Teach boys to be chivalrous leaders

[ladypuglover]

Ladypuglover, I gag at other people's vomit to. Caring for puking children has always been the hubby's job. I do the coughs and colds because he can't stand snot or phlegm.

He doesn't have a visual weak stomach like I do and my triggers are bodily functions and hair. My 4th son has my gag reflex to the same things. So when husband is gone I woman up and do what needs to be done before it sets off #4 and makes it even harder on me. But you can take any and all of us on the most wild ride and none of us will lose our stomaches.

[Elle]

Does anyone ever think about WHY we do this for women? What is the reason for it? I mean, my car does not have power locks so I'll unlock the door for others and open the door for them while I'm already there just to be nicec, but to get out and open the door?

Hold-over from the days when women's skirts made it difficult and even dangerous to get into and out of carriages without help. It was practical and for safety, not an implication that woman are weak.

I could see this for sexy time, but otherwise, what's the purpose? I can take off and put on my own coat. I've done it for years without help. I'm grateful that I don't have a medical condition that makes putting on clothes difficult and therefore I will enjoy my ability to do so.

Another hold-over, but from when women's clothing was restrictive enough that it could be difficult to get one's own coat on.

Okay? Don't see the purpose of this, but whatever.

Another hold-over. With big skirts and bustles, women would need help sitting down at a table. You can sit easier in a seat for conversation, but not scoot to a table. So men would move the seat under women so they were close enough to a table to eat.

My philosophy? Whoever gets to the door first opens it for the other and they enter like normal people.

Yet another hold-over, hold the door so her skirts and trains don't get caught. Wear a wedding dress with a train and try getting through a door without help or your train getting caught without having to gather it up every single time you go through a door.

Those ones all have no sexist intent. They're just reflective of how impractical clothing can be.

Why? Why not share the bag-carrying and if something is really heavy, take it in together?

And this one is sexist. It implies a woman automatically can't carry anything. If someone, regardless of sex, can't carry something and the other person can, it's nice to carry for that person, or to help.

[Lily]

Chivalry is what they do when someone is looking.

Decency would be doing the right and courteous things when there is no potential for social reward.

My husband is a true gentleman. He's not only courteous to me (in public and private), but to everyone else as well. Give me a gentleman who does what he does out of the goodness of his heart without expecting or needing any displays or social rewards, any day over one who does it specifically so that other people will know he's doing it.

Bleh.

[Austin]

Chivalry is what they do when someone is looking.

Decency would be doing the right and courteous things when there is no potential for social reward.

My husband is a true gentleman. He's not only courteous to me (in public and private), but to everyone else as well. Give me a gentleman who does what he does out of the goodness of his heart without expecting or needing any displays or social rewards, any day over one who does it specifically so that other people will know he's doing it.

Bleh.

You explained this better than me, but this is my view as well.

I guess I'd just hate to think that if someone (people we don't know) saw my husband opening a door for me or helping me get my coat on that they would think he was a sexist asshole and I was some helpless doormat. But then again, who gives a shit what others think. Ignorant people are always going to think they know more about situations than they actually do.

[Boltingmadonna]

Elle said:

Those ones all have no sexist intent. They're just reflective of how impractical clothing can be.

I have to disagree with that. It IS sexist that women's clothing was designed to be restrictive and cumbersome. That didn't just happen by accident. To say clothing "can be" impractical uses passive voice to make it sound as if this just kinda happened, the corsets and tight high-heeled boots and crinolines gently descended from heaven and draped themselves over women. What really happened was that men pressured women to dress in clothes that would incapacitate them, then treated them as if they were helpless. If men had to wear those outfits, they'd have to helped out of carriages too!

[TMS]

OK my mom grew up in a very conservative home. My grandfather was a little country preacher - not Baptist - but just as strict and conservative as you would expect from an IFB preacher. My mom was not allowed to wear pants or dance. But my mom was allowed to date. And to date who she WANTED to date.

My mom always loved to tell the story of this boy from church who had a major crush on her, and my mom was nice to him but was NOT attracted to him. One day this boy called my mom's home and asked to speak to her father. When my grandfather got on the phone, he asked permission to have my mom's hand in marriage. My grandfather responded, "Well, don't you think you ought to ask HER that question???"

Every time I see these fundies who think a young man has to pursue a girl only with the girl's father's permission, I think of my very, conservative, fundy preacher grandfather on the phone with that boy.

[Austin]

Elle said:

I have to disagree with that. It IS sexist that women's clothing was designed to be restrictive and cumbersome. That didn't just happen by accident. To say clothing "can be" impractical uses passive voice to make it sound as if this just kinda happened, the corsets and tight high-heeled boots and crinolines gently descended from heaven and draped themselves over women. What really happened was that men pressured women to dress in clothes that would incapacitate them, then treated them as if they were helpless. If men had to wear those outfits, they'd have to helped out of carriages too!

Those are two separate issues. Were the men that assisted women because of these crazy, impractical clothing necessarily acting with sexist intent by the mere act of assisting them? I don't think so. Were women oppressed and pressured by the patriarchy to wear crazy, impractical clothing? Sure.

[dairyfreelife]

Elle said:

I have to disagree with that. It IS sexist that women's clothing was designed to be restrictive and cumbersome. That didn't just happen by accident. To say clothing "can be" impractical uses passive voice to make it sound as if this just kinda happened, the corsets and tight high-heeled boots and crinolines gently descended from heaven and draped themselves over women. What really happened was that men pressured women to dress in clothes that would incapacitate them, then treated them as if they were helpless. If men had to wear those outfits, they'd have to helped out of carriages too!

You said this better. There's definitely sexist intent in the clothing of back in the chivalry start, even if they weren't aware of what the term sexism meant or that their behavior was sexist. Why did women have to wear those corsets? To make their waist thinner. Almost all the clothing was for "modesty", but really it was for the men. As BlotM says and I completely agree with this: men all but required the women to wear clothes that made them need help and so began the nonsense ideas that even though clothing and times have changed, we still need these rules. We don't. Lots of cultures have this problem of putting genders in rigid roles for attraction (especially women) and making them do insane things like foot-binding and sword-swallowing all for attraction. Doesn't make them less sexist even if being sexist wasn't the intent.