It depends. Do you do these acts simply to be kind, or are they expected? Are you doing them because you inherently believe it's a man's job? I think it can be sexist on both sides. Why can't women be chivalrous? Why do men have to be? Is it to assert dominance or show 'I am a man this is a man's job to provide and show my power' or do you expect something in return?
Too many factors to make a concrete "sexist or not sexist" answer. It all depends on motive and the person you're being chivalrous to.
I had been a new office at work , for about a year , when a guy held a door for me (first time) , then as I entered , he said , now see , this is why men get paid more than women . I was taken by surprise , but then pointed out , that this was the first and only time a man had held a door for me , since I came on board in this office , and frankly , since I had held the door , when someone had been carrying stuff , according to his concept , I deserved a promotion .
Depends. Are you being courteous? Then no. Are you FORCING your courtesy on one gender? Then yes. If you can give and receive equally, then it's just being courteous, even if we do call it chivalry.
I work with a fiercly independent gal and you'd better ask her before helping her. She WILL give you an ear full if you don't. Ask her though, and it's ok. So long as she is allowed to do her own thing. Meaning that if you are helping her when she doesn't need it... no. Not sure this last helps... I consider myself egalitarian (I at least try, no, I don't always hit the mark but I am really trying to) and chivalrous and... well, I helped when I should not have and it caused me to step back and consider why. It was because I did NOT ask.
I also hold doors for whomever comes along. If you hold it for a gal (or guy) then drop it on the next person to come along... you are sort of singling out that one person and it's not ok. Hold it for any and all comers and it's ok... granted, be prepared for a lot of all comers.
Most of Chivalry actually details combat etiquette, not treatment of women. But what rules do exist in Chivalry for the treatment of women are fairly sexist. The meaning behind them is somewhat appaling frankly. The holding of a door? The man is allowing the woman to enter the building. That's one rule I can think of at the moment.
Today I met up with a girl I worked with last year, we had a nice morning, checked out a few places and decided on lunch. I insisted on paying, pretty much because I am under less financial strain and though she has some savings, she is going backwards week by week. I would have done the same for a guy. Technically I do not think chivalry is sexist, and do not consider the examples given pertain to chivalry. Sadly, chivalry is very religious.
I have it on good authority from a few feminists that everything is sexist. (Kidding, kidding… sort of. Put down your pitchforks and torches.)
I think there's a difference between being chivalrous and being overbearing. Offering to pay for a meal isn't the same as not allowing women to pay if they are so inclined. Doing things for one's lover without doing those same things for someone else isn't a problem, in my mind, because I'm closer to my lover and feel like doing more for her because of the intimacy we share (but, with that said, I open doors for everyone when it's practical to do so, just out of politeness). And I expect that she'll go out of her way for me sometimes in ways that she wouldn't for other people. Instigating romance was never a very strong suit of mine, but it's very often the case that one person is more aggressive in that respect and it's fine or expected that's how the dynamic works so long as it's not forced or coerced. In terms of socially defined gender roles, just do whatever feels natural as long as it's not hurting anyone. Who cares whether it's socially accepted or not? In the end, it comes down to what works for two (or more) people in a relationship, what works for them in terms of intimacy, etc.
Chivalry is condcending and pandering under the guise of deference to women. Treating women as "special" is a way of making a "power statement". A true person of high moral character treats everyone respect fully and equally. Compasion, empathy, and kindness extended with conviction are the hallmark of a true gentleman. A favorite quote from Thomas Pain says it all, "the world is my country, to do good is my religion ".
Just a funny quote:
I yearn for true gender equality. I have no patience for one who talks about female privilege when it suits them, and then complains about someone "not being a man" when it's convenient.
Chivalry isn't entirely bad. some can call it sexist but it's a part of being a good man. Chivalry and manners are the traits that separate the boys from the men. We need more men in this world who will do things for others out of chivalry. We need less boys who grow to become selfish and rude.
So yes, chivalry can be sexist. But what's wrong with that? Men discriminating by gender to act nicer towards women than men.
Also not all men are like this. I treat men and women the same, I hold the door for both and try to be friendly to both. I'm polite, well mannered and chivalrous to everyone I meet.
I think it's just plain stupid. Equality should mean balance in all things. Many of These social norms have their roots in religion. Stop teaching Males that Females are damsels in distress that need rescuing, because it is bad for both genders. Instead teach that being good to one another is a virtue.
It's hardwired into the male psyche to protect women and children, as I have always done since early childhood.Even though I'm only a partial transmale who is bio female.
However, men heavy in female traits, the creative, high IQ ones, statistically speaking, can be the sort who want women to pay, won't assist or help or protect them. These men can be dangerous for women since they won't have your back, often critical, picky, moody, and prone to leaving relationships.
If your man won't take care of you, why would you bother with him at all? Like women need another child to take care of..NOT.
Absolutely not. I have a certain code of living that I live by. It will not be compromised by circumstances or individuals. If my date or significant other has issues with my polite mannerisms then we will talk and I will try to convey to her how I live and how strongly I feel. I have dated women of different race, cultures, religions, economic and social backgrounds and we usually come to some type of common ground on the issue.
I hold doors open for someone a step or two behind.
Rude as hell to make someone trot and try to catch it.
I'll let someone with only a few items in line in front of me at the grocery store. If the lines are backed up.
I cringe at the idea that it is a woman needs protectection mearly because of her gender though.
"Just be excellent to each other." - Add guitar riff
Some things might be considered sexist. As a woman, I appreciate when a door is opened for me and am allowed to enter or exit first, but it's not ever expected. Sometimes I don't mind doing that myself. It's give and take. Certain things shows manners and respect. Some guys like to be chivalrous, some girls like to be pampered. Then again, some women don't need all that. As long as neither party is being rude.