I've had some recent experiences with what would probably best be described as "chivalry." It reminds me of a bunch of very instructive class discussions that I had when I was teaching Intro to Women's Studies at Hunter College about gender roles within heterosexual romantic love. My students--by and large--still liked the idea of differentiated expectations, including monetarily, for women and men within a dating context.
Here's what Dictionary.com has to tell me about this loaded word, chivalry:
1. the sum of the ideal qualifications of a knight, including courtesy, generosity, valor, and dexterity in arms.
2. the rules and customs of medieval knighthood.
3. the medieval system or institution of knighthood.
4. a group of knights.
5. gallant warriors or gentlemen: fair ladies and noble chivalry.
6. Archaic. a chivalrous act; gallant deed.
I've been thinking a lot about where chivalry and care taking coincide. I think relationships--of any variety--should be based on a mutual commitment to care taking for one another (in addition to a slew of other qualities). I rub your back, you rub mine...in all it's forms (dishes, love letters, oral sex, oh my.)
So can there be equality within chivalry? Can we reclaim old behaviors, like the somewhat ridiculous convention of opening a car door for someone, if we do it in our own way, within feminist relationships? Or does it all still stink of an earlier time when women were property and men were pursuers? (Think the gross "Take Back the Date" bullshit that the Independent Women's Forum is always pushing.)
As with all things thorny and romance-related, it seems like this ultimately has everything to do with your own relationship to the chivalry being bestowed on you. If having my car door opened makes me feel like lover man thinks I'm an invalid, not so feminist. If, instead, it strikes me as his way of expressing that he wants me to feel seen, appreciated, taken care of, it might actually feel like a fairly feminist act.
I'm experiencing chivalry in a heterosexual context. Breaking down the historic intertwining of chivalry and masculinity could be fun for me, and fun for folks in queer relationships. What does it look like for a woman to be chivalrous? Or have we been disproportionately chivalrous for hundreds of years while care taking within relationships with major domestic labor imbalance? (I can totally hear my childhood best friend right now exasperated and shouting, "Courtney, can you just enjoy some frickin' flowers for once?" hehe).
Your thoughts people?
*Confession: I'm also reading A Vindication of Love by Cristina Nehring, which has got me spinning on all of this stuff. A book review to come...
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Chivalry Doesn't Seem So Dead .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16297
It's issues like this where I sometimes get confused as to why "feminist" is a relevant term. If we assume that feminism is a push for equality, then opening a car door for someone (or having it opened for you) is not feminist regardless of the intent behind it or the value you place on the action. But whether it's ok or not is up to you, and if you each like your particular ends of the exchange, then it's perfectly fine and you have no need to justify it.
A lot of times I'll read comments or posts and it will feel as if people aren't comfortable with doing something unless they can somehow define it as being feminist, which is unnecessarily limiting. I can understand that if someone pushes for equality as a rule, then enjoying something where they're getting the good end of an imbalance might feel hypocritical, but you like what you like. There are probably instances where, yeah, it might really be hypocritical, but usually I read these and think the person is being too hard on themselves or playing too many mental games to feel comfortable with something they have no need to apologize for liking.
The way I figure, if you want to be able to call your relationship equal (or feminist), then all the two of you really need to do is default to the most equal solution in instances where you disagree on what's acceptable. But if you're both into what could be perceived as imbalanced with regards to certain specifics, then run with it. Trying to define it in an "acceptable" way is just a lot of effort put forth to get yourself to the same place.
I think it depends purely upon the context. In the South, it is expected for men to hold the door open for women and when I'm up north I have to consciously note that what might seem like a chivalric gesture to me could very well come across as condescending to her.
We all have a tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater in making reforms. I think the actual custom of chivalry is a charming one. In my own life, my girlfriend and I make a point to equally vary who pays for what. If, for example, I pay for groceries this time, she'll cover them the next time. I suppose one could carry this over into who opens the door for who, depending on the circumstances. The larger point is that a kind of determined female independence, while I understand its intent, often forgets that we all need each other, regardless of gender distinctions, and that societies with large amounts of cooperation rather than isolation tend to be healthier and more functional.
I think you raise an important point about expectations. I personally don't always like it when guys are really quick to open the door for me or pay for stuff, and I try to remind myself that they might feel like that's what they're supposed to do and not reflect on how it is anti-feminist. If the first date goes well and I'm interested in more, I usually let the first time slide and later have a chat with them about how I feel about chivalry and how I'd like to, for example, pay the next time. Hostility toward that suggestion is more what I would interpret as a red flag.
"Hostility toward that suggestion is more what I would interpret as a red flag."
Same here.
Chivilry's original intent as enforced by Eleanor of Aquitaine was to have women treated better than what they were originally treated with. Its not like she couldve wriiten a feminist intellectual work and had that followed by the men of her time. She had to get as close to good treatment that she could get with what she had at the time and that was accomplished by holding the way you treat a woman to status and class. It was really about the man using a woman as a prop to say something about himself, but at least it got European society to start associating kinder treatment towards women with civility.
We all love Lorde's wisdom in those eternal feminist words -- "The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house" -- but we must also recognize that we cannot reject everything with such origins/connections: we will be left without a language or a stitch, stark naked and silenced because the whole world is associated. The key, I think, lies in repossessing and redefining.
Yes, feminists can enjoy chivalry -- be it male or female. I'm going to say that feminists can enjoy anything that doesn't harm others, if done conscientiously.
