VIVE LA DEFERENCE?
By David Solomon (Written in 2002)
I wonder how many commuters out there know the difference between good manners and sexism? In my opinion, those who consider themselves to be gentlemen merely because they believe in letting women, and that means women only, on or off the train first most certainly do not. No prizes for guessing that somewhere along the line I’ve got a bee in my bonnet about gender. Even so, I can’t help wondering if I am so peculiarly alone in feeling very insulted and actually deeply hurt whenever for instance, a man lets a woman through a door first but then ignores me and walks through ahead indifferently. Oh well, suffice to say that I’m obviously not worth saving from a sinking ship then! How could they…?
Intriguingly however, the only objections towards ‘ladies first’ that I’ve ever heard about so far, are the legendary ones about women objecting to such treatment from men on feminist principles. I’m sure that most of us have heard stories about men who’ve opened doors for women or offered to give up their seats on public transport only to be shocked into embarrassment when they are told that their propositions are not simply unwanted but downright insulting. “I can open the door for myself sufficiently well, thank you very much” plus a whole range of other potty-time horror stories. Whether mythical or not, the case of a woman who is alleged to have gone as far as hitting a man when he opened the door for her is often cited.
Undoubtedly then, this must be why such a large majority of commentators on this subject seem to spend so much time bemoaning feminism for making modern man confused about whether or not he should display chivalry towards women anymore. Most insidious perhaps, are those that try to argue that rather than belittling women, these outward signs of deference by the male sex are instead indicative of their appreciation that women are a far more precious, beautiful, intricate and worthwhile species than ‘ugly, disgusting, uncomplicated, boorish blokes.’
Why therefore, they seem to be asking, have equality when you can have superiority? Typically, such tracts are keen to emphasize that if offers of old-time gallantry continue to be met with resentment on the part of a minority of ungrateful female recipients then very soon all women stand to lose for evermore the ‘privileges and niceties’ exclusive to the female sex. Herein lies the threat. Get back to where you once belonged – or else!
The great paradox of the tradition of ‘ladies first’ is that it has it’s origins in a system that viewed men as the consumer and women as a commodity. Behind the superficial pretence of deference towards women it is revealing to note that many of these traditionalist men aren’t even up for basic equality. Ironic how many a male chauvinist has always been so enthusiastically prepared to give up his seat for a lady on public transport but never in the House of Commons. Nevertheless, that’s not to say that anyone of us wouldn’t need to sit down to recover for at least a little while if we ever once witnessed the shock of seeing a politician actually travelling by public transport.
Surely however, gendered etiquette is every bit as insulting to those of us who are forced to stand on our own two feet as well. So why do we so rarely come across any murmurs of complaint from those who are denied such chivalry? Not even the most vociferous men’s rights campaigners seem to feel resentment about being expected to do their gentlemanly duty. On the contrary, the most likely objections that these men would be inclined to voice are those that blame feminism for attacking man’s traditional role as protector, therefore leaving him to feel surplus to requirements. Are those masculinists who are so keen to challenge special favour towards women when it surfaces in the form of supposedly feminist influenced positive discrimination policies somehow oblivious when other men, perhaps even including themselves, adhere so rigidly to the old-school, manly principle of ‘ladies first’?
Meanwhile, it doesn’t take that much imagination to realize that there are more than two sides in the sex war. The opinions of transgendered people are seldom heard in debates about sexism even when it comes to the obvious issues such as gendered dress codes. Inevitably, whenever social interaction differentiates between male and female, as in the case of chivalry, it draws us all without exception into a gender-role playing scenario. Whether we like the role that we are assigned or not, the merciless rules of bi-polar gendered propriety provide no room for dissent.
How we are treated is dependent on how accurately our physical appearances conform to conventionally understood definitions of male and female, which in turn have been shaped for centuries in a male-dominated society. If you don’t happen to ‘pass’ well enough as the gender that you really want to be treated as then it’s hard cheese. If my argument is beginning to seem far too ‘way out’ for some, it is as well to remember that not so very long ago the definitions of which individuals made the grade as ladies and gentlemen were narrower still.
