On the other hand, I don't think it's fair for one to select which context matters and which doesn't. The fact of the matter is that men /will/ do it to be polite and I think it's arbitrary to split the phenomenon apart and say: in this instance men are being polite and it's okay, but in this instance it's an example of chivalry.
Anyways, chivalry isn't meaningfully sexist - it's just an honour code reflecting on how a knight should treat men, women, and god. I mean, knights were a warrior class, and since warriors tended to be men, it makes sense in the olden days a knight's duties through chivalry will have differences in how men and women are treated. Also because women tend to be the subject of a knight's desire, but that has to do more with sexual identity than sexism. But at the end of the day, chivalry is about service. The details as they've been practiced in history may have treated men and women differently, but the general idea is service and honour.
I guess chivalry has been appropriated in modern times to describe how societies protect women,and treat men as relatively expendable. It is sexist, and I don't think women are on the short end of the stick.
Anyways, chivalry isn't meaningfully sexist - it's just an honour code reflecting on how a knight should treat men, women, and god. I mean, knights were a warrior class, and since warriors tended to be men, it makes sense in the olden days a knight's duties through chivalry will have differences in how men and women are treated. Also because women tend to be the subject of a knight's desire, but that has to do more with sexual identity than sexism. But at the end of the day, chivalry is about service. The details as they've been practiced in history may have treated men and women differently, but the general idea is service and honour.
I guess chivalry has been appropriated in modern times to describe how societies protect women,and treat men as relatively expendable. It is sexist, and I don't think women are on the short end of the stick.