I found this post on one of the blogs I read. I have mixed emotions. On the one hand I believe it's important to teach respect, especially in high school where now a days teachers are afraid to even give a student detention because they may be sued. On the other hand the over-the-top enforcement of these rules implies that, women deserve special (aka inferior) treatment. That was the implication when these types of rules first were implemented. I'm not sure. I feel a basic repertoire of respect to all would be more appropriate than "men! don't step on women's toes... they may cry!"
A high school Latin teacher in Arizona has created mandatory chivalry rules for his students in order to force the male students to behave like "gentlemen" with the young women.
Here's the rulebook:
• Boys would hold doors for girls.
• They would ask girls if they would like to be seated, and offer to take their backpacks before they sit down.
• Boys would stand if a girl leaves the room.
• They would allow girls to be served first if food is in the classroom.
• And, girls always had the right of refusal.
Why did he do it? As the teacher, Cord Ivanyi, told ABC News: "This year after watching a mass of boys literally push through a line of girls who were waiting to get food for a class party, I was bothered by the lack of respect either sex seemed to have for the other. The next day, I sat down with them at the beginning of the class and asked them if they considered what decency was."
Some might say Ivanyi's forced chivalry is sexist, because instead of encouraging good manners for all, he's teaching the young men that women deserve special treatment because of their special (inferior?) status. But others would say that there's nothing bad about teaching men to be courteous and respectful and that chivalry is just an expression of good manners.
Is it bad to FORCE men to be chivalrous?
Posts
1 Free for All:
The problem is in conflating "chivalry" with "good manners." They are not the same thing.
Good manners can be gender neutral.
Chivalry, defined as male deference to females, is of course gender specific.
If you believe that treating people with more or less deference due to their sex is wrong, then it is sexist.
If you believe that different gender roles are okay because males and females are different, then there still has to be a balance.
Balance is not "males give deference, females receive."
Balance would be requiring the females to follow an equivalent old-fashioned gender role when relating to the boys. Being ladylike, modest in speech and dress, etc. Girls being in charge of serving food, drinks and so on.
We all know that that would never be tolerated, so neither should gender-specific deference to females.
One or the other, but balance please.
Post a Comment