Besides, a belief system, which if followed through precisely, would mean that an elderly man is expected to give up his seat for a possibly much healthier, younger person solely on the basis of gender can’t have much moral or indeed, practical justification. On closer examination, it would seem that so much of that which is heralded as chivalry needn’t necessarily have anything to do with kindness or consideration for others, but instead is rooted in ignorance, arrogance and brutal disregard for any opinions and feelings that may fall outside the strict gender apartheid espoused by it’s pompously overbearing exponents.
Strange then, why polite society persists in applauding genderist bigots as gentle men. I think it high time such dinosaurs realised that amongst those of us whom they insensitively implicate in their quirky gender role playing games could very well exist individuals who may, for any variety of reasons, take exception to being treated as a gender instead of as a person. After all, whose permission did they ever ask beforehand in this merry little dance?
No, it’s once again the same old story. They just assume that because they are male, then they naturally know what’s best for everyone else. Those who perform such ritualistic displays of gender discrimination feel that they have the God-given right to display favour only to those whom they deem feminine enough, physically attractive enough or quite frankly important enough to be deserving of it. The feelings of those whom they don’t consider worthy of placing on a pedestal are taken therefore, to add up to nothing. Remember the good old days when men were gentlemen, women were ladies and the rest of us knew our place? Yes, unfortunately the age of ‘chivalry’ is most definitely not dead.
Yet does chivalry really have to be an essentially sexist performance? Is there truly any need why common courtesy can’t be offered to and in turn, practised by, everyone? My own personal message would be, please be nice to everybody or not at all because discrimination really does hurt. To begin with, I admittedly find it not only disappointing but also frustrating that the gender-neutral chivalry carefully practised by myself is, on the part of strangers at least, so rarely reciprocated. Then again, would, I have often wondered, a ‘real man’ feel just that much too painfully emasculated if he opened doors or gave up seats for other men and/or transgendered people? If this be so, manhood must in all truth be a flower far more fragile, vulnerable and in need of protection than femininity.
Copyright May 2006 David Solomon
This work is registered with Copyright Witness
By David Solomon (Written in 2002)
I wonder how many commuters out there know the difference between good manners and sexism? In my opinion, those who consider themselves to be gentlemen merely because they believe in letting women, and that means women only, on or off the train first most certainly do not. No prizes for guessing that somewhere along the line I’ve got a bee in my bonnet about gender. Even so, I can’t help wondering if I am so peculiarly alone in feeling very insulted and actually deeply hurt whenever for instance, a man lets a woman through a door first but then ignores me and walks through ahead indifferently. Oh well, suffice to say that I’m obviously not worth saving from a sinking ship then! How could they…?
Intriguingly however, the only objections towards ‘ladies first’ that I’ve ever heard about so far, are the legendary ones about women objecting to such treatment from men on feminist principles. I’m sure that most of us have heard stories about men who’ve opened doors for women or offered to give up their seats on public transport only to be shocked into embarrassment when they are told that their propositions are not simply unwanted but downright insulting. “I can open the door for myself sufficiently well, thank you very much” plus a whole range of other potty-time horror stories. Whether mythical or not, the case of a woman who is alleged to have gone as far as hitting a man when he opened the door for her is often cited.
Undoubtedly then, this must be why such a large majority of commentators on this subject seem to spend so much time bemoaning feminism for making modern man confused about whether or not he should display chivalry towards women anymore. Most insidious perhaps, are those that try to argue that rather than belittling women, these outward signs of deference by the male sex are instead indicative of their appreciation that women are a far more precious, beautiful, intricate and worthwhile species than ‘ugly, disgusting, uncomplicated, boorish blokes.’
Why therefore, they seem to be asking, have equality when you can have superiority? Typically, such tracts are keen to emphasize that if offers of old-time gallantry continue to be met with resentment on the part of a minority of ungrateful female recipients then very soon all women stand to lose for evermore the ‘privileges and niceties’ exclusive to the female sex. Herein lies the threat. Get back to where you once belonged – or else!
