Chivalry and Sexism

In an atypical break from the frenzy of the political world, I bring up a branch of the much-debated subject of classic courtesy and politeness, a group oft referred to collectively as chivalry. It has been seen traditionally as a set of customs, such as the opening of a door or the relinquishing of a bus seat, observed by men out of their view of women. What exactly this view is is the controversy. Is it a general respect for others? Is it an idea that women are weaker and need protection and help, or is it simply a meaningless set of rules that is observed but not really understood?
This notion of chivalry began, undisputedly, with sexist roots. However, it is important to remember the context. Women's rights movements brought the issue of sexism into the spotlight, but this was centuries earlier, when women were, as a general rule, considered inferior. Some women oversaw and managed estates, but even these were considered the estates of their husbands, fathers, or brothers and not their own. It was also a turbulent time. Society was built on the principles of protecting those beneath you and letting those above you protect you, in return for services, loyalty, or money. The idea of who was "beneath" sprung from the differences in duties. These increasingly distinguished differences led eventually to what we know as sexism, not because of the fact that difference was acknowledged but because such difference was used to elevate one group. It is the same with modern race issues; to refuse to acknowledge another's cultural or ethnic background is just as bad as to use it to discriminate against or persecute that person.
Now, women can vote, hold executive positions, and do anything a man can do. Yet we insist on picking out these differences to call another inferior, regardless of intent. To open a door to someone carrying a large package or to help someone when they need it is not to call them inferior, because it is a simply an action of helping anyone, regardless of race or gender or feature, who has need of it. However, to assume that because someone is a woman they must need a strong protector is demeaning, because it takes away belief in their ability to take care of themselves. It is, in a way, objectifying women, and while the majority does not consciously intend malice or even understand the concept of chivalry itself, plenty, at least subconsciously, believe that it somehow fulfills some need of theirs to be seen as more manly, an adjective they get by looking better in comparison to the "weak" or "soft" female.

-Modern Diogenes-