"Ladies first" implies sexism

Thanks for the Round 2 arguments! "If we note this for it's nature men instituted it. The proposition of "chivalry etiquette" is still a male proposition if it survives which means that the sexist nature is male-oriented. I suppose that means that "Ladies First" is sexism if we take this vantage point and that men are being sexist by keeping the rules in play but the sexism is against women" This is true and that's exactly what I was trying to point out in the patriarchal consequence scenario: if the rules were created by men in order to have a superior position, then this is sexism against women. My opponent's argument actually supports my position. My whole point is that however we look at "Ladies first", it implies sexism against one of the genders, whichever that might be. Responses to my opponent's second point - First paragraph: I have not claimed that the social etiquette intends to be sexist, but it directly or indirectly implies sexism; whether it was a matter of intention or not, it is absolutely irrelevant for this discussion. 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). 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. The problem with the intersection of categorial criteria is that it actually emphasizes the privilege that women have in society, by applying double standards. Additionally, even if we consider this to be a fair analogy, the woman is placed in the superior position, for instance: "the inferior should open the door for the superior, the man should open the door for the woman". - Second paragraph: While the mathematics in my opponent's argument is correct, the justification of why this mathematical reasoning should be applied is not demonstrated. 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. Furthermore, if there still are men and women somewhere on the planet outside of the unfortunate event, the species will be perpetuated anyway. There is no need to create a redundancy of a "more numerous" population at the expense of the lives of only one gender, since the cataclysm does not endanger the entire humanity. On the other hand, as shown previously, if it is an actual danger of human extinction, both genders are obviously required to repopulate the planet. If saving primarily the women is based solely on symbolism, life is a pretty high price to pay for mere symbolism. - Third paragraph: It was not my intention to undermine the female's very important part in the partnership, of course she also has a lot of things to do in the household; I was trying to show that beside the family responsibilities, man also has the social burden of chivalry etiquette which is not intended only for romantic relationships, but it is expected to be applied towards all women. Maybe it is better said: the burden of social penalty if he isn't chivalrous to women. Consequently, men are prejudiced solely because of their gender more often than women. "then she is to provide him with an infinite amount of sex at any time he wishes in any particular manner without complaint and even with eagerness" - this is far from what the gender roles imply in a couple; this kind of trade is degrading for the woman and the man's intentions are petty if he's chivalrous to her only to get sex in return. 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. "opening doors and carrying bags grants you a sex slave, maid, and shoulder to cry on or a punching bag to beat on whether it be physically, emotionally, mentally, or to control as a puppet as you control all income, all outgo, and really just about all capabilities relating to resources so your word is always the final word as a man." - again, if man sees the gender roles as a means to abuse from his illusive power, this leads to sexism towards the woman. Anyway, this is just one of the many possibilities that people can behave it is purely contingent and it has nothing to do with the topic. Anyway, the patterns of the housewife and the provider do not apply nowadays anymore. While in the modern society, women and men have the same rights, work together, etc, whatever chivalry etiquette was trying to compensate for is not here anymore to compensate. - Fourth paragraph: The Female Dating Etiquette is a special case, because it deals more with the intimate life, whereas the resolution of this debate refers to the entire social life, not only the intimate one. Even so, the feminine etiquette doesn't imply anything that she wouldn't do as a civilized person in any situation. This is also why I said that there is no management for how females are to treat males in society; the woman's expected behavior is more like a passive politeness and in a larger sense, her attitude is to be aimed to earn/reinforce the man's respect for her. MDE also stresses the respect for the woman; the disproportion is clear. I will not discuss the sex thing here too, as I have already expressed my opinion in the response to paragraph 3 above. I would also like to know why my opponent thinks that "FDE and MDE are much simpler and are both garnered around the male pleasure; you open a door, you pull out a chair, you open your car door, and they are supposed to hike up their dresses and drop their panties. That's how it's supposed to work, you attractive, and you follow the rules, and you win sex." Is this backed up from the perspective of accepted social etiquette between men and women, or is it a subjective conclusion of observing reality?