Gilda

I agree with this for the most part, but I think maybe the knights weren't polite in exchange for sexual favors. I rather doubt that a man expecting sexual favors in the medievil settings in which the chivalry code first developed would be so inclined to take "No" for an answer, nor that women were likely to have seen it as their right to decline. Many people of both sexes at the time would have seen women as baby factories, maids, and a life support system for a vagina rather than a whole person.

It's helpful to understand where the specific codes that go with chivalry come from. Some are derived from religious traditions, while others come from, strange as it may seem, practical adaptations to the differences between the sexes as they existed and functioned at the time they began. A great many cultural norms developed as a practical adaptation that fit a particular time but remain or are applied in an overly general manner after the conditions that led to their development no longer persist.

Let's take two of these that seem like silly formal courtesies: Opening/closing a car door and holding a lady's chair for her. Now they seem like quaint leftovers of a formal code that no longer applies, but at the time they developed, they were reasonable accommodations to existing sex roles.

Why should a man open a lady's car car door for her when she is getting in and out of the car? Certainly women are capable of doing this for themselves without any hardship, correct? Of course, but at the time that this tradition originated, this was not so. It actually predates cars. For centuries, the main mode of travel was horse drawn wagons, and women in Western cultures were routinely expected to wear long dresses and a couple of pounds of foundation garments underneath to give them the right shape. Women are also on average four to five inches shorter than men. Stepping into a wagon seat or even a carriage often involved a big step up, while wearing a long dress with a full set of undergarments. As a result, it became the man's resposibility to climb in first and aid the lady in getting in, which would have been somewhat more difficult due to the differences in height and manner of dress.

Now, what does this have to do with cars? Cars replaced carriages, and the eariliest cars still had high step ins and women still tended to wear full dresses all the time, and particularly when going somewhere that would require a car. Thus, it was partly an exptension of an existing norm and partly an adaptation to practical matters.

As we extend into the 40's and 50's, some things have changed, but others have not. The idea that it's good to help a woman into a car persists as formal courtesy, and is still in part a product of practical differences in sex roles of the times. Cars are lower to the ground, and women are wearing pants far more often and even dresses have changed from full, long garments with a bunch of underskirts and fewer, though still extensive, foundation garments, but you'll still find women wearing dresses and skirts most of the time. Men tended to be the ones who bought drove cars, with wives and daughters driving less often and sometimes not at all, a combination of economics (most families had one car) and a persistence of the idea that women were inherently less capable drivers than men.

So we have a young couple going out for the night. It will be the boy or the man driving because that was seen as his responsibility. The lady he's picking up will very likely be wearing a dress, nylons, and high heels, resulting in a somewhat restricting degree of mobility especially compared to the male. She'll very likely be carrying a purse. Purses have become less prominent as a female accessory of late, but at the time every woman carried one full of feminine necessities. When she gets to the car, she needs to navigate entry.

First, we have the door. Doors in 40's and 50's cars were heavy, not as well balanced as today, and latched a bit differently. If not very well maintained, it can take quite a bit of a yank to get the door open and even more to get it closed and latched tightly and safely. Differences in physical strength play a part here.

Getting into a car in a dress/skirt is somewhat different than in a pair of pants. If the way my brother gets in and out is any indication, guys tend to just step in with one foot, flop down on the seat, and bring the other in following, often closing the door at the same time. If you're wearing a dress, especially if you live in an era when you've had emphasized how important it is for a lady to keep her knees together, it works differently. You face away from the seat, sit down with your bottom on the seat, smothing the skirt underneath you with one hand to keep it from bunching up, and either bracing yourself or navigating your purse with the other, your knees facing out, then swivel your whole body, being careful to keep the heels clear and not to snag your nylons on anything as you get in.

Of course, all of this is possible even without help--I do it every day--but having someone there to take care of the door, especially one that is heavy and stiff and difficult to close, is a big help.