I cannot reject every norm or every socialized construct of romance; I am a creature of this world and I was taught to like these things. My brain is an animal operating off stimuli and internalization; I have considerably little control over what I feel in response to the world around me. I can't think away the fact that I enjoy being "taken on a date" by my partner. And I say "taken on" instead of "going on" because -- yes -- sometimes he pays. And sometimes I do. And most of the time we use our joint account.
He and I both, however, can understand why we do what we do, and why those roles are antiquated. But if once a year we decide we want to do things the way our parents did them because it's fun for us, not because we have to or it's expected, that's fine. Just as it's okay to want to be submissive in the bedroom if it gets my rocks off, it's alright to act out other things that give me pleasure now and then.
Traditionally, female chivalry has been, as you mention, care-taking. It's the same concept, but with different words. Both men and women provide food for each other as an expression of love: in retro-tradition, men buy it at a restaurant and women cook it at home. Same function, two names: chivalry vs. care-taking. The frequency of the two, however, and the power dynamics of money vs. service have made them unequal.
Still working with the food provision example, then, a feminist chivalry would be one in which men and women provide food for each other through means that are balanced in the amount of power they give (to their partner) and take (from their partner).
"but we must also recognize that we cannot reject everything with such origins/connections: we will be left without a language or a stitch, stark naked and silenced because the whole world is associated. The key, I think, lies in repossessing and redefining."
YES. Exactly.
I've said this before, but I think that feminism is more about changing and rethinking contexts than it is about dismantling cultural/historical influences. Otherwise, what would we be left with? Human history is about progression, not starting from scratch.
So many of our words/actions/customs are pregnant with connotations of a patriarchal past. A simple gesture like opening a car door can be construed as a suggestion that women are property. Isn't that a far stretch to cross--the opening a door and commodifying women? Yet I'm sure anyone could fill the gaps in between; it is in our collective consciousness. Can we and should we break ourselves off from that?
It may seem like 'cheating' when we reclaim a notion like chivalry. If we hate the notion so much, why didn't we abolish it altogether? But we would be acting very deliberately and unnaturally it we did; we would be thinking about all the meaning behind opening a door, paying a check, being polite. And that in itself is limiting and and restrictive--the antithesis of feminism.
So instead of rejecting chivarly altogether, I'd rather think of it in different terms, living in today's world. He may think he's being chivalrous when he opens the door for me, but when I open the door for him next time, he may realize that chivalry means more that what it used to.
"but we must also recognize that we cannot reject everything with such origins/connections: we will be left without a language or a stitch, stark naked and silenced because the whole world is associated. The key, I think, lies in repossessing and redefining."
YES. Exactly.
I've said this before, but I think that feminism is more about changing and rethinking contexts than it is about dismantling cultural/historical influences. Otherwise, what would we be left with? Human history is about progression, not starting from scratch.
So many of our words/actions/customs are pregnant with connotations of a patriarchal past. A simple gesture like opening a car door can be construed as a suggestion that women are property. Isn't that a far stretch to cross--the opening a door and commodifying women? Yet I'm sure anyone could fill the gaps in between; it is in our collective consciousness. Can we and should we break ourselves off from that?
It may seem like 'cheating' when we reclaim a notion like chivalry. If we hate the notion so much, why didn't we abolish it altogether? But we would be acting very deliberately and unnaturally it we did; we would be thinking about all the meaning behind opening a door, paying a check, being polite. And that in itself is limiting and and restrictive--the antithesis of feminism.
So instead of rejecting chivarly altogether, I'd rather think of it in different terms, living in today's world. He may think he's being chivalrous when he opens the door for me, but when I open the door for him next time, he may realize that chivalry means more that what it used to.
Full disclosure: I was a debutant. For real.
I grew up in the South in a community of people who absolutely positively believe in chivalry. And it really doesn't bother me. Yeah, I was a little miffed at the point where I was stuck in a puffy white dress and participating in a bizarre, choreographed ball dance comprised mostly of spinning around in circles but there was cake later so it was all good.
I've participated in a lot of events that I'm sure the Feministing readership would disapprove of. I haven't opened a door or pushed an elevator button all day. I lived in California for a while and it honestly took me some time to get used to the fact that men didn't open doors for me.
Even so, I have had to put some thought into how chivalry should play into my relationship. My boyfriend adheres to the "somewhat ridiculous convention of opening a car door" for me and I don't mind. He also proofs the writing that I do for local feminist publications. I help him study for exams. We both cook for each other and we almost always split the tab when we go out to eat. I feel that we have an equal relationship and if he wants to open the car door for me I'm not going to argue. Maybe it's just the way I grew up. I'll admit that my experience is pretty unique. But I guess what it comes down to for me is expectations. I expect to be treated as an equal in a relationship and I hope that my partner expects the same.
Sorry for the semi-long reply.
If my wife were to go to work and tell her colleagues that she wakes me up for work 5 days a week (I don't like alarm clocks), brings me hot tea to ease daybreak, makes me a hot breakfast and packs my lunch, does the laundry and the dishes, the shopping and the cooking for dinner -- her friends would think she had regressed to the 1950s (or earlier), was being horribly oppressed, and they would tell her so in no uncertain terms.
That doesn't happen.
Instead, she will on occasion mention at work that I do all of that for her.
Interestingly, her friends will say "he really loves you"; and for us, it's kind of like that, and has been so for 33 years.
Courtney's childhood best friend is right: "can you just enjoy some frickin' flowers for once?"
