Letter to the Editor: Politeness Not Chivalry

By Jada Marsden

To the Editor,

I wish to address the "In Defense of Chivalry" article published in last week's issue of The Santa Clara. I take serious issue with Moreno's misuse of the word "chivalry." From what I gather, the author is accepting of chivalrous behavior (men offering her a seat on the bus, opening the door for her) as long as they have good intentions. That is, it is okay by her as long as their beliefs are not based on sexist notions. I would argue that chivalry, as we conceive of the term today, is entirely based on gender and is indeed sexist.

See, chivalry is not the same as being polite or nice. Politeness is when a man reaches the door first and opens it for not only the woman behind him but the man behind her; on the other hand, chivalry is when a man opens the door only for her. Politeness is when a man offers his bus seat to the seven month pregnant woman or to the elderly man struggling to get his bearings. Chivalry is when he offers it to a woman of the same ability. Politeness is gender neutral, while chivalry is totally based on gender and subsequent expectations.

Therefore, if women want to be treated with respect, they should not expect men to be chivalrous — to automatically pay the dinner bill or help them walk across the street. Instead, we should all have a reasonable expectation of politeness. I am looking for a world where we hold doors open for the person behind us no matter their gender. And to those lamenting that chivalry is dead, I say it ought to be.

Jada Marsden

Online Editor

Class of 2012