As an example: Elizabeth I demanded respwect and as such always had doors opened for her - courtiers threw ...

Question

... down capes for her to walk on if there was a puddle.

Men would allow her through a door first. They bowed in her presence and never turned their backs on her.

They pulled out her seat so she could sit before them.

BUT if men do this for a feminists they say it is condescending.

Elizabeth Ists attitude was that it was the ultimate in respect and any less could result in a summary beheading.

When did simple manners that showed that women were revered and respected turn into insults at the hands of a few disgruntled feminists?

Answer 1

People had to do all those things for Kings, too, you moron. Did you ever see that Showtime series the Tudors? According to that, her father made HIS valets hold a damned towel for him while he rubbed one out.

And for the record: You can most certainly be an old school gentleman with the ladies and get away with it. You just can't walk around with a big straw-feminist chip on your shoulder. And it you have any intellectual honesty you will give best answer to Wendy g up there for schooling you.

Answer 2

There's a fine line between respect and putting a woman on a pedestal.  I personally believe that acts of kindness like opening doors for other people and pulling out chairs are reasonable, respectful things for all people to do for all other people (i.e. not just for men to do for women).

I think feminists have taken offense primarily because they see these actions and all other examples of chivalry as propagating inequalities between men and women.  Opening doors implies that the women are unable to open the doors themselves; putting capes over puddles implies that women either should be unwilling to dirty themselves or that they are incapable of finding their own way around a puddle.

I personally disagree (as you obviously do), but can you truly not see any logic behind the feminist reasoning?  It's a little bit reactionary, sure, but it's far from ridiculous.

Answer 3

Yes. And any MALE sovereign expected the same treatment. So, truly, you are comparing apples to oranges, i.e., how royalty expected to be treated, and how everyone else was treated.

But, I see what you're saying,"It's a sign of respect, not condescension."

To really understand "chivalry," as it is (rather incorrectly) termed today, one must analyze it's historical basis.

Chivalry began as a military code during the early middle ages, and it's primary precept was complete loyalty to one's lord. "Chivalry" is often confused with courtly manners, and the practice of "courtly love," which was the idolization of a higher ranking, noble woman, who was seen as "unattainable."

The Victorian upper middle class, who loved all things Medieval, adopted the term "chivalry" as a way of emulating the courtly romance of the middle ages. This adoption of strict rules and manners regarding the opposite s*x served one main function, which was to "elevate" them above the commoners. The wealthy upper middle class Victorians, who had no real link to nobility, wished to distinguish themselves from the lower classes. Adopting a set of mannerisms based on the nobility of old served this purpose. The middle and lower classes, during Victorian times, did not practice chivalry. The man, as head of the house left out of a room first, and the woman followed, for instance. Women were often the focus because the Victorians wanted to emulate the ideals of courtly love. But TRULY, it was not "respect," in any real sense of the word. The customs were nothing but a show, one that was meant to set those that practiced it above the "rabble," and one that served to infantalize women, in the bargain. women were not afforded REAL respect, only this silly show of "manners."

Also, it was hypocritical in the extreme. Only women who were of one's social class, or above, were shown "chivalrous" manners. Chamber maids, cooks, and fisher wives were not. If chivalry were really a way to show "respect" to women, why wouldn't ALL women be shown that respect. It was a matter of class, plain and simple. The fact that it was only shown to certain women demonstrates the condescension inherent in the practice.

**TRUE respect does not differentiate between the sexes. TRUE respect does not have one set of rules for one group, and one set of rules for another. Really ask yourself WHY one group should have a different set of rules for demonstrating 'respect," and you will come to understand that they should not. Any attempt to separate what is "respectful" for different groups is NOT respect, at all.

Answer 4

Elizabeth I was a Queen.  The men who bowed before her, walked backwards etc, would have been expected to do the same for a male monarch.  They were paying reverence to her rank rather than her s*x.

That is not to say that elizabeth didn't enjoy being made a fuss of for her female qualities as well.  She enjoyed praise of her beauty, her skill at playing the virginals, dancing etc.  She asked the Scottish Ambassador a lot of embarrassing questions about whether Mary, Queen of Scots was more beautiful, more accomplished etc than she was.  She was extremely vain.

Chivalrous gestures are meant to demonstrate respect for women, and I don't believe they are condescending, but I don't set any great store by them myself.  They are fairly superficial as indications of whether a man has real respect for a woman.  They are really just social gestures.

Answer 5

'Simple manners' is not the term I'd use.  She had a printer's hands cut off for publishing stories about her rumoured marriage.  The fact that she lived in such different times, when it was unheard of for a military leader to be female, are what makes her brilliant leadership so amazing by comparison.  It is the fact that she managed to step completely outside of traditional roles for women, that makes the respect offered to her so much more awe inspiring  :-)

Chuck - you are missing the point.  People today would think throwing your cape across a puddle for a woman to walk over is condescending, yes.  Because we live in different times.  It is not that these are fine acts of everyday respect that feminists shouldn't get uppity about, but that man, they were sexist in those days.  Elizabeth had a lot to prove, she wanted condescending behaviour, feminists do not wish for this, and why should they?  We want men to be our equals, not our grovelling subjects  :-)

Answer 6

have you read any of Elizabeth's writings?

besides she wasnt a normal working class woman she was the Queen.

They still do that for the Queen today...it's a whole other ball game.  

Answer 7

In my opinion, having a door opened for you is not anywhere near conducive to being respected as an equal.

EDIT: Because they imply that we need people to do these things for us. If I lived in her time, I wouldn't have a higher education, I wouldn't have a job that I loved, I wouldn't be able to own property . . . but, gee, I WOULDN'T HAVE TO OPEN A DOOR!

Answer 8

She needed MIDOL really bad

Answer 9

While I love my husband opening doors for me and such out of love and courtesy, I have to wonder if these people were doing out of fear for Elizabeth I rather than love and courtesy.  Especially considering her reputation.

Answer 10

BAHAHA the woman sure did know how to get her jollies.

I've been thinking about paying immigrant Mexican men to follow me around and do this for a few hours each day.

Answer 11

She was also a queen.  Kings have doors opened for them, too, you know.    

Answer 12

I don't see it as condescending.  However, I'd rather open my own car door, than wait around for someone else to do it for me.  

Answer 13

This is primarily the consequence of the feminist movement in the modern era.