I think because of the current power dynamics and the construct of gender it would be rational to use the 50's construct and not the other way around. Guys bever had a subordinate precedent so I dont think youve got it quite right.
I think because of the current power dynamics and the construct of gender it would be rational to use the 50's construct and not the other way around. Guys bever had a subordinate precedent so I dont think youve got it quite right.
I'm feeling pretty dense in reading and re-reading your comment and still not understanding it. Would you be able to say it another way?
I realize that if it were my wife who was doing all of that, the majority of her acquaintences would consider it retro, quaint, old fashioned or downright inappropriate servitude. The fact that I am the one doing it completely changes how they view the same behaviors.
You're saying that context is important - that repeating behaviors that were part of a subserviant role is intrinsically different than those behaviors when performed by someone who does not come from that role history?
Thank you.
Chivalry is dead only if you're a misogynist.
The idea, for example, that only women want or deserve chivalrous treatment (opening doors, flowers, a hand stepping over something, is certainly antiquated and obsolete. Men deserve this stuff too, it's part of polite society.
Other aspects of chivalry (pulling out chairs, etc) is simply absurd in an age when women are not encumbered from reaching chairs themselves by massive hoop skirts. It means absolutely nothing for a man to pull out a woman's chair and is not chivalrous, it's just busywork. And while it might be charming to have a man open a car door for you, it's pretty well into the realm of unnecessary, particularly if he has to go out of his way to do so.
If I got up from the dinner table to go and use the bathroom and all of the men got up as well I would feel incredibly embarrassed that so much attention was being paid to my plans to urinate. So in some ways, "chivalrous" behavior could be considered quite rude in this day and age.
I don't yell at men for opening the door for me, just like they don't yell at me when I return the favor. It's not "chivalry" to be polite to the person entering a building/room with you. What isn't polite, and isn't chivalrous is holding open a door for someone and them brow-beating them about the fact that you've done it, or making a big stink when someone attempts to extend a courtesy to you.
The people who bemoan the death of Chivalry weren't interested in being polite and charming at all, they're just looking for another excuse to yell at women.
I don't mind doors being opened for me.
I do mind, though, when I'm about twenty feet from a door and some guy holds it open, thus making me hurry up so I can run through his 'effin door. And once, when I didn't say thank you (because the guy actually made things more inconvenient for me by standing inappropriately in the way) he called me a bitch.
Take your time. We see how far away you are. If we didn't want to wait for you to walk it, we wouldn't be holding it in the first place.
This is true. I've held the door open for a while waiting for a guy who was a little ways behind me and it was no big deal if he didn't pick up the pace to get there.
This instructional video on when to open a door for someone might prove useful:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlDuCw0ns8w
Maybe it's just me, but I feel strange seeing someone waiting on me. I guess I'd rather they just go in. Kind of like if you were walking toward someone who was holding their hand out for something, you'd feel compelled to hurry up and give it to them, right?
Or maybe I'm just an awkward grump.
How we react to such things is partly a function of our training in sex roles. We feel awkward being waited on/for partly because we feel unworthy of behavior that is classically afforded to upper classes of people.
I had a great teaching on this once. I returned home, in upstate NY, to find my driveway and walk shoveled. I was in a dither. Who had done it? What would be expected of me in return? I felt threatened. Fortunately (probably) for me, when I called to talk to a friend about it, she wasn't home so I wound up talking to her husband. He listened to me carefully, and said, "Take it as your due."
Honestly, that had never occurred to me. Privilege takes practice. Equality, too.
Opening a car door for someone is a courtesy for those of us without remote keys to unlock the door. Especially when it's cold, raining or snowing. It's nice to be able to get in the car first rather than standing there waiting while the other person gets in the car and leans over to open the door for you.
I was referring more to men getting up out of the car to walk around and open the car door for the woman and then walk back around and get into the car himself.
I suppose if you're driving a reaaalllllyyy old car without power locks, then I can see having the guy intentionally unlock and open your door first being the more polite thing to do. But most guys, if you don't have remote unlock, can still hit the "unlock" button when they've opened their side and let you in without reaching over.
Getting out of the car is unnecessary, and would make me feel wierd.
I guess I'm thinking of the fact that we walk up to my husband's car, and generally approach on the passenger's side. (It's parked on the street so the passenger side is by the curb.) He gets out his key and unlocks and opens the door for me, and then walks around the car to get in, rather than leaving me standing in the cold while he walks around.
I have a remote key, so I don't have to reciprocate. But I would. :)
Right, so he's not really going out of his way to unlock the door for you first. It's polite, but it isn't ridiculous. The "chivalrous" way to open a car door has men running around like valets and it's absurd.
Now that you mention it, I've seen it in old movies, but never in real life. So that's never what I've pictured in my mind when I think of "opening the car door."
I guess I live in an old movie then...
Lots of people can't afford cars with power locks.
Power locks have been a standard feature on most cars built in the last 25 years. With the advent of child safety locks being a standard feature, it's hard to buy a car these days that doesn't have power locks. Remote keyless entry is still a luxury, but having a button on the door that unlocks all the doors is not so great a luxury anymore. If you're driving a car older than that, you're probably sinking more money into repairs than you would be spending on a new car.
But by all means, continue to nitpick. I mean, it's not like I said "I suppose if you're driving a reaaalllllyyy old car without power locks, then I can see having the guy intentionally unlock and open your door first being the more polite thing to do." Oh wait, I did.
This sums up everything I wanted to say, but more eloquently.