Now, you could say that the way women were expected to dress was in part a means of reinforcing their status as less than men, and that was, I believe, part of it, that the expected heels and long skirts and foundation garments in part created the image of fragility, but there was more to it as it originated than simply mean help women because they're women.

Now, as we get into the restaurant, we see the "holding the chair" aspect of this. Keep in mind that, for a very long time, women wore long dresses routinely, and that for nicer restaurants and other events where dressing very nicely is expected, dresses and heels are still routinel expected. Arranging a dress so that it remains comfortable and attractive, without the skirt riding up behind you or bunching up takes a bit more attention than it does in pants. Generally the best way to keep things neat, unbunched, and flat is to perch on the edge of the chair and slide your bottom backwards into the chair, lightly lifting yourself a bit as you do so, or to adapt the car entry method by sitting sideways (if there are no arms) and rotating. The problem here is that you end up a little back from the table, so you need to scoot the chair in following, and doing so in heels is a bit more difficult than in flat shoes. It's a tad bit different with a skirt and top combo, but not enough so as to require a separate description. By far the most convenient method that allows for arranging the skirt attractively and comfortably and modestly is to have a second person slide the chair underneath you as you sit down into it. Helping a woman with her chair originated not simply in response to physical sex, but as an adaptation to how men and women dressed differently.

Now let's imagine that you're teaching a young man proper manners for taking his girlfriend out on a date. Teaching him to open the car door for her and hold her chair is a way of showing him how to make things a bit easier and more pleasant for her, and functions as a way of compensating for her having to wear clothes that are a bit less comfortable, far less practical, and that make negotiating routine obstacles like entering and exiting cars and chairs at the restaurant a little less awkward for her. Would it be taught in all the detail I go into above? Of course not. Likely he was just taught that behaving in this manner towards a woman is polite, and that it would make her feel more comfortable. The underlying reasons have largely (though not entirely) melted away while the idea that these are good manners has not.

This is a classic example of something that happens a lot during cultural evolution. An idea that springs from a practical aspect of the society as it existed at the time become attached to more than one facet of society and remains in place long after the circumstances that produced it have changed.

In the case of the two forms of courtesy towards women that I outlined above, there are actually two elements to it, let's call these A (status) and B (circumstances). When A and B exist as a one-to-one relationship, any adaptation to circumstance B will naturally come to be associated with the status A of the people in circumstance B. This association can be so strong that even when circumstance B changes or is no longer applicable, the assicated behavior/cultural norm remains attached to status A, even when it did not originate there.

Apply this to entering a wagon/car. Take sex out of it entirely, and say it is polite to help the person who is shorter, not as physically strong, who is wearing a long dress, or in the more modern scenario, a dress, heels, and nylons and carrying a purse. That would be accurate, but since this person being described was always the woman, it was quicker and easier to teach it as "hold the car door for women," and while those conditions existed, just as accurate. Circumstances have changed such that it isn't accurate any longer, so many may look at this and think it's silly to hold a car door for a woman who is perfectly capable of opening and closing it for herself. This is true.

It doesn't, however, mean we should abandon the concept of helping someone who may need a little help to make things a bit easier for him or her, entirely when circumstances are similar enough that the same principle applies. When Grace and I went out to dinner for our anniversary the other night, she held my chair for me as I sat down into it, obviously not because of anything having to do with sex, given that there was no man involved, but because that is something that is somewhat difficult for me, and I was grateful for the help because it made a potentially difficult and awkward moment easier for me. When she sat down, the gentleman who escorted us to our table helped seat her because that's how it works in nice restaurants.

Abandoning "chivalry" doesn't mean abandoning courtesy or ignoring reality. Help people who need help for whatever reason. Hold doors for them, carry packages, open jars, whatever. Give up your seat to someone who might be in more need of it than you.

Of course we should treat the sexes equally, but this does not mean treating everyone the same. Accounting for individual differences and treating people in an accordingly dignified and respectful manner is perfectly appropriate, even when the traits that lead you to help someone are sex-linked traits, which can produce the appearance of showing a bias based on sex that is instead based on practical considerations.

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert