The Fighting 44s

33 Responses

#1

King4aDay

1:54 pm | Oct 25, 2008

O.K. I’m going to make a small admission. I do open doors for women, and specifically because they are women. I do so as a custom which I was taught to observe since my childhood. Of course, I do a lot of other weird things—I have removed my hat when I was standing on the sidewalk and a funeral procession drove by. I say “bless you” when someone sneezes in my presence, for no good reason. I also find it awkward my calling elderly people by their first names (unless they absolutely insist on it). I’m much more comfortable calling them Mr. Piers or Mrs. Fletcher.

However, the other day, I was the last person into a crowded parking garage elevator. The elevator starts at the bottom levels and fills up bringing everyone up the the concourse level. Anyway, we were all packed in like the proverbial sardines and I was right in front of the doors. When the doors opened, I did the only reasonable thing that I thought I could do, and stepped out of the elevator and to one side. But once there was a little more room, a few gents waited for the ladies to exit. As they did, one woman said, with unnecessary volume, to her friend, “Well, it’s nice to see that at least there are still SOME gentleman left in the world,” glancing in my general direction with visible scorn.

Oh, well… I suppose that even customs come with a cost.

#2

evil_FUX

4:44 pm | Oct 25, 2008

Yeah but see King I think you’re exhibiting manners. You’re not doing those things for just the sake of women.

#3

Makulita

6:30 pm | Oct 25, 2008

“I do open doors for women, and specifically because they are women. I do so as a custom which I was taught to observe since my childhood. Of course, I do a lot of other weird things—I have removed my hat when I was standing on the sidewalk and a funeral procession drove by. I say “bless you” when someone sneezes in my presence, for no good reason. I also find it awkward my calling elderly people by their first names (unless they absolutely insist on it). I’m much more comfortable calling them Mr. Piers or Mrs. Fletcher.”

E’s right on this part that saying “Bless you”, taking your hat off in the presence of a funeral march or feeling awkward calling seniors by their first names has more to do with just being well-mannered rather than “chivalrous”.

:\

Because you know I pointed out having manners and being chivalrous as two different things, like, twice in this article. Where chivalrous is polite behavior driven only by a gender bias. Where the bias implies that since women are of a generally (and figuratively) weak constitution men -must- do things like door-opening for them. I already know this could also be construed as nitpicking because if I was inclined I could also put saying “Bless you” after someone sneezes on blast for religious reasons. Then again, I don’t have any real tough beef with religious hegemony which may have to do with my indifference towards religion. But shit like sexism, you bet your ass I’m on that.

#4

tokyolovestory

10:37 pm | Oct 25, 2008

Hey, wait, I open doors for women too. AND *gasp!* men! What’s going on? Uh oh.. Code… of chivalry… imploding…!! AAAARGGGHHHHHHH!!!

Man. Moving with the times is so PAINFUL, isn’t it?

#5

nskripchun

1:53 am | Oct 26, 2008

^haha.

Let me confess that on occasion, I make the mistake of being a well-mannered gentleman. That’s how mama raised me.

So Makulita - are you saying that manners and chivalry are differentiated simply by motivation even if the action is identical?

#6

Makulita

4:23 am | Oct 26, 2008

Basically, but I can’t really accuse anyone of being a biased fuck simply because they can deny it and I couldn’t continue.

Rather its something I would like to think people would consider about themselves and both act and react accordingly. I could’ve been alot more specific and brought in *gasp!* its context in PUA, men who say they respect women and such but goddamn PUA and its ilk has been getting way, way too much facetime on 44s as it is. So, y’know, fuck that noise.

Though its interesting you used “even if the action is identical” to describe what I defined the difference as. To get really descriptive about it, if dude literally stands by and holds the door open for a chick and waits for her to enter before entering himself that’s what I’d have a problem with over if some guy passes through a door but hangs his arm back to prop a door open for a chick as she closes the distance within five steps and gets to the door letting the guy retrieve his arm that’s genuine and doesn’t nearly piss me off as much as the former.

…

Har har, I totally could’ve been hella more thorough– you caught me, prize for you :B

#7

King4aDay

5:29 am | Oct 26, 2008

Well, I do think I can understand what Mac is getting at. To me it all finally comes down to whether a guy truly respects women or not. A guy who doesn’t really like or respect women is going to make an ass of himself with or without chivalry.

Chivalry, in the hands of a misogynist, is just another weapon. It can be used to imply that women can’t tie their own shoelaces, and need men to wipe the drool off of their feminine chins. However, I believe that a man who truly respects women can be quite naturally chivalrous without implying insult, being obvious, awkward, or obnoxious about it.

