"Ladies first" implies sexism

Thanks for accepting the challenge! Before I start, I want to make it clear that I was, of course, not referring to the Medieval Chivalry, but to the social chivalry etiquette, which is clearly inclined towards women, as the definition displayed in Round 1. Since there are 2 angles to view the substance of this gentlemanly behavior, let's examine each of them: I. Patriarchal consequence. If we look at it from the perspective of male dominance, this conduct was established in order to protect and help women (carry things for them, open the doors for them, letting them go first, etc), as a benevolent act towards women, who were considered to be weaker and inferior. As women and men are now considered to be equal, the chivalry etiquette becomes unjustified and, by leaving room to gender stereotypes, keeps sexism in a society who wishes to abolish the discrimination based on sex. II. The "respect" argument The second point of view is that the chivalry etiquette is due to the respect of men towards women. Why should there be an emphasis on the respect for women in a society that promotes equality and equal treatment for both genders? It is socially expected from a man to behave chivalrously with a woman, meaning to sacrifice his own comfort for the woman's comfort, to be subservient and let her have priority at his expense. If he does so, he is regarded as a real gentleman. But women, more often than not, feel offended if a man "dares" to pass through a door in front of her, for instance, and, generally, if he is not servile to her; he will be considered disrespectful and grobian, as if it's women's right to be treated with servitude by men just because they are women. Is it believed that women deserve more respect? This would implicitly mean that men deserve less respect than women. This is prejudice and discrimination against men based on sex. We all should treat each other with respect and care, regardless of gender, without special attention towards a specific gender. "Moving beyond that "Ladies First" and various rules about "Women and Children" are actually survival based versus being sexist in the sense of conformity. The reason women and children were to leave first is because women and children are the future, the offspring and the one that bears offspring, which makes a lot of sense when you actually think about it. Generally speaking people propose this as a negative thing under the guise that the male's life is "worth less" but in reality it's for the continuation of the entire species and does not promote the idea of worthlessness but instead pragmaticism." My opponent stated that women and children are the future, without arguing why this should be so. Of course children are the future and for this reason we will leave them out of this discussion, but why should women be entitled to build the future more than men are? Procreation requires both genders. Supposing we are not talking about a world cataclysm in which the only option is to save only half of world's population (in some sort of an extreme hypothesis of extending to exhaustion), is it believed that women must be saved because they will mate with other men that were not involved in the unfortunate event and thus perpetuate the species? Men can do that as well, by mating with women that were not involved in the event. If it was the case of the global cataclysm I exemplified above, it would be obviously absurd to save only one gender in order to build the future. Are women preferred in this position because they are better parents than men? This is again discrimination, because sexism also implies the idea of gender roles as a form of stereotyping, as seen in the definition of sexism in the Merriam-Webster dictionary: 1. prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially: discrimination against women. 2. behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex http://www.merriam-webster.com... Of course, my opponent's assertion about male's life is true. It is not regarded as worthless, but it is viewed as less valuable, less important than female's life. General conduct of Gentlemanly Behavior (an equivocal term often mixed up with Chivalry) is a social normative that has nothing to do with sexism and more to do with gender roles; Although I showed above the divisiveness of gender roles is also sexist, let's assume that this is fair. So, what is expected from a man in our society, based on the gender roles? He should be the provider for the woman, he should be chivalrous, open doors for her, carry stuff for her, give her the best of everything and keep for him the less good parts; in case there is a survival situation and one of them has to die, that should be him. It resembles very much a slavery model. Failing to do so, the man will draw upon him social penalty. If the roles are switched, the woman is praised as a hero; if they are not switched, it's just "normal". As everything is about the woman, this doesn't deal with equality, it deals with ensuring women's comfort at any cost. "there is actually a Womanly Etiquette system so it isn't sexist in that there is only "one side" at all. It is for everyone, and though the behaviors differ based on sex the actual standard of courtesy in question does not differ based on sex. One could only say that Etiquette is sexist but not that courtesy or the standard behind courtesy and care are." The link referenced by my opponent, supposedly related to the Womanly Etiquette, is actually related to business conduct and not to an etiquette that women have to follow in society towards men. The chivalry etiquette refers to how men should treat women, while the code referenced by my opponent (if it remotely deals only with women's behavior) relates to how women should treat anyone. So far, there has been no indication as per which the socially accepted chivalry is not unidirectional towards women. There is no specific code for how women should treat men in society; nothing particular is expected from them, except for "Thank you's" and "Hello's". This puts men in the back line, as footnotes. Of course, courtesy itself is not sexist, it is a desirable attribute of a civilized society and contributes to its general wellbeing; however, its unidirectionality is sexist.