Interpretations Of Benevolent Sexism

I've got a problem with how benevolent sexism, or chivalry, is sometimes interpreted. There are several interpretations you could give it, but here's the one that doesn't make sense to me.

It is the man's job to hold the door open for women, or pull the seat out, or take off her coat and hang it up, because the women is so incapable of doing these things herself. This doesn't make sense to me because who actually believes that women are that incapable. It's achair for Christ's sake! Who really believes that women are just so frail and handicapped that they can't pull out chair? Have they not seen women sit down, open a door, take off their own coat? So I don't think this is how chivalry was meant to be interpreted.

I think the original intent of chivalry was for a man to put himself in the service of a woman he loves. It was more a gesture of servitude. The man falls in love with the woman, and therefore places her up on a pedestal. Chivalry thus becomes an expression of his self-recognized lesser status and her superiority. He submits himself before her and commits himself to serving her.

Either interpretation will do as neither one is a matter of objective fact. There's not really any way, short of peering into the mind of the individual to see what they think of the matter, to determine what the "right" interpretation is.

There's even this interpretation: men are supposed to hold the door open for women, pull the chair out, hang up their coat, etc., because, well, that's just the man's role. It has nothing to do with a man's superiority or a woman's loftier status, it's just tradition. I had a friend once who fit this description, and it was annoying. He claimed he did these things because he cared so much for the woman he was dating, but he'd do it for every women he came across--even when he wasn't dating her. It annoyed me because it put out the false pretense that he thought the girl was "special", when in reality he treated all women that way.

Then there's the attempt to be romantic. I also find this one annoying--not as much as the "tradition" interpretation, but annoying nonetheless--for personal reasons. I like being romantic, but for me, it has to be a bit creative. To follow along with the traditional roles of men being chivalrous towards a woman on a date or whatnot doesn't really mean much to me; it just means you're doing what you think you're "supposed" to do, or what you think is supposed to "sweep a girl off her feet"--but doing your own thing, being a bit creative, is at least unique and an expression of who you are. It also says volumes about your sincerity, that you had the spark of inspiration to come up with something yourself or put some mental effort into it, and though it doesn't automatically work as a "switch" to turn the girl on emotionally, it at least isn't so hum-drum and boring.

Now, with this whole variety of interpretations, there is another dimension to the debates on benevolent sexism which I do get, and that's the damaging effects it has on the attempts to dissolve gender roles. As innocent or well-intentioned as being chivalrous might be, I do understand that it does reinforce gender roles: men are supposed to do this, women are supposed to do that. I get that. So this is not meant to be taken as a point against that, only that I don't think it's so cut-and-dry that chivalry indicates the attitude that men need to do all these things for women because women are just that incapable.

 

Oh, please. It isn't that a woman is functionally invalid. It's favoring, pampering. "The pleasure is all yours". They're pleasantries. Courtesies, customs and curtseys.

Now list off all the things a woman might do for her man or partner that you don't understand. Shucks.

 

Hey, it's not my interpretation. I've heard it voiced by others before, and I think it's bullshit.

 

You'd be right then, others are full of bullshit.

 

I saw an interesting historical sewing video on how a woman is to sit down when wearing a hoop skirt. It talks about how a woman had to grab the hoops of her skirt with both hands while the man slid the chair under her; so, once there appears to have been a valid reason for this.

http://historicalsewing.com/how-to-sit-in-hoopskirt

 

How about fighting a war without raping and pilaging. Thus the war prolongs by ten or twenty years. Of course the other solution is stop driving cars much of the week, but that might have more drastic results of beheading journalists.