HowToFoldSoup

Being one who enjoys a good debate, I decided to look into it a little further.  Texas A&M has two papers, neither of which has a very effective search engine, so I was reduced to manually wading through the archives of The Battalion when I found the articles in question.  In fact, I found that the letter Kevin responded to was a response itself, so i also read that letter.  I have reproduced the letters as they appeared below. 

Letter 1:

As a junior accounting major, I spend a lot of my time in May's Business School. I also live on Northside, so I take the number seven Wehner Express at least twice a day to ferry myself between the hall and class. As many West Campus students know, this bus is almost always full. I have noticed that male passengers are almost always quite chivalrous when it comes to giving their seats up to the ladies of Texas A&M. A problem I see though is that many times, women can't even get on the bus, or get to a seat, because the bus is full of guys standing up, with maybe 5 or 10 seats open. I propose that the gentlemen of Texas A&M adopt a notion of chivalry that I myself have adopted. Let the women on the bus first. By standing back and letting the girls get on the buses first you will not only be allowing the buses to be filled to their capacity, but you will also be displaying the epitome of chivalry and gentlemanly conduct.


Ross Robinson
Class of 2007

This is the original letter, or in this case, the fuse.  The chivalrous comments in this letter were pretty much erroneous, since the point wasn't a call for chivalry, but a more effective way to fill a bus.  Not many people can argue with that.  He did repeat chivalry several times in the letter, and even ended with the guilt-laden "you will also be displaying the epitome of chivalry and gentlemanly conduct", but I don't think that was his central theme.  It's just an additional benefit to accompany an efficient bus-filling. 

Letter 2:

The women of Texas A&M do not need to be 'allowed' onto the buses before males or 'allowed' to sit whilst the men so heroically stand in order to illustrate their masculine prowess and of course their extreme thoughtfulness by being sensitive to the fact that women must not exert themselves by such strenuous activity- as dare I say, standing or waiting in line for a bus. The notion that a true "gentleman" physically protects his "lady" (i.e. door-holding, bag-carrying and seat giving) from the external world is extremely patronizing. Furthermore there is absolutely no need in the 21st century for this denigrating, outdated concept of chivalry to be practiced at all. As anybody who has ever waited in a line, they know the philosophy of first come, first served - and as it should be. I never see males giving other males their seats or carrying their bags and if a female ever offered her seat to a male, he would laugh and loudly protest so as to not be emasculated. When men refuse the same acts from women they are reserving the right to be polite and friendly only for themselves and women are then reduced to the receivers of male generosity. How can women ever be considered fully equal when we are constantly being shown that we are inferior through such condescending acts?

Carrie Thornbrugh
Class of 2007

Uh oh. Carrie has turned the original letter into a political soapbox.  This is a classic example of creating a straw man.  Sure is easy to attack all those points...he didn't make.  My favorite part is the selective quoting she does from the letter, ignoring context and, as I pointed out, the entire original point of the first letter.  She does, however, introduce a new argument nicely with: The notion that a true "gentleman" physically protects his "lady" (i.e. door-holding, bag-carrying and seat giving) from the external world is extremely patronizing. Furthermore there is absolutely no need in the 21st century for this denigrating, outdated concept of chivalry to be practiced at all.  She presents two points to this argument, both focusing on double-standards.  First, Males don't give up their seats to other guys.  Second,  if a female tried to reverse the role and give her seat to a guy, it would be emasculating for the male, and he couldn't accept due to societal pressure. She then goes on to repeat that chivalrous acts are denigrating to women, wondering how equality will ever be possible with these attitudes.  My solution to this problem is a polar opposite to the solution she presents.  Instead of eliminating the acts which single out women, which reinforce a dominance/submissive mind set in both men and women, extend the treatment to both sexes.

All the actions associated with chivalry are of benefit to the recipient.  Removing chivalry seems to be cutting off the proverbial nose despite the face.  Instead, the nose which was reserved for women,  should be used on both sexes. (I already regret the nose metaphor). 

