Subservience and men's issues

It is often said that the traditional role for women was subservience to men. Having grown up before the 1970s, I could see this as part of the dynamic. But what never gets discussed is the part where males were taught subservience to women. It just wasn't called "subservience." It was called "chivalry," "being a gentleman," or "male responsibility."  But the process of subservience was still there. Men were socialized to defer to women, treat women as if they were in a higher station in life, and sacrifice on behalf of women.

Here are some examples of how I was supposed to defer to women. Whenever a woman entered a room, I was supposed to stand in her honor, and remain standing until she was seated. This is how royalty is treated. Also, when passing through a doorway, I was supposed to always let the woman pass first, and hold the door for her, just as a servant would for a master. If I saw a woman drop something, I was to rush over and help her pick it up. If a woman arrived at a service counter right after I did, I was to step aside and let her go first. In fact, when out and about in public, I owed subservience to every woman, whether I knew her or not. The general guideline for this was sometimes called "ladies first." This guideline included many areas where men were required to defer their own needs on behalf of the safety, comfort, and convenience of women.

Some people claim that the only reason men did things like open doors is because they thought women were not capable of opening doors. This is a complete fabrication. When a man saw a woman open a door by herself, he didn't assume there was an invisible man there opening the door for her. He realized she was opening the door. And to claim he didn't realize this is absurd.

Men were also expected to show specific areas of subservient behavior in the work place. Any time there was dangerous work, women could ask men to do this for them. And men were expected to respond willingly and cheerfully. And even do it without being asked. This included risky things like climbing tall ladders, working around caustic materials, or working with dangerous machinery. In general, anything that risked death or severe physical injury automatically became a service area that men were supposed to perform for female coworkers. And this was actually an extension of all areas of life. In other words, in all areas of life, I was supposed to risk death or injury on behalf of women, whether I knew them or not.

The above only scratches the surface. And I have not even touched on mandated sex roles in dating and marriage. But I think there is enough here to illustrate my point. Subservience did not flow only one way. It was something required of both sexes.

When I was growing up, inter-gender subservience was not said to be a bad thing. It was taught as a way for both sexes to support and serve each other. It was taught as a form of consideration. And there are still people who feel this way. The problem I see is that gender-specific role mandates are inflexible and do not allow consideration to flow either way in any given situation. So this is not really mutual consideration.

It is also a problem when gender-specific subservience is taught to flow only one way, as we so often see today. For example, women being praised when they refuse to defer in traditional ways, while men who refuse are called selfish, disrespectful, or whiners. These attacks are consistent with traditional shaming tactics used to reinforced sex role socialization in men. So even in "equality," men are still pressured to continue in traditional subservient ways.