FreeThinker619
Member
Would you say yes
OR
would you say no
please stated why/why not
OR
would you say no
please stated why/why not
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is chivalry rooted in sexism?
- Thread starter FreeThinker619
- Start date
Yes, but only partially, since it is far broader than gender related conduct.
FreeThinker619
Member
could you expound on this a bit?
Pretty much, though I'd also add it depends somewhat on:
- what is meant by chivalry. Specifically, whether or not one is including differential treatment based on the superficial feature of sex under that umbrella.
- what it means for an ideology to be "rooted" in something. In other words, do we regard "rooted" as a core thrust and essential component of the ideology, or merely descriptive of something's possible origins?
- what is considered sexism. Specifically, whether or not respectful or positive treatment of someone based on the superficial feature of sex should be considered sexist.
Of course not. Sexism wasn't even invented then.
Ref: Chivalry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A broad warrior code, it values honor, courtesy, valor, tradition, martial skill, faith,
loyalty, nobility, truth, & respect for women. Sexism seems only remotely related.
Alceste
Vagabond
I'd say yes. The behaviors associated with chivalry reflect distinct and inflexible gender roles typical of a patriarchal paradigm: the men are the door openers, the bag carriers, the threat handlers, etc. because it is assumed women either can't or would prefer not to open their own doors, carry their own bags or eliminate threats for themselves.
There's nothing inherently wrong with any of that, unless you're a woman who wants to be a firefighter (IOW, a professional threat eliminator). A chivalrous boss will be reluctant to give her the job because he views his role as protecting her from danger, and it's a dangerous job. The easiest way to protect her is to give that job to a man.
There's nothing inherently wrong with any of that, unless you're a woman who wants to be a firefighter (IOW, a professional threat eliminator). A chivalrous boss will be reluctant to give her the job because he views his role as protecting her from danger, and it's a dangerous job. The easiest way to protect her is to give that job to a man.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Good Old Oxford Dictionary:-
Chivalry:
1.the combination of qualities expected of an ideal knight, namely courage, honour, courtesy, justice, and a readiness to help the weak.
2.courteous behaviour, especially that of a man towards women:
he still retained a sense of chivalry towards women.
Oh dear...... looks a lot like sexism to me. By protecting the woman, and viewing women as weeney weaky and weedy, even this apparently benign version of sexism does hurt and do damage now.
I don't consider that opening a door for a woman is chivalrous, not if she's 80 and on sticks..... I'd do that for anybody, but the urge to rush to the aid of vigorous tough women left me long ago.
And so chivalry could be left where it belongs, in the fables, 'cos knights were b-st-rds on the whole, and chivalry was just the banner they hid their hideous habits within.
Today, good manners, honesty and integrity should be identified as themselves, not chivalry..... t'was ever a lie.
Chivalry:
1.the combination of qualities expected of an ideal knight, namely courage, honour, courtesy, justice, and a readiness to help the weak.
2.courteous behaviour, especially that of a man towards women:
he still retained a sense of chivalry towards women.
Oh dear...... looks a lot like sexism to me. By protecting the woman, and viewing women as weeney weaky and weedy, even this apparently benign version of sexism does hurt and do damage now.
I don't consider that opening a door for a woman is chivalrous, not if she's 80 and on sticks..... I'd do that for anybody, but the urge to rush to the aid of vigorous tough women left me long ago.
And so chivalry could be left where it belongs, in the fables, 'cos knights were b-st-rds on the whole, and chivalry was just the banner they hid their hideous habits within.
Today, good manners, honesty and integrity should be identified as themselves, not chivalry..... t'was ever a lie.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
I'm trying to think of a true historical example of a bloke who actually carried out all the above.
Take Nelson. Now he cheated on and made a laughing stock of his wife, continuing an open affair, so, basically, he couldn't join the club. In fact, whoever I think of can't fit within the whole definition.
That many (all?) failed to live up to such lofty standards is to be expected of mere humans....especially Limeys.
Wherenextcolumbus
Well-Known Member
I also think the problem with chivalry is that it exists or used to exist more commonly to differentiate men from women. It could be because women are seen as more fragile but also there's another aspect to it, which is to treat a man like a woman is insulting.
I agree with this.
Yes, i think it pretty obviously is, but not necessarily with any ill intentions. I just see it as a simplistic, unnecessary, and sexist code of honor (though code of honor for it's appliance today would be a strong word). It does have a lot of positive values contained within (at least in it's historic sense as i understand it), but of course i think we're mainly talking about certain aspects of chivalry rather than everything the word encompasses.
In that regard, it's based on or associated with fairly black and white portrayals of men and women and how they're supposed to act and be.