Letter 3 (By Tim's Son):

Thornbrugh (I'll go ahead and cut out the "Miss"), thank you for reliving all of us "patronizing" males of our chivalrous duty. From now on, I will slam all the doors I pass into the faces of our Aggie women. This will prove that I consider them a legitimate threat to myself, and my social standing. But seriously, Thornbrugh, expressing oneself as a "gentleman" towards the opposite sex is a sign of respect, something that has been passed down for generations, and something that, more often than not, provokes a positive response. I have not received a single evil glare, or harsh word in my ten years of behaving such, due to the fact that women actually appreciate this, ultimately small, sign of respect; respect I bestow in different forms to all kinds of people. Men are different than women; not unequal - different, and males acknowledge this with simple acts of courtesy, instead of foolishly ignoring it. And women acknowledge it by allowing themselves to enjoy the benefits therein. Lighten up, Thornbrugh, there's no ulterior motive here.


Kevin Alexander
Class of 2009

The first three sentences of this response are nonsensical sarcasm, which have no place in an intelligent debate.  One point, though.  "This will prove that I consider them a legitimate threat to myself..."  Legitimate? Your sexism is showing. [Note to Kevin:  It's hard to take someone seriously who responds to claims of condescension with condescension] But, we can throw those points out, thankfully, since he begins his next sentence with "But seriously....".  Ok, now we get to the meat of the argument. In defense of chivalry:

Being a gentleman...

• is a sign of respect.
• isn't intended to disrespect or downgrade women, contrary to Carrie's original posit.

You make this argument in the face of a woman who finds it disrespectful?  Since this only speaks to your motives, isn't it showing more respect to accept the interpetation of the person in question?  In, "Of Mice and Men", Lenny Small killed a woman because he got frightened and was trying to keep her quiet. Now, he had no malice toward the woman, but he was too much of a simpleton to see how threatening he was in her eyes, and in his murderous suppression, he thought he was comforting her.  Does this mean that his interpretation was valid because he believed it? Obviously not.  Now, I'll grant, that's an extreme and ficticious example, but it does make my point. 

You know what they say the road to hell is paved with.

• has been passed down for generations.

Wow.  This is actually a point for her case.  The viewing of a woman as an object or as property HAS been passed down for generations, and until we get these subconscious reminders out of society, those views will persist.  What?  You don't think your chivalrous acts promote objectification or ownership of women?  Why do you think they originated?  That aside, what is being asked for is progress, not a continuation of ancient traditions.

• doesn't piss women off, in Kevin's experience.

Actually, Kevin, your letter is in response to someone whom it pisses off.

• celebrates the fact that Men and women are different, not unequal.

Different?  How do acts of courtesy acknowledge the difference between the sexes?  Why would you choose this act to do so?  How do you acknowledge the difference (yet equality) between age groups? Races?  Heights?  This is a mundane rationalization that doesn't hold true across the board of those different but equal.

• is acknowledged by women when they accept it.

What choice to they have?  Because those women exist in the same society that your 'traditional' values came from, they feel obligated to accept it.  Only a few women are willing to challenge that tradition. Even on a historical scale, very few women are out-spoken enough to spit in the face of what they find degrading. Hell, quite a few women agree with you, and even take it further, that women are subservient to men, and they shouldn't challenge their place in society.  These women, in my experience, do this because of religious or societal influences.

So the question becomes, do we, as men the 21st century, help perpetuate these medieval notions? Or, do we try to help those who are aware of the damage that can be caused by demeaning into obscurety, over half the world's population?

Women are just as capable as men.  Certainly, your acts might not be intended to strip a person of their self-worth, but if it does affect someone in that way, is it worth it?  I'm talking about subconscious cues that we all are aware of, even if we don't know it.  Instead of singleing out women for your courtesy, do it for everyone. You do respect everyone, right?