there is a difference between chivalry and courtesy. the underlying message behind chivalry is that a woman is supposed to be weak and helpless; it is the man's duty to protect a woman because she is a frail creature. this is why chivalry annoys me. men think it is good and courteous to be chivalrous, but i disagree. i can open the door on my own if my hands are free. i'm not weak. i'm not frail. i can lift heavy objects, too. i am a perfectly capable woman and chivalrous actions are meant to show the opposite. you can be courteous and good without being chivalrous. courtesy is when you aid someone when it's beneficial toward them, not because you think they are weak and therefore need to be helped at all times. (a definition from m-w: consideration, cooperation, and generosity in providing [as a gift or privilege])
if i'm closer to the door, let me hold it open for you. if you're lifting a heavy object, don't tell me, "that's okay, you're a girl," or "don't worry, let the men get it." it's not just men who believe in chivalry that piss me off, women who enable themselves into being weaker piss me off, too. "oh, this is heavy (reality: it's only 2 lbs.) can i get a strong man to lift this for me?" if you can do it, do it. if i'm perfectly capable of doing something that i'm obviously intent on doing, don't tell me, "this is a man's job." chivalry encourages sexism. it pisses me off when men will lunge forward half a mile to beat me to a door just so they can hold it open for five minutes while i take my time getting there. in this type of situation, typically, i'll open the second door if there is one just to avoid *allowing* him to perform his chivalrous act. yes, i know i'm a bitch, but i often take pride in that fact. completely ridiculous and exaggerated acts of "chivalry" piss me off to no end. if it's convenient for you to open a door, then go ahead, thanks. i thank people if it's an act of kindness. if it's completely unnecessary and uncalled for, then you're wasting my time and yours. grow up.
here is one link sort of related to the point i'm trying to make:
http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/berkin.html
it's about chivalry in the South (U.S.) and how it created a subservient type of role for women.
Quote:
"The lynch mob in pursuit of the black rapist thus represented the trade-off in the code of chivalry, for the right of the southern lady to protection presupposed her obligation to obey. The role of the lady demanded chastity, frailty, vulnerability. "A lady," noted one social psychologist, "is always in a state of becoming: one acts like a lady, one attempts to be a lady, but one never is a lady. Internalized by the individual, this ideal regulated behavior and restricted interaction with the world. If a woman passed the tests of ladyhood, she could tap into the reservoir of protectiveness and shelter known as southern chivalry. Women unable or unwilling to comply with such normative demands forfeited the claim to personal security. Together, the practice of ladyhood and the etiquette of chivalry functioned as highly effective strategies of control over women's behavior as well as powerful safeguards of caste restrictions.
Ironically, the symbolism of southern womanhood may have created an objective basis for the fear of black attacks on white women. "When men sow the wind," warned the abolitionist Fredrick Douglass in 1892, "they will reap the whirlwind." " page 372"
|
(sorry if this was a little bit heated, i just hate it when people tell me "i can't" with words or actions.)