I dated a guy briefly years ago who insisted on opening car doors. That's one I really didn't understand. I don't want to sit in the car and wait for you to run around to the other side. I am perfectly capable of opening the door myself and we'd already be halfway to our destination. I hold building doors for people because I'm already opening it and it's rude to slam the door in their face, but opening the car door doesn't make sense to me. I guess the exception would be some giant vehicle that I actually need assistance getting out of.
What does it look like for a woman to be chivalrous?
Do it and get back to us!
If, instead, it strikes me as his way of expressing that he wants me to feel seen, appreciated, taken care of, it might actually feel like a fairly feminist act
That the reason most men have always opened car doors. But it's hardly unproblematic, is it? First of all- Seen by whom and as what? Appreciated how? Taken care of instead of being expected to take care of yourself? All of those questions need to be explored and met with honest answers before it can be seen as a feminist act.
I once gave up my seat on the bus for a guy who had crutches. I guess that's "feminist chivalry."
The funny thing is that a middle-aged man saw me give up my seat, and he gave up his seat for me.
I don't quite know what that meant since men don't usually give up seats for women these days, but he was very nice about it, so I took the seat.
I once gave up my seat on the bus for a guy who had crutches. I guess that's "feminist chivalry."
The funny thing is that a middle-aged man saw me give up my seat, and he gave up his seat for me.
I don't quite know what that meant since men don't usually give up seats for women these days, but he was very nice about it, so I took the seat.
I think things like a man pulling out a chair for a woman is ludicrous. Going out of your way to prove how gentlemanly you are is almost pretentious, in an ironic kind of way.
However, I admit that when someone, usually another woman, approaches a door at the same time as I do, I open the door and let her go first. I suppose I do do it to be "gentlemanly", but also to kind of... downplay a man's privilege.. Because that's a part of what makes men feel like they should be the ones to open doors for women- male privilege.
I need to think more about this, but I do feel like it's polite to open the door for people, but the way I go about it (letting women go in front of me while just kind of pushing the door open behind me for a man) is definitely affected in a potentially unfeminist way, in that I treat men and women differently..
Relationship-wise, I'm queer, and I definitely appreciate a mutual politeness. If I wash her dishes one night I'll let her wash mine the next, etc.
"I need to think more about this, but I do feel like it's polite to open the door for people, but the way I go about it (letting women go in front of me while just kind of pushing the door open behind me for a man) is definitely affected in a potentially unfeminist way, in that I treat men and women differently."
Admittedly I do that too and for the same reasons. I also like to hold the door open for men as a way of turning chivilry on its head. Sometimes they act a bit akward but they get over it fast and go in.
I like that =)
The problem with chivalry is that it assumes all women are alike. It gives men the false impression that all women will like to have every meal paid for, all women love to be doted on, and all women need a big strong man to protect them. I certainly don't like or need those things, and I didn't like or need those things long before I considered myself a feminist.
Then, when a woman doesn't appreciate or accept chivalrous behavior, she is deemed to be in the wrong. Chivalry implies that social etiquette does not have to be tailored made to each individual, but can instead be applied to all women as a group, without exception or deviation, and they better damn well like it.
Most things that are considered chivalrous, like opening doors for women or walking them to their car at night, are just common courtesy that, when applied within reason, nearly everyone will appreciate. If it is late and my car is several blocks down the road and a male or female companion offers to walk me there (as a safety in numbers thing, not a paternalistic thing), I gladly accept. If I see a man with an armful of groceries, I'll open the door for him, and not once has anyone ever refused such a simple kindness from me.
Chivalry is really just an excuse for social laziness disguised by a false desire to please a woman. If men really want to make women feel special and happy, they should take the time to get to know her, not just assume she likes flowers and being treated like some sort of princess.
The problem with chivalry is that it assumes all women are alike.../i>
...and they better damn well like it...
...just common courtesy...
Thank you; I found that helpful, especially the implied quid pro quo in "chivalrous" acts.
My husband (who is also a feminist) went round and round on the issue of his chivalry until I actually learned his motivation for doing it. It's two-fold and both are interesting.
First, he's a scholar in East Asian culture/religion and he is fascinated by the use of ritual and specific social curtsies, especially in Japanese culture. This brings out something in him that can only be called the "super honorable and never impolite under any circumstances" behavior. So if there is a social precedent for some polite thing, he's on it.
Secondly, his mother instilled in him a belief that you do certain nice things (hold doors, pull out chairs, open car doors, etc) for women because women are the ones who go through childbearing and menstruation. In her mind, it was a way to honor the struggles of women. This means he extends these niceties to all women, not just me.
He is like Clark Kent... worlds oldest boyscout. And I find those qualities about him both endearing and quaint. Even if I have some feminist twinges about whether or not I should be offended by them...
Menstruations a struggle? LOL!
I dont buy it though.
Menstruation IS a struggle for a lot of women. It is for me at least. I have terrible periods and advanced endometriosis that cripples my life. Lord knows no one would give me a hysterectomy....if they'll even treat me at all (which they DONT). The idea that I have to go through this to have the children I may or may not want to have just ticks me off. If my boyfriend wants to open a door for me or treat me chivalrously because he feels my "pains" as a woman...well gosh darn I would think that is pretty sweet. I mean he sits around and hears me gripe and rant about atrocities against women all day long.....he probably does the stuff out of fear. BAHAHAHA!!! jp
Sorry, I didnt mean to sound insensitive. I was only referring to the majority experience from what I've read.
