faceless_wonder (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
faceless_wonder) wrote2006-04-17 10:27 am
faceless_wonder) wrote2006-04-17 10:27 am
i am not a victim.
i saw this column online this morning. it supports the idea of chivalry. and, i think it's total bunk.
the article defines:
"Chivalry. The idea that part of being a man (and certainly part of being a gentleman) is to sacrifice willingly to protect those who are more vulnerable."
part of being a man? i'm suspicious of any code or practice that refers to something as part of being a man, or part of being a woman. the people who try to support chivalry nowadays say it's a matter of respect, respect that men should have for the more vulnerable.
that presupposes the idea that women are, by nature, more vulnerable than men, and i refuse to buy into a code or custom that presupposes this. yes, i do understand that on a physiological level, men are generally stronger than women. but, i don't think that translates to vulnerability, vulnerability of the type that makes a man a bad man for not opening a door or giving up his seat. men who offer these gestures are either consciously or unconsciously buying into the idea of woman as weak, woman as in need of the chivalrous gestures--and women who accept them are buying into it as well. i refuse.
do i get offended whenever a man opens a door for me? if a man happens to be ahead of me, about to walk through a door, it's cool if he holds it open for me. just like, i'd hold it open for him if i happen to be ahead of him. that's not chivalry. that's common decency, that's happenstance, that's being human.
but, if a man rushes from behind me to open the door for me, i'm inclined to either laugh a bit at his unnecessary gesture of overtaking me, or be insulted if i let myself think back to the institution of chivalry. if a man offers to get up from a chair to let me sit down, i decline. first politely, then more forcefully. if a man offers me his jacket so i'll be warm at his expense, i decline as well. i don't need anyone to do that kind of stuff for me.
is it nice? maybe they intend it to be that way. but, it's not necessary. i don't need it. i don't need someone overtaking me so i don't have to pull open a door. i don't need a chair or a coat or anything any more than the guy who happens to have the chair or the coat in the first place. i don't want to perpetuate the pressure that men may feel under chivalry to give them up. a man is no less of a human if he's in the chair and i'm standing. i am less of a human for taking it.
i refuse to be a victim of chivalry.
the article defines:
"Chivalry. The idea that part of being a man (and certainly part of being a gentleman) is to sacrifice willingly to protect those who are more vulnerable."
part of being a man? i'm suspicious of any code or practice that refers to something as part of being a man, or part of being a woman. the people who try to support chivalry nowadays say it's a matter of respect, respect that men should have for the more vulnerable.
that presupposes the idea that women are, by nature, more vulnerable than men, and i refuse to buy into a code or custom that presupposes this. yes, i do understand that on a physiological level, men are generally stronger than women. but, i don't think that translates to vulnerability, vulnerability of the type that makes a man a bad man for not opening a door or giving up his seat. men who offer these gestures are either consciously or unconsciously buying into the idea of woman as weak, woman as in need of the chivalrous gestures--and women who accept them are buying into it as well. i refuse.
do i get offended whenever a man opens a door for me? if a man happens to be ahead of me, about to walk through a door, it's cool if he holds it open for me. just like, i'd hold it open for him if i happen to be ahead of him. that's not chivalry. that's common decency, that's happenstance, that's being human.
but, if a man rushes from behind me to open the door for me, i'm inclined to either laugh a bit at his unnecessary gesture of overtaking me, or be insulted if i let myself think back to the institution of chivalry. if a man offers to get up from a chair to let me sit down, i decline. first politely, then more forcefully. if a man offers me his jacket so i'll be warm at his expense, i decline as well. i don't need anyone to do that kind of stuff for me.
is it nice? maybe they intend it to be that way. but, it's not necessary. i don't need it. i don't need someone overtaking me so i don't have to pull open a door. i don't need a chair or a coat or anything any more than the guy who happens to have the chair or the coat in the first place. i don't want to perpetuate the pressure that men may feel under chivalry to give them up. a man is no less of a human if he's in the chair and i'm standing. i am less of a human for taking it.
i refuse to be a victim of chivalry.
no subject
On behalf of men everywhere, a magazine that lives by the credo of fucking over the little guy has no business speaking the word "gentleman", let alone trying to define it.