A note on "chivalry"

On 25 Jan 2018, Kevin Frankish, a host of the morning show Breakfast Television, ran a twitter survey on chivalry. A screenshot of the survey is included below. He also said, more than once and in a most cringe-worthy way, that he "just believed" it was worth honouring the special qualities of women - “motherhood" was the quality he mentioned repeatedly.

As is evident, I voted "No.” The final tally is, unfortunately, even worse.

There are a number of approaches I could take to argue against Frankish’s position.

1. The origins of chivalry are worth remembering. It was a code of behaviour invented by male soldiers (i.e., killers) to demonstrate publicly their superiority (i.e., classists who lacked self-esteem) to the “lower" classes.  So, not exactly the best default behaviour for rational and compassionate people.
2. Furthermore, while there is no indisputable origin story for holding doors, the most common/rational explanation is that it was necessary to help female aristocrats because their attire, back in the day, prevented them from managing doors themselves; that is, it was a pragmatic necessity, not a voluntary demonstration of “honouring.” And let's remember that, back when chivalry was invented, women were largely treated as chattel.
3. Also, the term "lady" is itself questionable, in that it implies the existence of classes of women: if there are women who are ladies, then there are other women who are not. And while there may have at one time been visible markers of a woman's social class, these have mostly vanished, so the appellation of "lady" is groundless today. And that's assuming you accept the notion of social classes of women that are evidence-based and not imposed by an ancient patriarchy - a fairly poor assumption to make, these days.
4. Also, honouring motherhood is bollocks. Roughly 50% of all mammals can be “mothers." Basically, you're honouring a uterus. If that isn't sexist, I don't know what is. And if you retreat to the broader conception of motherhood - of the mother's role in child-rearing - we're back to a role essentially forced on women by men. 
5. Also, Frankish's position is based on the is-ought problem: just because it is the case that Frankish believes it is appropriate to hold doors of "ladies" (which is what he said) does not mean that such behaviour ought to be the norm (which is what the twitter survey implies).
6. I also question Frankish’s wording. To “give up” one’s seat for a woman implies a loss on the part of the man - suggesting a certain hesitancy, not to mention pre-existing ownership of the seat - that the man would rather not, but is compelled by external forces to, abandon something that was properly his. In this case, a more accurate wording is to “offer” a seat, which speaks more to an authentic desire to assist rather than a compelled action resulting in loss. Words are important; they carry meaning. And it behooves everyone - especially those who use words for a living - to use them correctly and diligently.

I could use any of those arguments to hold up Frankish as a sexist prick. But I won’t. Instead, I'll use an argument based on my approach to design.

In design projects, my students will often claim to want to design "for Torontonians", or "for the elderly", or "for families", or "for women", or for whatever else. But it simply isn't possible to design for these groups without understanding what it means to be a Torontonian, or old, or a parent, or a woman, with respect to the overall goal of the project.

Say you're designing a human-powered urban vehicle "for Torontonians". What does that mean exactly? What distinguiushes "Torontonian" from "Roman" or "Chicagoan" or “Edokko” in this context? Your answer will necessarily include ranges of incomes, ranges of languages, ranges of physical characterstics (heights, weights, strengths, etc.) of the citizenry of those cities. And you will find very significant overlap in the values of those attributes. Your answer will also necessarily include ranges of weather conditions, road qualities, distances typically travelled, variations in elevation, and so on. Again, you will notice very significant overlaps. It becomes quickly evident to students that they are only using Torontonians as exemplars, and that their actual target users are not at all defined by their home town but by a collection of much more specific, quantifiable, and meaningful features. Moreover, the students are significantly expanding the number of people their design can help by realizing that their Torontonian design could very easily also be beneficial to many Romans, Chicagoans, Edokko, etc.

It's the same when designing "for women." It is statistically factual that women are on average physically weaker than men. This does not, however, mean that one designs for women because they are weak. Rather, one designs for people who are physically weaker - which includes not only some women, but also some men, many youngsters and seniors, and people with various mobility and musculoskeletal conditions. That is, one designs for strength (or its lack) and not for whether the user is a woman.

Services are designed too, just as products are. And holding a door or offering one’s seat is a service. There is nothing inherent in being a woman that requires a man to hold a door or offer a seat. The actual reason for one to hold a door or offer a seat comes from an empathy-based perception of need: someone burdened with heavy or unwieldy packages; a harried parent with children; someone who might reasonably have mobility or strength issues; and so on. Nowhere in such a list does gender play a role. To do otherwise is, simply, sexist.

So, no, Kevin Frankish, being sexist is not "still a thing."

Indeed, I’ll go one step further and accuse Frankish not only of being sexist, but also being “ageist.” I’m referring here to Frankish’s use of “Grandpa” to imply a disparagement of social conservatism. Indeed, his use of “Grandpa” results from the same irrational attitude that seems to have motivated his sexism. While there is substantive research indicating that older people tend to be more socially conservative, it definitely does not follow that the categorical statement implied by Frankish is true. Not all old people are social conservatives.

Case in point, I am more than two years older than Frankish, well within the range of grandfatherhood, and I find his characterization of older people as “old fashioned” woefully naive, irrational, and regressive. And most certainly not descriptive of me.

In closing, let me summarize as follows: Kevin Frankish, you’re a sexist prick; give your balls a tug, sort yourself out and grow the fuck up, cuz us mature and responsible folk are sick of your shit.