I may open doors for women, or offer her my arm when we’re walking down a steep stair, but at the same time, I may be asking her advice on finances, or getting her take on company politics. I think that it really is all in the intent. But when a man is using custom to somehow belittle women, I would call that “false chivalry,” which is as honest as sarcasm.

However, in it’s proper context, gender-based role play and custom are just another way to communicate respect, affection, and favor. I know, at least, that this is the way that I intend it. But Mac has said nearly as much above.

#8

aznbro

11:22 am | Oct 26, 2008

Wasn’t opening the door for women originally meant to be some sort of compliment; ie, the man is communicating to the woman that she looks so refined and classy as to be definitely of the non-working class (positive connotation at one time).
Anyways, I live in Toronto and opening the door in the fashion Makulita described doesn’t happen that often (to strangers anyways) and I definitely don’t do it. I have seen a few cases where the woman would quickly skip over to an adjacent door and make the guy look like a tool (probably unintentionally). I think how prevelant this gesture is used depends on the city or town.
Now, the really tough thing to do is deciding when you should surrender your seat on a bus or subway…

#9

Xian

11:25 am | Oct 26, 2008

Good post. I say so of course because you have a vagina, not because it was any good. ><

Naw, I agree entirely. You should just be effusively nice to everyone if that makes you happy. If it doesn’t, just be a dick to everyone. But don’t break it down by gender.

Of course, I fully endorse shoulder charging and door slamming in white dudes faces.

#10

kimtae

8:45 pm | Oct 26, 2008

I absolutely refuse to say bless you after someone sneezes. In fact I think the sputum spewing offender should offer an “excuse me” as one would after coughing or burping.

#11

Ike

1:06 pm | Oct 27, 2008

I apologize after I sneeze or cough, and people just look at me like I’m crazy. Glad to see someone else thinks it’s gross. =)

#12

nycjoc

5:47 pm | Oct 27, 2008

Personally I think whoever gets to the damn door first should hold it open for the other person. I can’t stand when men make a big show of holding doors and chairs and closing the car for me. I think its retarded. But there are so many women who eat it up that it’s hard to change the idea that it is “proper” for men to do.

I never understood why as a women a man should go out of their way like that for a woman. I’ve gotten to the point to just not argue about it and let it go but if some dude brings it up saying that he was showing me respect, I gladly tell him that he can respect himself by not acting like holding a door open makes him more of man than not. Realize that if I decied to go out with him or if I open the door for him, I respect him enough as a person to do that for him despite his gender not because of it.

#13

missjosephine

4:27 pm | Oct 28, 2008

i can’t believe i just read that article on Fighting 44s. i can predict the type of response you’re going to type back to me (and it will probably be laced with swear words), but seriously, i don’t understand how someone else’s misguided attempts at trying to show you respect can propagate so much disgust and annoyance. if some guy is holding a door open for me, my first assumption isn’t to jump to thinking that he thinks i am weak and the only reason he’s holding the door open is because i’m a woman. it doesn’t make a guy a pussy, it doesn’t make him weak, and it doesn’t make him an insensitive ass. some of the girls he holds the door for will think he has manners/be flattered or thankful, others will be completely indifferent, and still others will think he’s an ass. how’s anybody who’s trying to be a kind person in this world supposed to know? the thing is, they won’t. you can’t please them all; especially people who are inclined to be bitter.

#14

nightshade

4:39 pm | Oct 28, 2008

missjosephine, we don’t use the b-word around here: bitterness. Calling someone bitter is just a way for you to say that your own position is better, by degrading Makulita’s opinion and feelings on a subject. Not to mention that you don’t actually understand what her opinion is–you seemed to have lost the plot when it came to understanding that Makulita is not harping on manners. We like manners. I like manners because I am Canadian. Makulita is examining how gender driven thought and action impacts both men and women.

You are entitled to disagree with her, but there’s no need to be civilly passive aggressive.

#15

evil_FUX

4:40 pm | Oct 28, 2008

missjosephine, the critique isn’t a comment on people with manners. As makulita said above:

Because you know I pointed out having manners and being chivalrous as two different things, like, twice in this article. Where chivalrous is polite behavior driven only by a gender bias. Where the bias implies that since women are of a generally (and figuratively) weak constitution men -must- do things like door-opening for them.

Simply put it’s one thing for a guy to be polite and courteous to everyone just so we can get along better in society, but it comes off a hell of a lot different when a guy does it b/c he thinks women are of weaker constitution or that it’ll make him look totally pimp.

