…there are quite a few very problematic facets of the whole “chivalry” system, yes. I’m agreeing with you.

By “modern-day” I refer to the past one hundred years

Sure. And there has always been a split between how women are treated if they’re “ladies” or if they’re not. One doesn’t hold a door open for a whore.

I found myself in a situation wherein a friend asked me to justify my excitement about getting dressed up for my date. He asked how I, as a feminist, am able to reconcile dressing “for” a lover and enjoy her chivalry.

The truth is that when I was much younger, and at times attempted relationships with men, I did not enjoy these things. It is only through the very unique butch-femme dynamic that I am able to honor my gender identity in these ways. Because it is part “performance,” I am free to engage in a sometimes erotic, sometimes comforting dialoge with my butch girlfriend in the ways we respond to one another. I think that a deepening awareness that gender is a very powerful construction allows us the freedom to queer these roles; I transform the restrictive “feminine” into powerful “femme” when I do so for my own desires.

In at least my butch-femme relationship, my lover and I put forth carefully examined gender presentations that we feel best empower us individually. In relation to one another, our butch-femme relationship creates a natural fluidity of power. We both love to be center stage, both love to feel desired by the other, and chivalry is one form of the power and respect that is passed between us. For instance, for the date, I wore something way girlier than I normally do. I mean, I am always in a skirt; I’m a bit of a hippie. But that night I looked very, very femme. It made me feel incredibly sexy, watching her watching me. It made me feel honored when she couldn’t take her eyes off me, opened my car door, and helped me across the mud she accidently parked in. I like it that she lights my cigarettes and brings me beer, like it that I can feel her eyes on me from across the room, like it that she notices and appreciates my femme qualities.

In our relationship, chivalry is reverence.

It’s that, too. That chivalry is offensive to women and that it is offensive to men are not two mutually exclusive ideas. My problem is that women with different points of view will merely argue whether or not it’s offensive to women and completely ignore how it is offensive to men. But plenty of decent men have been castigated for not letting “the woman go first” when in line or when ordering food at a restaurant, when all the decent men wanted to do was take turns. And the people doing this castigating are sometimes men, sometimes women, and sometimes both.

“I am a healthy young woman and more capable of standing on a bus or train than some middle-aged, stressed businessman with a bad back and ulcers! So no, I don’t want their seat.”

And most of those businessmen with bad backs and ulcers will APPRECIATE you letting them have the seat, even if some loudmouthed neanderthal who’s in the bus or train shouts otherwise. I hold the door at the bank for whoever happens to be walking behind me, and I appreciate when a man or woman or boy or girl does the same for me.

“That’s not ‘modern-day’ chivalry, that’s old-school chivalry. The lady who is the object of one’s desire is to be placed on a pedestal because She’s Better Than You. Of course, chivalry only applies to ladies.”

Well, one could say that “old-school” chivalry has to do with knights in armor — literal ones. By “modern-day” I refer to the past one hundred years — perhaps not modern compared to oxygen bars, but certainly modern compared to King Arthur.

not modern-day chivalry that dictates that I am inferior to a woman and therefore must allow her to go first at all times because of her superiority

That’s not “modern-day” chivalry, that’s old-school chivalry. The lady who is the object of one’s desire is to be placed on a pedestal because She’s Better Than You. Of course, chivalry only applies to ladies.

I wasn’t referring to sex so much as the broader (and as you noted, vaguer) categories of sensuality and aesthetics. I don’t think femininity and chivalry are particularly good modes of aesthetic and sensual expression. I do think that our culture interprets formal (and cold) dresses on women as beautiful and so does my brain. I like beauty in almost everything, I bought the mac I’m typing on for various reasons but not a negligible one was that I think it’s pretty . I like touching sensual fabrics and I enjoy movies that include beautiful people and beautiful scenery. Aesthetics/sensuality (from museums to music) are a large part of my enjoyment of the world and my life.

The desire to be thought of and noticed as attractive is also present (if not in everyone then in a significant number of people) and is a factor in a calculation of femininity versus pragmatism, though I hadn’t mentioned this before.

My point was more that given our culture defines certain things as beautiful, the curve of a woman’s foot for example and that some people, whatever their thoughts on gender roles and the fairness of this cultural value, crave beauty a sort of agreement to accommodate the sacrifices that come with performing femininity is reasonable even as we fight to change our cultural assumptions and make femininity entirely voluntary or nonexistent. It makes more sense to have the person who benefits in one way or another from the performance ‘the date’ to have more of this responsibility then random strangers. An awareness of the reasons for the performance on both sides would keep it from being about either gender’s superiority.

Somewhat of a side point is that vulnerability and delicacy is erotic. (Not everyone finds it so, but a significant percentage of the human population does.) While I strongly believe that the vulnerability of men, restraint for example, can be just as erotic as that of women and it is a problem of our culture that we don’t acknowledge this that doesn’t take away from the gut level appeal of a woman that looks delicate etc. It’s not only sexual and direct as power play in the bedroom but also sensual in the subtextual flirting that a couple might do when one of them displays their attractiveness and vulnerability and the other ‘takes care’ of them. (Disclaimer: a lot of other modes of interaction that have nothing to do with this are also erotic of course, and your milage will vary.)

Sorry for spamming the comments section. And double sorry if this posts twice.

I think that’s a good question. Personally speaking, if my boyfriend (or girlfriend) doesn’t enjoy my performance of femininity then I’m much less likely to perform it and almost certain not to perform those parts that are actively uncomfortable. But, I’ve almost never dated someone who didn’t appreciate our culturally specific ways of dressing up. However if because of the situation or my own strong desire I choose to do something uncomfortable for the purpose of dressing up I do think that if my date is not an asshole he won’t make my life harder. I don’t think he needs to show as much appreciation or consideration as he does if it’s for his benefit but some is still necessary (if I’m wearing something uncomfortable, cold etc.).

Also, since the performance of femininity is still not completely voluntary in our culture (that is there are still spaces where it is almost a requirement) and since there is a certain amount of cultural brainwashing on this subject I guess I do think consideration is a requirement even if you personally have escaped the cultural preferences.

The not too rare situation where the men both expect a woman to perform femininity and to ‘keep up’ with them is a huge example of privilege.