One of my issues with the idea of chivalry stems from my dad's reason for doing these things - he thinks that if he doesn't, then people around him will think poorly of him. It has nothing to do with being polite to the woman he's with (whether it's me or my stepmom or someone else).
I also dislike the one-way nature of it, which I think is kinda inherent in the word "chivalry" - if we're just talking about standard politeness, which we all do for each other regardless of gender, then we'd call it "being polite." We MEAN something when we use the word "chivalry."
Finally, the topic reminds me of a Dear Abby column that ran a few weeks ago - in it, a woman was complaining that after 28 years, her husband still had never done anything "romantic" for her. She said that before a vacation, she told him that it was going to be a "romantic" vacation, and he didn't do anything special. She wanted candlelit dinners and surprise gifts. The whole letter seemed so entitled and pathetic, and I wondered if she had ever done anything romantic for him. Had she ever bought him a surprise gift? Cooked him a candlelit dinner? Why was she expecting it all to be so one-way? Maybe if she'd started the romantic behaviors she desired, he would have picked up on it and mirrored them. Maybe he had no fucking clue what she was asking for when she informed him their vacation was supposed to be a "romantic" one. Why did the romance of it depend on him initiating it?
I also dislike the one-way nature of it, which I think is kinda inherent in the word "chivalry" - if we're just talking about standard politeness, which we all do for each other regardless of gender, then we'd call it "being polite." We MEAN something when we use the word "chivalry."
That puts it in perspective; thank you.
Not necessarily. To me being polite is doing the types of things that require a minimum of effor to be nice to someone else. Wheras chivilrous behaviour involves going out of one's way.
So being chivilrous just because you are with a woman is impolite, since it implies that it is necessary to do things for her. However, chivilrous behaviour in a courting ritual (i.e. dating) by either party is perfectly acceptable. When you are smitten with someone you want to go out of your way for them – it's showing them how much you care. In my opinion that type of chivilry should be common in both sexes.
one-way nature alixana
plus
going out of one's way... [implying] that it is necessary to do things for her, kandela
Thank you.
(Sorry to be slow in responding. I get an involuntary twitch whenever anyone starts a reply with "Not necessarily".)
this is so loaded, but i'll just say that with my ex, he opened the car door for me if he had the key and was going to drive. if i had the key and going to drive, i opened it for him. at first it was a joke but then it just became courtesy. he loves me, he's taking care of me and letting me not-drive, he opens my door. i love him, i'm taking care of him and letting him not-drive, i open his door. meh.
Thank you for using this analogy as I think it explains my feelings exactly. I used to have an argument with my ex-boyfriend quite frequently about my expectations for the way he treated me. Often when we would go out with his friends, some of them would make me the brunt of their jokes. It was annoying enough, and I would stick up for myself, but I always got angry at him for not also standing up for me (and sometimes even joining them). He would say, "I don't understand you. You say you are a feminist, but then you want me to protect you." It was not protection I was looking for, but rather support from my partner. Personally, I believe that a couple should always treat each other with love and respect, and if holding a car door open is one of the ways of showing that, then go for it.
I could give a rat's ass about chivalry in public; I care about chivalry in the bedroom!
?
Opening the door with his penis? I'm confused....
I think she meant "ladies first". ;)
Yeah...that, and just basic respect in the bedroom.
A lot of the things considered "chivalrous" (such as holding the door for someone) I just consider gender neutral politeness. I make an effort to hold the door open for anyone, male and female(it's funny how such a simple act can cause looks of confusion on people). I pay for my boyfriend on dates when I can, etc, etc. To me this is just treating my fellow human with respect. The idea that men should only do these things for women is antiquated.
On the other hand, I really don't like being treated like a delicate flower that could snap if I lift a heavy box or something. Luckily, this is rarely a problem for me.
I agree.
What I do for my wife is not because I see her as "a delicate flower" (not in this lifetime; the good "Doctor Mommy" routinely kicks ass) but because life is often simply a shitstorm, and I'd like to be a port in it.
I think a lot of chivalry in a relationship is personal and as long as both parties are happy and things generally balance out.
However, I cannot stand creepy nonsensical "stranger" chivalry. (I'm not talking about common courtesy stuff.) I went to a ridiculously fancy restaurant with some relatives and the *waiter* pulled out chairs for all the women. He also made a point to always take the women's orders first even though we were scattered all over the table (making it quite obvious that he was taking women's orders first).
I was actually told by managers at different restaurants I worked at to take the woman's order first, because it looks like you're giving her more attention. If you take the man's order first, she might think you are hitting on him and leave you a bad tip. Seriously. It. Was. Ridiculous.
That isn't the reason. It's just good proper serving etiquette, especially if you were working in fine dining- Ladies first. I manage a restaurant and this is one of the first things we teach new servers.
Yeah.And.Thats.The.Problem sush.
Please dont chaulk our complaints up to 'political incorrectness' or whathaveyou. It deserves to be analyzed within a gender spectrum.
There's no problem with fine dining, and the many little niceties and details involved.
The problem, Goph, is with people who come away from an otherwise lovely meal thinking "I can't believe that waiter had me order first! That's so creepy!".
I mean, how would you like us to do it? Should the man order first? Should the waiter flip a coin, tableside? Should everybody say their order at the same time, so things are truly equal?
Fine dining, when it's really well done and orchestrated, is like a dance. And there's an order to it that's been developed and perfected over years. It works well. And it's nice. It makes for a lovely experience, for those who are able to just enjoy something without looking for things that are offensive about everything, that is.
Heck, if you don't want to order first, just say that you're not quite ready and let the other person or people go first. It's really no big deal. It is certainly not a "problem". And it is definitely not something that needs to be changed just because a very few people find it "creepy".
Why not go clockwise, starting with the person on the waiter's left side? (Left because people read left to right, and so the waiter would find it more natural to start on the left side of a table, and go clockwise around.) That's generally the way I see it done when I go out. Maybe I'm not going to fancy enough restaurants. Maybe I don't WANT to go to a restaurant that does it some other way.
I would find it "creepy" if a waiter did what Gopher described, and it would negatively impact my perception of the restaurant. Most old-fashioned niceties of fine dining are fun (using the right forks at the right times, etc), but forcing females to order first seems a little excessive to me, particularly in a large group. If it's a hetero couple dining alone, I can understand a restaurant manager requiring the waiter to always ask the woman first (I could see old-fashioned women calling and complaining if this didn't happen). If it's two hetero couples on a double date, then it starts to get a little weird to make the girls go first, but it's not terrible. Once you get much more than four, I would think it would feel extremely awkward, especially if the women are seated in random places along the table, etc etc etc.
I like the idea of taking orders in a clockwise-around-the-table manner; and although I have to admit that almost all of my dining out is not "fine dining", that is the pattern that I see most of the time nowadays.
When my wife and I go out, the waitstaff seem to tackle who looks hungrier, which is probably prudent. Ask the woman first, and step on her toes for being "chivalrous"; ask the man first, and support the male perogative. (Come to think of it, when the kids were younger, often staff would ask them first, which I always thought was brilliant - although that might have been the "who looks hungrier" rule coming into play, at that.)
In most, if not all, fancy restaurants the waiters will be expected to behave like this. You pay for their services, and a part of that is a high degree of courtesy.
You can hardly blame the guy for doing his job.
Female waiters will do exactly the same btw. And personally, I prefer to eat out at a place where the personnel have some manners and know how to do their job.
I'm all for manners, but not within a sexist paradigm. I feel sympathy for the waiter who in spite of their own beliefs are taught to do this. Management may also have instituted something like this because of the outdated gender dynamics that the public still prescribe to. I mean, who knows if a guy would/nt think the waiter was hitting on his girlfriend if s/he asked her first? I would still pander to the majority who arent insecure and outdated though.
I open doors (or hold them open) for anyone regardless of gender as a matter of common courtesy, and generally both genders do the same for me and I thank them when they do. However, I have witnessed on several occasions a man holding a door open for a woman so he can then leer at her ass as she walks through the door and continue to leer as she walks ahead of him. So now whenever I see a man going out of his way to hold open a door for me (i.e. when it seems like you're too far away and he just stands their waiting), it always makes me feel like he's just doing it to get a nice view of my ass, which is unfair to the men who really are just doing to be polite. Then there's the matter of a woman being made to feel bad or being called names because she didn't properly acknowledge the oh-so-magnificent gift of door-opening. So while I continue to be polite in public despite this (there's no reason to be an asshole just cuz someone else is an asshole), sometimes, yeah, I would rather that "chivalry" dies and I just open my own doors.
I feel the same way others have expressed on here when it comes to personal relationships. If you feel like you and your partner are equals where it matters the most to you, then romance and chivalry (whatever those words mean to you) can be a charming addition to your relationship every so often, especially if both partners make sure they give as much as they get.
"Or does it all still stink of an earlier time when women were property and men were pursuers?"
Well, yes, but it can surely be updated.
Most posters here are pretty on-the-money. Modern chivalry to me should mean showing someone you care by doing something a little extra. The corollary of that is simply: don't take anything they're not willing to give. If a lady asks a gentleman not to open doors, or insists on paying, be gracious enough to take them at their word.
Arguably, chivalry in the old sense meant honouring a lady by putting yourself at her disposal (here assuming for the moment 'you' are a bloke). The trouble was that viewed women as idols on pedestals. So just plug the first aspect into 'women are people and your equals' and you arguably end up with a good way to make, as Courtney says, a lady feel "feel seen, appreciated, taken care of."
Likewise, I'm taking the hetero view here. I have no idea how this would look in a gay relationship...be interesting to see though.
I remember reading from the book "Misogyny" by Jack holland that chivalry was invented by the Southern French Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine because she was tired of seeing women get treated like dirt.
"If having my car door opened makes me feel like lover man thinks I'm an invalid, not so feminist."
I know feministing is usually sensitive about not perpetuating negative stereotypes about minorities, including people with disabilities. So I was surprised that Courtney didn't note the offensiveness of this comment.
I know what you're trying to say here, but I have a friend who's paraplegic, and whenever he gets into his car, I take his wheelchair and put it in the trunk or back seat. All that extra work (more than opening the door for someone) doesn't make me think of him as an "invalid" and therefore somehow less than me.
Ugh, I hate chivilry. I'm all for politeness and civility but I hate it when a guy gets up and rushes over to open a door for me. Originally chivilry was performed out of the idea that females were fragile and infantile. I also have a hard time thinking I deserve special treatment unless I've earned it, ie, like if youre a CEO or something. Getting special treatment for no reason other than being a female annoys me. However as long as people are doing it in an egalitarian way I dont mind much. I'm just a more laid back person.
