"Ladies first" implies sexism

Point A: What is true however is that your argument only works under that distinct patriarchal notion which is no longer present. The prospects behind the assumption have long weakened to the point where they are no longer viable. The entire reason there is a classification known as the "Nice Guy" is because the logic behind that behavior is dead in society and we've pressed on. Today it is a merit system based on behavior and culpability versus gender and rules. Point B: 1st Paragraph - There is absolutely no point to a discussion on "implied" -isms. If they are not intentional and direct behaviors then one runs the risk of "looking too hard" to find a case. Because "implied sexism"is undefined here it has no contextual value either so if the opponent wants to actually define it so be it but otherwise it's ambiguous and impossible to discuss. For instance this: "The ageism analogy is only approximate, because, while a man should open the door for an elder person (male or female) in order to be respectful, a woman will be socially penalized only if she doesn't open the door for an elder woman; there will be no problem if she doesn't open the door for an elder man (especially if he is not really older than her)." The statement itself is unsupported. Followed by: "Although, in theory, "the younger should open the door for the elder", within the social judging assessment the age difference is not clear cut when it comes about when a woman should do this for an older man." Which is further unsupported and culturally sensitive. It's purely ambiguous and may or may not be true only in certain regions of the world; there is no standard for what region is under assessment at all and because it's generally an unwritten social rule there's likely no real documentation to back it or attack it either way so with no support, no means of evidencing the notion, and no universal standard this is why "implied" -ism conversations do not work. 2nd Paragraph - "While it is true that the male can impregnate more females in a relatively short time interval, this argument alone reinforces the gender stereotypes and places it above the actual aspirations of the individual; moreover it implies that men are likely to be unfaithful to their lovers." This is Hasty Generalization (http://www.iep.utm.edu...) because there is nothing about the biological truth that suggests (or even talks about) faithfulness and monogamy. The entire paragraph is one large Hasty Generalization because it continuously presumes greater than the actual merit of what was said by pushing the concept into different areas of philosophy particularly by continuously asserting the hypothetical in order to justify a null point. The production and use of these systems is not maintained widely today though it was when the population of the Earth was lower, wars were more common, and societies really did face extreme amounts of losses due to war, technological inability (such as when ships sunk), and disease. The argument that it is / was / will be purely symbolic has no grounds either which is the problem; there's no actual reasoning as to why it would be symbolic or what would make it out to be as such. 3rd Paragraph - None of this is supported. At this point it's unreasonable to presume when discussing archaic systems that it doesn't require actual evidences from society in real-time. Show "Maybe it is better said: the burden of social penalty if he isn't chivalrous to women." to be actually true. Show it to be true not just in single instances either but as a real-time general trend in society, whichever you speak of, and it must be specific to at least one society rather than gathering examples from around the world as that does not form a trend without backing. A side-note: "The gender roles clearly don't expect this type of trade and if this is the way how people apply it in the real life, then it is sexist too." debunks the above patriarchal assertion to begin with that you made. It either does or does not. You cannot hold both archaic propositions and modernized and updated behavior patterns. So if nothing else we can drop the first portion as it is contradictory to mentioning the modernized state as you acknowledge in your final sentence that it no longer exists. 4th Paragraph - Note: All dating etiquette deals with intimate life, as it is is dating etiquette. Thus why I grabbed business etiquette first. "Even so, the feminine etiquette doesn't imply anything that she wouldn't do as a civilized person in any situation." This is completely unsupported. The sources themselves show an extreme amount of attention to presentation, wording, care, and behavior. The entire basis of "slut shaming" and "sleeping to the top" and so forth is based on breaking these very thin rules. It's just not true as it was cited and the number of rules required and behaviors and presentations are definitely greater than basic civic behavior. The "Nice Guy" proposition backs up the perspective, thus why I had shown it to begin with, because the entire argument you've posed is based on the Nice Guy persona. Nothing you've said deviates away from it in your reasoning which is basically undermining itself. For instance you acknowledge that in modernized society the concept of Chivalry (as attached to "Nice Guy Syndrome") is dying, it's not expected in a normal partnership, and it isn't celebrated in general society. In dating the two exchange very real behaviors where they show for the "old archaic" build, the male is respectful through tangible gestures and the female is emotionally involved; in turn it's two types of respect so the MDE/FDE differential is relatively argued through subjective observation and is an appeal to emotion (http://www.iep.utm.edu...) rather than a concrete argument. Requests: 1. Some form of backing other than your word for the trends you claim exist. The Archaic/Modern element to this debate seems to have completely derailed it because it's arguing three separate points now, A) that it did exist, B) that it does exist, and C) that it is observable and proven however (A) means nothing, (B) is unsupported, and (C) lacks context through the "implied -ism" problem. 2. A more linear argument. There's elements of far-reaching opinion (such as with the Hasty Generalization) that do not support anything. For instance the biological truth is biologically true; there is no deeper philosophical proposition and if there is and you wish to pose it you have to do more than pose questions as there's no reasoning behind your questions or assertions. I'd be more than happy to just drop that portion as it's wasteful to the point at this point in time due to the nature of where it's attempt to go.