#16

jaehwan

8:02 pm | Oct 28, 2008

Like King4aDay, I usually open doors for women, more so than for guys. As with King, I was taught to do so when I was young. It was what was proper, and it was what my teachers taught me. I pull chairs out for women too. Today, it’s still the way I do things.

People are welcome to their own opinions, but as Miss Josephine says, I see it as a form of respect, rather than a form of denigration. For the record, the dictionary definition also doesn’t mention anything about weakness or condescension to women when it comes to chivalry:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chivalry

The qualities idealized by knighthood, such as bravery, courtesy, honor, and gallantry toward women.
A manifestation of any of these qualities.

I think a lot of it does depend on where you come from and your experiences. When people, for example, refer to Southern charm in men, they’re usually referring to some kind of chivalrous behavior. Some people like it. I guess some people don’t.

But I guess it’s really up to individuals. Women who hate chivalry will most likely not hang out with guys who have it, and women who still like chivalrous men will find them. Different strokes for different folks.

#17

nightshade

8:22 pm | Oct 28, 2008

There is a difference between good manners and chivalry. I don’t see why people cannot separate the difference between a guy who opens doors for everyone, regardless of gender, and a guy who opens doors for women in the hopes of getting laid.

Chivalry is something left over from the dark ages. To aspire to it puzzles me.

#18

kimtae

8:25 pm | Oct 28, 2008

I’ll agree with Nightshade, and for the rest of you mofo’s don’t even think about sneezing near me without saying excuse me.

#19

Makulita

8:30 pm | Oct 28, 2008

nightshade, e?

“Have I ever told you two are my heeeeroooooes?”

But no worries, I got this.

—-

First of all, of course its gonna fucking be laced with swears; it takes a special kind of phrasing to turn that switch off in the first place.

Nightshade hit that shit on the mark with the bitter comment. That’s like Scenario Type A White Dude calling a Person of Color “oversensitive” when some unjust racist bullshit goes down. It don’t matter if it is or isn’t true because using them terms is just to shut the other party up because nobody likes being called “oversensitive” or “bitter” ‘cuz it downright puts a car in park when the engine’s still revving, dig?

Nevermind, I keep my Bullshit Detector finely tuned. Just like you can tell when someone is lying about taking a cookie from the cookie jar, or someone’s gonna gyp you outta your cash at the register body language because it goddamn obvious who’s doing it because they’re mannered and who’s doing it because they’re a chivalrous tool. I even described the behavior in my article. But hotdamn I guess I have to edit it a bit more.

P.S. Shit like this gets posted on 44s because D and lopes fucking adore what I got to say.

#20

nycjoc

8:32 pm | Oct 28, 2008

I’m just as puzzled by it as you are nightshade. the very fact that it is taught as the proper way to treat women still makes me wonder why is that. Whatever, some women like it some just don’t. I hit the ambivilant point about it myself. I’m just tired of trying to understand why it was important for those chivalrous behaviors to be only assigned to men to direct towards women.

#21

missjosephine

10:49 pm | Oct 28, 2008

the only difference i can see is that one guy is most likely making eye contact and attempting to communicate through his body language, and the other guy just becomes part of the environment as he himself is speed-walking away. chivalrous, polite, or not, i think it all has to do with the guy’s personality; if he’s in any way misogynist and looks down on women, just making eye contact *alone* will feel slimy and will be fully communicated, no matter what he does (whether he’s holding the door open for you or looking at your ass as you walk by). if i hurt makulita’s feelings or just plain bugged her by using the word bitter than i’m sorry, i didn’t need to say that. i still don’t get the hype (i come from the midwest, where ‘chivalry’ might be more acceptable); gender-based behavior or not, we’re all conditioned to some degree in whatever way that we have to unlearn through life’s experiences…even some guys with misguided gender-based behaviors can have really good, sweet hearts, so if that comes through than it’s forgiveable. they just need to be broken in ;).

#22

jaehwan

10:50 pm | Oct 28, 2008

Nightshade wrote:

I don’t see why people cannot separate the difference between a guy who opens doors for everyone, regardless of gender, and a guy who opens doors for women in the hopes of getting laid.

King wrote:

I do open doors for women, and specifically because they are women.

I do it the way King does it, and it’s not to get laid (I’ll speak for myself, but not for King…haha). Is that chivalrous behavior? I think it is, based on the dictionary definition of “chivalry.” But I’ve got friends of both persuasions. Some like their men chivalrous because it’s what they like, while others don’t like it at all and are really offended by it. I’ve heard that in the South it’s a way of life for everyone. I happen to know one of these southern dudes, and he’s totally smooth. I’d say it’s a matter of style–personal and cultural.