Hi,
I do not want to be too nit-picky, but I also think it's important to challenge our use of language. Courtney writes, "As with all things thorny and romance-related, it seems like this ultimately has everything to do with your own relationship to the chivalry being bestowed on you. If having my car door opened makes me feel like lover man thinks I'm an invalid, not so feminist." The use of the phrase "an invalid" is very ableist language that undercuts feminist discourse aimed towards building solidarity with those who identify as disabled or temporarily-able-bodied.
I think the underlying assumption in this use of language, as I read it, is that individuals with disabilities would need car doors opened for them, as well as the implication that this identity is less capable and less desireable than than an able-bodied identity. The term "an invalid" is also an archaic use of language with exclusionary connotations.
Just some food for thought!
Good call on the use of "invalid" folks. Sorry.
Thank you.
I guess I should also say, an apology is good.
But this is not an isolated incident. Not by a long shot. This is, however, maybe the only time that an apology has been made that hasn't been "sorry if you were offended". It might also be the first time that someone pointed that out and had it not met with vitriol and a tirade of comments from the community here vehemently defending their right to use ableist language and had it go practically unchecked by mods, or have any mod who spoke up ignored.
I strongly urge Feministing to please take a good, hard look at that, because this is hardly the first time someone has brought this issue up in comments or pointed this out. It makes this space incredibly unsafe for readers who exist where feminism and disability intersect.
I will now stop with the derailing of the thread.
Courtney, does anyone actually check your emails for abusive comments? I've emailed Feministing multiple times about ablist comments, and asking questions about site-reader accessibility issues, and have never received a response. The closest I've ever received is someone - I think Miriam - agreeing to a comment I made to her about how Feministing needs a comments policy that takes ablist language seriously, and then nothing.
Could someone at Feminsiting email me to discuss this, please? anna@annaoverseas.com
I'm a feminist, but some part of me must still be misogynistic, because I like when guys hold the door for me. I also hold the door for them if they let me. I like it when men pay for me, and I'll pay for them when I can.
Also, this is something I'd never admit to anyone, but when my boyfriend orders before me at a restaurant, I get a little bit annoyed. Even when the waitress looks at me to order first, he always orders first.
"I was teaching Intro to Women's Studies at Hunter College about gender roles within heterosexual romantic love. My students--by and large--still liked the idea of differentiated expectations, including monetarily, for women and men within a dating context."
I am very uncomfortable with chivalry for this exact reason. We women of a certain age have worked so hard for equality, especially in the context of dating.
Differentiating expectations in this area smacks of gender privilege, not equality. When a man pays and performs other acts of chivalry, is he not expecting sexual privilege over my body?'
If I expect a man to pay to or perform other acts of chivalry, am I not exercising a form of gender privilege?
There is no gender equality when gender privilege exists.
Worse, chivalry puts a woman in a position of weakness and subservience, that she must be cared for and cannot act on her own agency.
It's time to bury chivalry once and for all.
I agree. I prefer just egalitarian manners.
As a guy who grew up in the South, chivalry is sort of something I've always taken for granted. Though I've reinterpreted enough such that it essentially reduces to politeness. E.g., for the door thing, if there are people behind me I will always hold it open for them, regardless of gender. I've also taken up a very weak version of the car door thing: if we're approaching the car from the passenger side, I will always open it (no power locks) and hold it open. This, also, regardless of gender; first time I did it with my best male friend, I got an odd look.
I'm surprised the issue of who pays hasn't come up more in this discussion, though. In a totally fair world, it seems to me that the check would be split (or perhaps alternated later on). That's not something you can really put into practice in the modern dating environment, though. Another option is the whoever-asks model, which still has some inequity in it that the act of asking is itself gendered.
I've reconciled my principles and pragmatism by planning to pay on the the whoever-asks model, with the expectation that after one or two dates the other person does the asking in roughly split proportions. The tricky part comes if the date offers to pay her share. I always accept the offer, but supposedly there's a large contingent of women who do that with the expectation you won't let them pay. At that point, I'm done with stupid games, and if I don't get another date because of that one single action, it probably wouldn't work out anyway.
OK, if a woman offers to pay for half the check but expects you to say no, you should just run away. That's ridiculous.
My husband almost always pays for dinner when we go out, but that started because when we were dating, I was a single mom, and paying for a babysitter. He sort of felt that I was already paying alot for the evening out. So that was sweet. We've just kept that up out of habit. Though I suppose now that the kids are getting old enough to stay by themselves, we may have to rethink it. Or not. :)
Two points.
1) Sometimes, I am concerned that going out of my way to be nice to another being (women in this case) may seem a bit chivalrous, and thus I don't do it, because I am afraid of what my actions might imply about gender equality. In all, I think chivalry, just like charity or anything else, has to come with a good heart - that is, you can't give to charity and think of the people you give you as pieces of shit. Thus, you can't commit acts that are considered chilvarous, if those acts stem from sexist beliefs.
2) Some acts of chivalry are just creepy. Ever seen a dude kiss a woman's hand upon introduction, without having known her first? I think a nice handshake, look her in the eye, and saying "Nice to meet you" will suffice.
In fact, my last girlfriend (a Southern woman) and I started dating because when we first met, I actually gave her a firm handshake and introduced myself, rather than creepily kissing her hand. This made a difference.
My point: social manners are different for different people - but you never fail if you treat the person with respect.
"... chivalry, just like charity or anything else, has to come with a good heart."
Marc, I totally agree. Chivalry is actually quite a remarkable thing, when you consider that in most parts of the world, women must serve men. My dad once saw a Korean couple where the wife was struggling with all their luggage while the husband strutted ten paces ahead. In Japan, women fetch slippers for men. In so many cultures, women in public are supposed to be invisible, lest they invite unwelcome attention.
