"Ladies first" implies sexism

I'll try to keep this short. 1. In response to "Patriarchal Consequence": 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; the idea behind "chivalry etiquette" (from now referred to by me as just "Male Dating Etiquette" or MDE and FDE for the female equivalent) is formatted as a means of guaranteed reward which we see with the trend of the "Nice Guy" (http://geekfeminism.wikia.com...) which is actually nothing more than sexist proto-assault type of mentality geared towards using common courtesy as a means to garner sexual activity versus using the genuine interest in other's well-being. I will not go into how many feminists do indeed disregard and are against the misnomer "Chivalry" particularly because it's detrimental to women, men, and creates these kinds of topics. 2. In response to "The Respect Argument": First Paragraph -- [[ The first paragraph has a few claims that are not substantiated ( "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." and "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." ) as general rules but I will overlook that as I would like to continue smoothly so I'll presume they are true. If they are true there is still the problem of the differentiation between MDE/FDE behavior and social pressure, with social pressure being separate particularly because chivalry as defined as a social norm as a misnomer has no value to this debate as it is basically a stand-alone problem that has nothing to do with sexism in the least as per pursuit. An example: If I hold the door open for an elderly man or woman is this ageism? No. Is it expected of me in society? Yes. So does that mean that society impresses ageism upon me? No. This is the same argument only using the term sexism. The "target" does not matter. It is important to note this because when we specifically call out certain targets (such as females and males or old and young or professional and student) we end up creating a culture of inferiority and superiority which has no basis in anything related to intent. The mechanics of the culture itself is not the topic but instead the attitudes of the culture which is completely separate as said prior and shown prior. ]] Second Paragraph -- [[ One male can impregnate multiple females. One female can only impregnated by one male at a time. It is short-sighted to attempt to state that males are equivalent biologically in this particular sense. There is no need to expound on whether females make better parents or whether children do better with their mother around though as the biological reality above does just fine. From a pragmatic viewpoint impregnating more females to maintain lives and population is valid. I disagree that it's "less valuable" in the philosophical sense but rather just in terms of a very specific window relating to the pragmatics of choosing between the two biological purposes. ]] Third Paragraph -- [[ The failure to note the female's part in this partnership is a grotesque oversight. If males are to provide "outside the home" then females are to "keep the home clean, cook for him, clean his laundry, and manage all domestic affairs", if he is to be the strength for her she is to support him in the most absolute fashion which is basically throwing all of your emotional strength behind someone in return for them opening a pickle jar, and if he is to give her the best of everything 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. The reason the "Nice Guy" exists is because of this myth, that men fail to look at both sides of this sick equation, where essentially 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. To be honest this is why Feminists are against Chivalry as defined. This thinly veiled Power Schema is obvious to anyone who is trained to see beyond the weakest of deceptions. The entire system is absolutely vile to women, there is no gain, and even in modern society the rules of engagement still stand under this model where you fix the cabinet and then you get a blowjob just because you fixed the cabinet regardless of how she feels. Domestic violence and marital sexual assault are crimes that are scrutinized now because when the death of gender roles began this entire tower of patriarchal design began to crumble. ]] Fourth Paragraph -- [[ FDE (Female Dating Etiquette: http://www.a-to-z-of-manners-and-etiquette.com...) exists. Etiquette on how to behave around men exists (http://theseductivewoman.blogspot.com..., http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) and is constantly under fire. The concept of the "Motherly Woman", the "Sexual Object", and the "Ride-or-Die" chic are all the same reiteration of an assorted number of FDE models. The reason I chose business is because business is where it hits the hardest and matters the most; it is one of the largest and most extensive systems of etiquette around the world, or so I have found in my studies, but 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. However the statement that there is no management for how females are to treat males in society needs substantiation. Rather than I myself going and grabbing any number of examples I want to know and investigate why my opponent believes this. ]]