The great paradox of the tradition of ‘ladies first’ is that it has it’s origins in a system that viewed men as the consumer and women as a commodity. Behind the superficial pretence of deference towards women it is revealing to note that many of these traditionalist men aren’t even up for basic equality. Ironic how many a male chauvinist has always been so enthusiastically prepared to give up his seat for a lady on public transport but never in the House of Commons. Nevertheless, that’s not to say that anyone of us wouldn’t need to sit down to recover for at least a little while if we ever once witnessed the shock of seeing a politician actually travelling by public transport.
Surely however, gendered etiquette is every bit as insulting to those of us who are forced to stand on our own two feet as well. So why do we so rarely come across any murmurs of complaint from those who are denied such chivalry? Not even the most vociferous men’s rights campaigners seem to feel resentment about being expected to do their gentlemanly duty. On the contrary, the most likely objections that these men would be inclined to voice are those that blame feminism for attacking man’s traditional role as protector, therefore leaving him to feel surplus to requirements. Are those masculinists who are so keen to challenge special favour towards women when it surfaces in the form of supposedly feminist influenced positive discrimination policies somehow oblivious when other men, perhaps even including themselves, adhere so rigidly to the old-school, manly principle of ‘ladies first’?
Meanwhile, it doesn’t take that much imagination to realize that there are more than two sides in the sex war. The opinions of transgendered people are seldom heard in debates about sexism even when it comes to the obvious issues such as gendered dress codes. Inevitably, whenever social interaction differentiates between male and female, as in the case of chivalry, it draws us all without exception into a gender-role playing scenario. Whether we like the role that we are assigned or not, the merciless rules of bi-polar gendered propriety provide no room for dissent.
How we are treated is dependent on how accurately our physical appearances conform to conventionally understood definitions of male and female, which in turn have been shaped for centuries in a male-dominated society. If you don’t happen to ‘pass’ well enough as the gender that you really want to be treated as then it’s hard cheese. If my argument is beginning to seem far too ‘way out’ for some, it is as well to remember that not so very long ago the definitions of which individuals made the grade as ladies and gentlemen were narrower still.
Besides, a belief system, which if followed through precisely, would mean that an elderly man is expected to give up his seat for a possibly much healthier, younger person solely on the basis of gender can’t have much moral or indeed, practical justification. On closer examination, it would seem that so much of that which is heralded as chivalry needn’t necessarily have anything to do with kindness or consideration for others, but instead is rooted in ignorance, arrogance and brutal disregard for any opinions and feelings that may fall outside the strict gender apartheid espoused by it’s pompously overbearing exponents.
Strange then, why polite society persists in applauding genderist bigots as gentle men. I think it high time such dinosaurs realised that amongst those of us whom they insensitively implicate in their quirky gender role playing games could very well exist individuals who may, for any variety of reasons, take exception to being treated as a gender instead of as a person. After all, whose permission did they ever ask beforehand in this merry little dance?
No, it’s once again the same old story. They just assume that because they are male, then they naturally know what’s best for everyone else. Those who perform such ritualistic displays of gender discrimination feel that they have the God-given right to display favour only to those whom they deem feminine enough, physically attractive enough or quite frankly important enough to be deserving of it. The feelings of those whom they don’t consider worthy of placing on a pedestal are taken therefore, to add up to nothing. Remember the good old days when men were gentlemen, women were ladies and the rest of us knew our place? Yes, unfortunately the age of ‘chivalry’ is most definitely not dead.
Yet does chivalry really have to be an essentially sexist performance? Is there truly any need why common courtesy can’t be offered to and in turn, practised by, everyone? My own personal message would be, please be nice to everybody or not at all because discrimination really does hurt. To begin with, I admittedly find it not only disappointing but also frustrating that the gender-neutral chivalry carefully practised by myself is, on the part of strangers at least, so rarely reciprocated. Then again, would, I have often wondered, a ‘real man’ feel just that much too painfully emasculated if he opened doors or gave up seats for other men and/or transgendered people? If this be so, manhood must in all truth be a flower far more fragile, vulnerable and in need of protection than femininity.
Copyright May 2006 David Solomon
This work is registered with Copyright Witness