Chivalry
A few days ago, I had one of those interesting experiences that shocked me sincerely. As I was leaving the Law building on campus, there was a man who was opening a door to enter, so I (obviously) opened another door for myself. Man scoffed in a snorty sort of way while entering the building as if he couldn't believe I didn't recognize and accept his attempted chivalry. I couldn't believe that he would react in this way since any reasonable person would have acted in the same way as I did (by opening another door). What I realized as I was walking away, was that there was no reason for him to react the way he did unless he felt that because I was a woman, he needed to open the door for me and put his coat over puddles.
During my freshman year of college, I took a literature course and the only thing I remember about that class was the discussion we had about chivalry. While reading a *forgotten* book, the man who was chivalrous was unlucky whereas the aggressive man who took things he wanted was lucky. My TA seemed to believe that this book was all about the competing aspects of masculinity. I, on the other hand, asked why chivalry was an 'aspect' of masculinity. As a budding feminist, this made sense to me, but I merely got blank stares wondering why I was questioning this normative behavior.
I guess my question to the cosmos is: Why is it still necessary or acceptable to get angry when a person does not accept chivalry either knowingly or unknowingly? Why was his reaction automatically to be angry with me?
Comments
Why doe he get angry at you? Hmmm...putting aside that him being angry had nothing to do with the door and something else.
First, he must have thought opening a door for somebody must be a significant act. You obviously didnt (its a fucking door, one of many).
He interpreted your rejection of his door as a rejection of him.
Not him as a person but him as a man.
What if you rejected his door because he smelled like shit? Has nothing to do with his gender.
By taking your rejection of him as something to do with him as a man, it might show how strong his gender is a part of his identity.
When is confronted with a vauge situation, like who to vote for, he thinks in gendered terms. Like "what would a man do?" as opposed to "what would I do, what would a reasonable person do?".
Of course who decides what a "man" thinks like? Not our door holder.
His reliance on gender as a central part of his identity betrays of weakness of his own personality as separate from society.
When he encounters someone who give 2 fucks about his version of how things should be he feels injured, as if he has been insulted and so in anger mocks you.
He may, but not necessarily, feel threatened by your rejection but I doubt he even has the intelligence or imagination to recognize how this encounters questions the fundamentals of his world view.
Myself, I open doors for everyone. It's just polite. But for this guy his mind splits the world in two, man and woman and when the world fails to conform he feels a sense of injury and lashes out.
Posted by: Brandon | February 29, 2008 05:59 PM
Lets imagine for our purpose of discussion that the opener of this door had been a woman. Anger is anger, but perhaps the person who happened to extend their courtesy found in response rejection, which in this instance seems a reticent failure to acknowlege kindness, and stamp it as weakness, this misinterpretation seems foolhardy, pretentious and dissappointing. Some reasonable people might have traversed the threshold feeling no more altered then before encountering the scenario. What if?....
Posted by: Michelle Wandzel | March 3, 2008 03:09 PM
This is ridiculous. Women for years expected men to do these sorts of things and now a few women feel threatened by it. In fact women have taught men to do these sorts of things because if they didn’t, they wouldn't even be given the time of day. Simply put, I tend to believe that the majority of women whom are threatened by this type of chivalry are the ones who do not like men. I for one hold doors open for everyone and anyone. I think it is polity to be courteous and a protector of all. And truth be told, with all due respect, show me the women who doesn't like a man to treat her like a princess and I'll show you a woman that is mostly likely a masculine gay type. The funny thing is that I know women that are gay and enjoy anyone holding the door for them. This whole article seems to insinuate that this man was showing his dominance over you and the fact is that you really don't know what his intentions were. Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder, period. It's simple ridiculous.
Posted by: Justin | March 25, 2008 08:11 PM
I find it interesting that historical trend is addressed. I move to suggest that we live in the 21st century and have emerged from the victorian era. Although normative practices prevail within present society, that doesn't make them correct or without the capacity to change. Our society is constantly changing. In fact, we have two democratic candidates for president that would break historical ground and are running their campaigns with slogans of change. I take issue with the insinuation that I, and other women, are threatened by chivalry. On the contrary, I am merely confused by it. Why would anyone (gender/sex being irrelevant) feel the need to scoff when attempted chivalry is not accepted in frivolous situations? What I am questioning is the age-old normative dominating behavior. When one looks at chivalrous actions, it is men who are disguising dominating behaviors as kindness. I am not saying that when someone opens a door for another (an action I do frequently) is domineering or negative.
In response to Justin's inquiry, I like being treated as a human being. I know many women, my old roommate included, who would rather receive books than flowers or chocolate. A movie rather than candlelight dinner. There are many people who are moving out of romanticism and grabbing ahold of reality. Justin's comment bleeds with sexism and patriarchal nonsense. "I think it is polit[e] to be courteous and a protector of all." Man protect woman. Please surgically remove yourself from centuries past and accept the fact that being a protector of all is not your job nor welcomed by many. I am not a "masculine gay type" and I do not desire to be treated "like a princess." I actually include myself within the "lipstick feminists" of the third wave. Perhaps Justin is right that I have a chip on my shoulder, but I refuse to believe that challenging unnecessary normative domineering behaviors is reprehensible or even a negative act.
Posted by: Jessica Englund | March 26, 2008 02:03 PM