalric or gentlemanly. End of story.

[wolfie]

I can tell you this: if a guy were to not listen to my requests and claim it is due to some sense of chivalry I will likely do one or all of the following:

Bit of trivia: the root of the word "chivalry" is "cheval" (French for "horse"). It's a standard of behaviour that was expected from horsemen (i.e. the upper crust - who could afford horses). When a guy "acts out of chivalry" and goes against a woman's stated desire, the only horse involved is the guy being a horse's ass.

[Andara Bledin]

I figured someone would bring that up. I would be okay with a woman offering to pay, but I would be a afraid that she's doing it as a "test" to see if the man is "cheap," like the woman who called in to the radio show.

Don't be afraid. Honestly, if someone does something like that to 'test' you, fuck 'em.

You don't need someone who likes to play games and 'test' you. It's immature and insecure and a sign of other issues nobody should have to deal with. If someone does that, you should thank them for letting you know so early that they're not a good match.

[Hyena Dandy]

Regarding paying for the first date: I heard stories that if a woman insists on paying then that is code for "I don't think this is going well so this is the last time I'm seeing you," as in the case here.

If the woman in question can't just up and say "I don't think this is going well" then screw that shit. I want women who speak English, not magic ladyspeak.

I figured someone would bring that up. I would be okay with a woman offering to pay, but I would be a afraid that she's doing it as a "test" to see if the man is "cheap,"

That's a 'test' I'm happy to fail. If the person I'm on a date with doesn't want to COMMUNICATE in our relationship, then I'll happily take the free meal, since that was the best thing I would get out of the deal anyway.