Of course, if we take the dictionary definition to the next level–with bravery, gallantry, etc. added–it’s far more than just opening doors for women. But that’s probably a whole new can of worms…

#23

nightshade

11:39 pm | Oct 28, 2008

Again, this is about manners versus chivalry–and the difference was carefully laid out in the post. In King’s case, he expressly wrote that he was taught to open doors for women. Those are manners he was taught–it’s not the creepy behaviour related to chivalry that we were discussing.

And if we’re going to be all dictionary definition black and white on the topic, then we should use proper dictionaries like the OED or Websters for citations.

Websters:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chivalry

chivalry
One entry found.

Main Entry:
chiv·al·ry Listen to the pronunciation of chivalry
Pronunciation:
\?shi-v?l-r?\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural chiv·al·ries
Etymology:
Middle English chivalrie, from Anglo-French chevalerie, from chevaler knight — more at chevalier
Date:
14th century

1: mounted men-at-arms
2 archaic a: martial valor b: knightly skill
3: gallant or distinguished gentlemen
4: the system, spirit, or customs of medieval knighthood
5: the qualities of the ideal knight : chivalrous conduct

Yes, friends, chivalry a 14th century concept relating to “the system, spirit, or customs of medieval knighthood.” I’d like to think that men have evolved beyond this kind of behaviour and that women have evolved beyond needing this kind of throwaway attention.

I believe in manners. I just don’t believe in chivalry. I come from a culture that does not and has not ever had chivalry as an ideal. So I really don’t understand why people are trying to pass off manners as this oh so amazing thing called chivalry that exists only in the mid-west or the southern United States.

#24

missjosephine

12:05 am | Oct 29, 2008

no one is saying that chivalry only exists in the midwest or the south. it’s just coming from a different perspective; that’s an important thing to know when you’re sharing ideas with someone. i feel like the only disagreement that’s going on here is the use and connotation of a word; from what i can tell, everyone agrees that ‘creepy’= not good and ‘manners’= good. if a man wants to act with the “spirit, customs, and qualities of medieval knighthood” than whatever, i don’t really care; as long as that’s in keeping with treating himself and others with respect. i think that was the original intention of the word in the first place, to symbolize a code of honor.

#25

jaehwan

12:12 am | Oct 29, 2008

The dictionary.com definition comes from the American Heritage Dictionary, which is also a pretty well known dictionary. As you saw from W’s post, people do use the American Heritage definition–W definitely wasn’t referring to guys riding horses and displaying “martial valor” when she discusses chivalry in her last paragraph. I’ve heard of “chivalry” described as “sexist” because it presupposes different treatment for men and women (and there may be a good argument to be made there), but creepy?

In any case, I open doors for women, and it fits the American Heritage def of the word, but I don’t know if I’m pro-chivalry or anti-chivalry just yet; I’d like to explore the question further.

But as I said, that’s probably a whole new can of worms…

#26

missjosephine

10:31 am | Oct 29, 2008

here’s the only issue i have with this thread, and the reason i decided to respond to it. it appeared at first that it was assumed that ‘chivalry’ (used here, men doing anything for women specifically because they are women) is creepy or somehow wrong. i just don’t think it is.

a man can look at me, think “i see woman, i open door for woman. she pretty, me want her to think i nice.” he can open the door for me specifically because i’m a woman; it doesn’t mean that i needed the attention or was looking for it, it doesn’t make him somehow oppressive to my womanhood, it in no way disempowers who i am or reduces my value as a woman or a human being. in fact, if both people are attracted to each other then it might be the start of something; if not, they can go on their merry ways. it is merely a brief communication in time; his worldview colliding with mine for a brief second. if he’s still in the worldview that men should treat women a certain way to show her that he respects her as a woman, and i’m in a newer generation that knows that we don’t need that to feel respected, the world isn’t any worse off than it was to begin with. he’s evolving on his own path just like anyone else.

#27

Flipsoul

11:40 am | Oct 29, 2008

My understanding from all this so far is that chivalry as a custom is acceptable. But chivalry as a tool to display anything about yourself is not. In other words, treating women nice because you don’t think about what your are doing is one thing, treating women nice to get them to notice you is a different category.

There is no point in argueing what Chivalry means - being English as a living language - it will continue to carry connotations as people choose to give them. Think of the word odor for example. Quite literally, an odor could be a pleasant smell, but who thinks of that?

I do think it is important to hold a words meaning to the context of the user - In this case it seems that to one it is a common courtesy of culture, and the other it seems to be an tool used to create a perception of ones-self to a woman or simply a flirt.

I think the biggest problem with this is that there appears to be a common code in the culture where a man must be the one who approaches the woman in order to actually start the relationship. [I'm not saying this is always the case] I think that it continues to lead the reason why guys still do put themselves out there.

