Chivalry originated during the Middle Ages in Europe as a code of conduct for knights. By the 13th century, knighthood had become an exclusive and honorable title that only certain nobles could achieve, and even then, it didn’t come easily: being a knight required rigorous training, strict discipline, and both physical and mental strength. Because of economic needs, knights fought to take their opponents’ equipment and win ransom, not to kill them. All of these characteristics led to the formation of chivalry, which emphasized masculine qualities, especially courage, justice, honor, magnanimity, and courtesy. Gradually, it also gained a place in society, idealizing upper class men as gentlemen who would perform brave deeds for women. It became a moral, social, and even religious ideal that the nobility worked towards.

After around ten centuries have passed, our societies have changed tremendously. There are no more knights in shining armor or jousting tournaments; nevertheless, chivalry is not completely dead, as some people believe. While its fighting aspects have become obsolete, courtesy still remains: it has reincarnated in different forms, such as the policy of ladies first, holding open the door, and other actions that show extra consideration. Also, it is no longer limited to the upper class. So in a nutshell, modern chivalry is men being courteous, generally towards women. While some men only behave chivalrously for their loved ones, others see it as a social guideline on how men should treat women.

At first glance, things like holding doors open for women are just altruistic and friendly gestures. Upon closer examination, however, it becomes clear that this courtesy can be superficial and even sexist.

The term “sexism” has been around for a long time, but benevolent sexism is a relatively newer concept. According to Dr. Glick and Dr. Fiske, it is “viewing women stereotypically and in restricted roles but that are subjectively positive in feeling tone.” This is distinctly different from hostile sexism, which is what often comes to mind; instead of treating women in a flagrant manner, men give them compliments or special treatment. When the gender of the recipient affects the extent to which men practice chivalry, chivalry is sexist and discriminatory rather than courteous.

Chivalrous men, in their efforts to show extra respect towards women, actually accomplish the opposite. But to push the blame solely onto the men without considering women’s role would be to oversimplify the complexity of this issue. With all the stereotypes of “gentlemanly” actions, many women have come to expect special treatment: men should open the car door, men should drive, men should pull out the chair, and most importantly, men should pay for dinner.

Some women claim to be on equal ground with everyone, when they actually expect men to put them on a pedestal. And if they don’t receive the princess treatment, whether it’s on a date or just in their daily lives, they complain about it, or write an article about the lack of chivalry in society. No wonder why chivalry has a good reputation: it makes men look like considerate gentlemen and women look like well-treated ladies, and everyone’s happy.

However, advocates of chivalry fail to recognize that, no matter how pleasant and beneficial it appears to be, it has numerous negative impacts on our society. David Mariotte, a journalism sophomore, asserts that when men act chivalrously towards only women, they are “showing [their] strength or resourcefulness to please and protect the lady." This goes hand in hand with the fact that it reinforces traditional gender roles that existed back in the medieval times: men are more strong, brave, and authoritative, while women are more delicate, sensitive, and caring. Despite sounding like positive qualities, they pressure men and women to fit into their separate spheres and stay in them, leading to possible discrimination and double standards. Although society is progressing and becoming more accepting than it was in the past, ideas like chivalry intensifies prejudicial views such as men should act masculine and women should act feminine.

Furthermore, this sexist mindset can lead to widespread social and economic consequences. In Glick and Fiske’s research across 19 nations, they concluded, “those who endorsed benevolent sexism were likely to admit that they also held explicit, hostile attitudes towards women.” In addition, there was gender inequality – such as men having longer life spans, more education, and higher wages – in countries where men supported benevolent sexism, even though the governments eliminated hostile sexism (Tannenbaum). Women aren’t the only possible victims, though, for men can suffer as well. For instance, by 2013, only 13% of male employees in the U.S. have paid paternity leave, and even then, it’s not always equal to what females receive. Yahoo offers women 16 weeks of maternity leave but only offers men half as much. Is this because women’s caring nature lends itself to raising children and their fragility makes them well-suited for staying at home, or because men are naturally superior protectors and providers of the household so they should stay at work? And even when companies offer paternity leave, a large majority of men hesitate to take it or to take full advantage of it due to fear of how bosses and coworkers will perceive them (and their worries are sometimes spot on); they’re supposed to be the breadwinners, not the stay-at-home dads. On the other hand, mothers who have the option maternity leave but still want to work may also receive criticism for not taking care of their kids and neglecting their inherent “duties.” As it turns out, the two types of sexism present themselves in different forms but can have the same types of harmful effects on men and women.

Unfortunately, benevolent sexism can be even trickier to deal with than hostile sexism. In an experiment by Becker and Wright, they found that women were more willing to protest against hostile acts of sexism than benevolent ones, due to the fact that the latter falsely convince women that it isn’t really sexism because it’s favorable for them. This system of justification (defending the status quo, even when it’s in fact unfavorable to certain groups) occurs more than most of us are aware of. For example, imagine that you’re going to dinner with a male coworker or friend. When you finish eating, you offer to pay or to split the check, but he turns down your offer and responds, “I’m a guy, let me pay.” Even though it may sound like something’s off, you will probably just let it pass. However, if he directly states that men should pay for women because women should be dependent on men, then you will feel like you have a valid reason to be angry or offended. The proposed action is the same, only one scenario contains a negative implication while the other explicitly deprecates women, but because the former manifests in a friendly form, women often hesitate to object in fear of overreacting or misjudging the situation.

Even though chivalry may appear innocent, it actually has an insidious nature. When gender becomes a factor in how chivalrous men should be, chivalry becomes benevolently sexist, but sexist nonetheless. And as with any form of discrimination, it has negative impacts on our society; in this case, it emphasizes stereotypical gender roles, which can led to unfair polices that harms both men and women. Perhaps it’s time to for us to place the lid on chivalry and bury it firmly in the past, where it originated and where it belongs.