Chivalry and Chauvinism

After an incident at my workplace, in which a male of high rank decided to act “chivalrous” toward a female colleague, I have initiated discussions with some of my friends about the historical and contemporary implications of chivalry. Unfortunately, the difficulty we face is the persistent belief (often shared among oppressor and oppressed) that stereotypes and gestures cannot be truly discriminatory if they are flattering. What’s wrong with saying that Asians are good at math? And isn’t it nice when a man holds a door for a woman?

The problem is, so long as any statement or gesture reinforces difference, and so long as difference always implies hierarchy (as it will until/unless the world is radically restructured), the act will bring to bear some applicable power relationship, some dynamic of domination. It works something like this. Say I am a woman waiting for a bus. I may be thinking about any number of things – what happened at work, what I plan to cook for dinner, how warm it is, and so on. As soon as a man steps aside to let me on the bus, I may still have a number of other things on my mind, but I am also now thinking, on some level, about the fact that I am a woman. And the man is also thinking, on some level, about the fact that he is a man.

That’s pretty harmless, though, right?

Well, for one thing, it adds up. As a woman, on the basis of these trivial actions, your gender is constantly being emphasized even when it’s not important or you don’t want to think about it (particularly in the workplace), and most importantly, you, as a woman, have no control over when this occurs. You realize that you never get to decide who goes in first or last, and this is yet another instance in which your ability to act is not equal to that of men. People argue that chivalry is just run-of-the-mill politeness. However, if chivalry were merely about being polite, it would not be the prerogative of men.

Furthermore, if chivalry were just about politeness, men would not feel insulted when women try to do the same for them. Although personal experiences here may vary, it is definitely true – and I have seen overwhelming evidence in support of this claim – that a good majority of men feel some degree of shame when women insist, “after you.” This shame comes from a perceived threat to their masculinity. They are, after all, supposed to be the “big, strong man.”

Finally, say what you will, chivalry does convey the message that women are weak and helpless. Historically, as these traditions emerged, the ideological justification for chivalry was expressed quite openly. And then it reinforced other existing forms of inequality. For example, women couldn’t even get into carriages by themselves, so they certainly couldn’t be entrusted with the privilege of voting. Some people argue that these historical facts aren’t applicable today. I counter that, first, it is important to remember that history is always relevant to the present. Attitudes and practices do not disappear nearly as easily as we think they do. Culture has a habit of reproducing itself. Second, I contend that ideas about feminine weakness DO persist, and are thus relevant today. That’s why we still have gender segregated sports. That’s why you hear countless women expressing their desire for a strong man who will protect them. That’s why men feel they need to open doors for women.

For any girl who has literally tried to compete on an equal playing field with boys, it is clear that boys do not tolerate girls who aren’t athletically inferior to them. Boys feel threatened when girls show them up. Boys insult each other by comparing their abilities to girls’. Because boys still learn that they are supposed to be physically superior to girls. Then those boys grow up and start pulling out chairs and opening up doors for women, just so they can remind themselves of that superiority.

Race and Double Standards

The other night I was out with a group of people that I did not know that well. I am not sure how the topic of race came up (it seemed out of the blue).

One woman said, "If you just say what race a person is, people call you a racist." She pointed to bartender, saying, "hispanic,' and then, "I'm racist!"

She continued. "You can only say your own race - that's okay - but not anyone else's."

Some other comments followed this, including one man who, in the midst of insisting that stereotyping should be more acceptable, argued: "Some things are just fact. See, I could say, 'Black people generally come from Africa,' and then someone would say, 'Oh you're racist.'"

First, in response to the man who likes to stereotype I would say, you just demonstrated the problem with stereotyping. The example is far from cut-and-dry. For example, if you are talking about African Americans, most generally have some European ancestory; a significant number, in fact, have more European ancestory than African. So what does it mean, then, to say "Black people come from Africa.." ? The statement assumes racial purity, and more neatly separates "black" from "white" (genetically, geographically... ) than is truly the case. It also ignores an entire chunk of African American, nay, American history pertaining to slave mistresses, interracial marriage, the "one drop rule," "passing," etc. etc.

But really I would like to focus on the woman. Her first claim that to simply recognize race constitutes "racism" in our society is a misconception shared by many others. To the contrary, "color blindness" is a strategy often employed to maintain racial inequality by making it an "off limits" topic and therefore rendering it impossible to address. Obviously people in this society are going to be conscious of race because it has social significance. Racial consciousness is not a bad thing. One of my favorite definitions of "racism" is something along the lines of: racism is to knowingly benefit from a system of inequality and do nothing to change that system.

What is a problem is when consciousness of race takes the form of stereotypes. And I just touched on this above.

The woman's second point is even more contentious. I have often heard white people complain about double standards in terms of what one is allowed to say. The "N" word is one notorious example. I think that was what the woman was eventually getting at.

Ohhh the irony of white people complaining about double standards. They have enjoyed better jobs, better pay, better access to public services, the ability to take out loans and buy houses in whatever neighborhood they want... and they are upset about not being able to say the "N" word?

... Or the fact that they can't be the ones to decide who does and doesn't get to say it? The thought of black people having control over one tiny area of life - over one little word (a word that was used to abuse them, no less) - drives these people nuts!

In the midst of continued educational achievement gaps, income gaps, residential segregation, differential treatment by the justice system... white people are complaining about the "unfairness" of not being able to say a word that black people can say?

As they say, if that's all you have to complain about...