After reading through the many passionate postings about this, which I believe to be a common courtesy, I have come to the conclusion that I have no need to show anyone that I am nice through such methods. No more holding doors. No more putting the toilet seat down.
or would I be taking chivalry out of context?

#28

Makulita

7:01 pm | Oct 29, 2008

… Man.

God forbid a greasy looking dude in a hoodie standing in front of a black van offers any of y’all some candy or a new puppy with a bright smile or we’d have an influx of adult kidnappings.

#29

missjosephine

7:02 pm | Oct 29, 2008

“After reading through the many passionate postings about this, which I believe to be a common courtesy, I have come to the conclusion that I have no need to show anyone that I am nice through such methods. No more holding doors. No more putting the toilet seat down.”

hi flip. i think the whole point is to do something for someone else if you feel like that’s what you want to do in order to show them some decency; what other people are trying to get at (even as i’ve been arguing against it, though i see their point) is not to act out of cultural conditioning, expecting some type of social reward, or because you think that’s what’s expected of you.

i know it might seem a little assbackwards that i’d take the side of those who are acting out of social conditioning, and the fact that i’d be so passionate about it, but what i’m trying to get across is that the world is full of people who are acting from their own sets of conditioning, mores, and values that are in a constant state of evolution. i don’t think it’s helpful if we disagree with something to come to such rigid conclusions like ‘it’s ok if you’re doing this action with the sincere intent of helping me, but it’s not ok if you’re doing this action because i’m a woman and you want to either get laid or seem like a good guy.’ in the end, it’s pretty harmless in the scheme of things, and i don’t think it’s helpful to put such rigid strictures on why someone else, an able human being with their own opinions and free will, should have specific intentions in their heads in the way they act towards us—we can’t control anything except ourselves, otherwise we’d be getting mad at everything.

as for this:
“chivalry as a custom is acceptable. But chivalry as a tool to display anything about yourself is not. In other words, treating women nice because you don’t think about what your are doing is one thing, treating women nice to get them to notice you is a different category.”

i would say that chivalry as a tool to display something about yourself, and even to get women to notice you is absolutely fine. men can display themselves in any way they feel comfortable with in order to get a date, and like an earlier poster said, they will just attract the women who adore that type of thing. to each his own.

#30

tokyolovestory

7:39 pm | Oct 29, 2008

a man can look at me, think “i see woman, i open door for woman. she pretty, me want her to think i nice.” he can open the door for me specifically because i’m a woman; it doesn’t mean that i needed the attention or was looking for it, it doesn’t make him somehow oppressive to my womanhood, it in no way disempowers who i am or reduces my value as a woman or a human being.

He seeks to buy your attention based on your face by opening a door for you. At that moment in time, you are a commodity he has decided he wants based on what you look like. And remember, this is your example, not mine. Also, you are citing an example in which you benefit but others don’t: would he think, “She’s hideous, I want her to smile at me, let me open the door?” No, you are displaying complacence to a system which–in your example–women are treated differently from men because they are women, and beautiful women are treated differently from ugly women because they can raise a few cocks.

#31

THX1138

8:16 pm | Oct 29, 2008

Regarding the argument that chivalry is a type of sexist behavior, this is probably true. However, this type of chivalrous behavior (like that of the PUA) is only part of a spectrum of sexism, you could say.

At the other end of the spectrum, there is the Sensitive Male who fronts himself as respectful of women or who knows how to say all the politically correct things (like denouncing misogyny, etc).

The Sensitive Male does these things–not out of any substantive political consciousness or activist conviction–but as a way to ingratiate himself to women.

In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if some cunning PUA out there has incorporated the Sensitive Male pose as just another pick-up technique.

Basically, the Sensitive Male is the gendered equivalent of the (White) Liberal who proffers sympathy and understanding of racism–but primarily out of self-serving motivations.

There are many different forms that sexism (and racism) can take–some more obvious, others more disguised.

#32

missjosephine

1:20 pm | Oct 30, 2008

i don’t see how a guy opening a door for a woman translates into him seeing her as a commodity. and how is anyone trying to get someone’s attention that they’re attracted to different from a guy opening a door for a woman he finds attractive? if i see a guy, and based completely on his looks and on the fact that he’s a man, i wink at him and ask to buy him a drink, does that make me sexist, or am i making him into a commodity (or myself into a stereotype)?

#33

nightshade

7:49 pm | Oct 30, 2008

The question isn’t: What does it mean to open a door for someone?

The question is: Why do we support ideas of chivalry when it is a throwback to the dark ages and works to devalue women?