In light of prevailing norms across the world, there is something unusual and pleasant about having men express regard for women by carrying stuff, opening doors, etc.
Having said that, it's all in the intent--as many others here have said. Some men do it to show off their supposed generosity. At worst, it can be sleazy and expectant of payback.
What's absolutely bizarre is how many MEN think chivalry is a trade-off for equal rights. I've heard too many men huffing, "Well, you either get one or the other. You can't have both."
Really? Have they ever considered how ridiculous they'd sound saying the same thing about people with disabilities? "Well, you either pick the right to vote or you don't get to take up three seats on the bus with your damned wheelchair!"
They do say that about people with disabilities. I've heard a few people say that in person and one comedian.
I'll open doors for guys, and it's nice when the response is just a simple "Thanks." Occasionally I'll make a joke about how I'm 'such a gentleman', especially if the guy gives me a funny look, which is usually pretty well received. What really irritates me is when the guy refuses to go through the door as I'm holding it, which is just silly and awkward and just puts me in a bad mood.
If a guy wants to hold a door open for me, I try to give the same polite response I would expect from him: a smile and 'Thank you', no big show.
It's a bit different when it's somebody you know pretty well and it starts getting one-sided. I know a guy who always insisted on getting out of the car to open my door, but that just felt weird, so I eventually told him to cut it out. But it took several times of just getting out of the car before he had a chance to walk over before he stopped trying, and I suspect he probably thinks less of me for it.
I dated a guy once who would interrupt me mid-sentence, run thirty feet ahead to the next door and wait for me, looking like a dog who'd done a trick and was waiting for his treat. So to me, chivalry can never be a synonym of manners -- because it's very possible to be rude and chivalrous, and also to be polite and not chivalrous. There may be a lot of overlap but they're definitely not the same, and I'll take a courteous guy over a chivalrous one every day of the week.
I loved stories of knights when I was a kid. I always thought in terms of it meaning a person who was kind, polite and respectful, and who stood up for what was right! Course it's nice when guys treat girls kindly, same for if girls treat guys in turn! If everyone was chivalrous things could be great!
In my experience, lots of men seem to HATE IT when I hold a door open for them. I have had people run up, take the door from me, and make me walk through it first. Is it really that emasculating? Really???
I feel much more comfortable doing things for myself. That said, I've only really been offended by chivalry when it's obvious that the other person wants an excess of praise or congratulation for whatever "chivalrous" actions they performed. It's an incorrect assumption that I've seen a lot of men make--that pulling chairs out, pushing chairs in, and opening and closing car doors makes them into a wonderful date. And what's more frustrating is that many of these men use "chivalry" as a guise to build themselves up rather than using chivalry to show kindness or affection to another person.
"What does it look like for a woman to be chivalrous?"
A less awesome version of Seto no Hanayome, I imagine.
An unusual perspective - although technically I'm Intersexed, for all intents and purposes, I'm trans.
I looked like a boy from birth, and internal feelings didn't count in those days. They still don't now for many.
Anyway, I tried to be the best Man any Woman could be. Because my body looked male. I wasn't too good at most things masculine, I lacked the instincts and had to fake it. I avoided the macho BS that Norah Vincent engaged in in "Self Made Man", but that was because I didn't have to, my body looked awfully male. Accent on the awful. That stuff didn't match me anyway.
But there were a number of things that are part of the "traditional male role" that I found quite admirable. I wanted to be like that, regardless of what sex I was.
Much of that is encoded as "Chivalry". Protecting the weak. Being prepared to put your life on the line, as males are expendable in a way that women and children are not. Making use of your greater physical strength to help those not as strong. Making use of your Patriarchal Privilege in the economic sense to share the burden of costs more fairly. And if someone's drowning, diving in to save them regardless of risk, because that's what a Man does.
I tried to be the kind of man that, had my body conformed to my brain and my mind, I would have wanted as my husband, and the father of my children.
Now I've transitioned, and as I have "passing privilege" (despite being somewhat plain), I get doors opened for me. I get drinks bought for me. All the things I used to do for others.
It's really rather nice.
And if I see a guy struggling with some shopping while pushing a stroller, I open the door for him, and push the elevator buttons too. I've also had the experience of standing up and giving my seat to someone who was on crutches, and having a guy in turn give up his seat for me. All I could give in return was a sunny smile and a thank-you, but it brightened his day up. I know how he felt, you see. I've been there, and knowing you've done your "good deed for the day" is worth far more than material wealth.
You know what? That triggered a cascade of others, men and women, on the very crowded bus, giving up their seats to others struggling with children, or with shopping. A pandemic of goodwill, triggered by the guilt men felt when shown up by a woman. And because not to do it would demonstrate that they were lesser Men than the guy who gave up his seat for me.
Note that women did it too.
"If having my car door opened makes me feel like lover man thinks I'm an invalid, not so feminist. If, instead, it strikes me as his way of expressing that he wants me to feel seen, appreciated, taken care of, it might actually feel like a fairly feminist act."
You have to understand, to a man this sounds like 'feminism is whatever I say it is.' A man can control his actions, but not your reactions, so how is he supposed to behave like a feminist?
I like paying for things and holding doors, because I being generous. I also love women paying for things, and doing nice things for me, so it's equitable. I don't like going Dutch and acting professional around someone I find romantically engaging. I don't consider it egalitarian, I think it's isolating.