The Light Rail Transit 1 has been implementing a scheme since 2001 (if I recall correctly) wherein its first passenger carriage is reserved exclusively for females, the disabled, the elderly, and passengers tugging very young children along. Beginning April 1st, the Metro Rail Transit along EDSA began implementing the same scheme, reserving the first car for females, the disabled, and the elderly.
While some women would probably tout this as a sort of victory for them, I actually look at it to the contrary. In fact, I consider the whole concept of chivalry as contrary to the welfare of women.
Let me explain why.
In the previous generation chivalry was the norm. Women were given seats to, opened doors for, the kind of “good manners” your grandmother always reminds you of. If a male did not practice this “virtue,” he was considered rude, brash, and unmanly. Such were the rules of the day.
But for some reason or another, things changed. Chivalry became a forgotten value. What used to be a fervently taught subject at school was somehow forgotten.
A few years ago in the now defunct PNB intranet forum, a female employee raised the subject, lamenting the demise of chivalry, complaining that boys nowadays were bastos and disrespectful to women — especially when they didn’t give seats in the MRT.
I objected, saying that chivalry was in fact an affront to women and equality. I believe that the premise of chivalry is that women are, in fact, weak. They are so weak that they have to be given way to.
This irritated a lot of female forumers; my response to them was that if women have the gall to demand equality in society, they must understand that to be equal means not demanding to be treated like princesses.
Others still objected, citing the “values and morals of the previous generation,” where chivalry was a norm. I had to underscore to them that back then, wife battery, child abuse, married men hiring prostitutes and possessing mistresses and concubines were likewise unquestioned norms. Chivalry was perhaps used as a way to reduce the guilt of men over the offenses they commit towards their women.
I’m sure many women will still disagree. I’m sure many women will still refuse to give up the privilege given to them by their gender, perhaps if only to get back at the men whom some of them still see as “oppressive” and out to make “chansing” at them in the trains.
But they need only look at the signages to remember my point “This area for female passengers, disabled, elderly and children only.” The disabled, the elderly and children are grouped together because they have the diminished capacity to fend for themselves. Do women really want to be identified as such?
And of course, don’t get me wrong. I do give my seats on the train to women once in a while; I give them to the elderly and the pregnant. Or if it’s my wife who needs the seat. 
12 responses so far ↓
1 andre // Apr 4, 2006 at 1:10 pm
agree there Jon! women can’t have their cake and eat it too. equality means no chivalry. pag ganito naaalala ko tuloy yun isang DLSU student council officer nun panahon ko na feminist
2 pinoy // Apr 4, 2006 at 2:01 pm
A lot of women still expects that it is their right that they should be given seats. Why?
Look at the first carriage of the train. It is not too crowded. But still, many women will ride the second or third car. Why? At least on the second and third coach, they may be given seats. But on the first coach, no way!
The women had complaints that many guys take advantage when the train is too crowded that is why LRT gave them an exculusive coach.
3 torn // Apr 4, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Great post, I do hope someone objects to it t — I’d love to read their arguments. Like you, I try to behave a in a chivalrous way (hey, I’m a Brit after all), though I recognize that it is illogical to do so. To their credit, most women in the West recognize that it is hypocritical to have their cake and eat it too, so they are prepared to lug their bags around and pay their share. I do think though that many relationships in the Philippines (and not just romantic ones) involve a greater degree of dependency than in the West and perhaps this yearning for courtly values reflects this.
4 Jon Limjap // Apr 5, 2006 at 1:34 pm
torn,
I have been expecting objections but none are coming my way. I wonder if the women simply choose not to object… unfortunately none of them seem to agree either.
I’m curious about the dependency angle. I’m wondeirng how to figure out if there’s any truth to it.
5 andre // Apr 6, 2006 at 8:27 am
for me i think practicing a chivalrous attitude is good, depending on the motivation
i treat my wife gently because she’s different. we may be equals but we’re different. so there. i’m pretty sure my wife attends to my needs (e.g. cook lunch for me) because she acknowledges i’m different from her and that my capabilities and her capabilities are different.
my point though is that women cannot insist on or expect being treated that way anymore…if they are being treated so, they should be thankful
6 ate ems // Apr 9, 2006 at 12:22 pm
bitter? hahaha peace tayo jon.
hayaan mo na yun. alam mo kung hindi naman kasi maniac ang karamihan ng mga lalaki, hindi mangyayari yun! hahahaha!!!
at ito pa, dont tell me yun mga buntis deserves the kind of “equality” youre talking about. ilang beses akong nakasakay ng mrt, yun mga babae pa ang tumatayo para paupuin yun mga buntis. duh??
again, peace tayo.
7 ate ems // Apr 9, 2006 at 12:23 pm
and yes, naiinis ako dun sa mga babae na wala namang kasamang lalaki, pero hindi naupo sa 1st seat of the train. But i beg to disagree with pinoy’s post. i think they dont want to be offered with seats but they just simply want guys to take advantage of them. in simple terms, NAGPAPA-MANIAC!
hehehe.. pero syempre pag may kasamang lalaki, that’s a different story.
8 Jon Limjap // Apr 9, 2006 at 4:03 pm
ate ems,
If I get you correctly, what you just told me is this:
Most if not all men in the train are out to take advantage of women
So tell me, what is so wickedly wrong with our society that most if not all men can NOT be trusted anymore to respect women, and all of them appear to be “manyak.”?
Aren’t you demonizing men, just like everyone else?
As for pregnant women, it is a medical condition that needs sensitivity both with men and with women. Does it mean that men are so “evil” if a woman beats them to giving the pregnant person a seat? I’d say kudos to the woman for not having that “I’m a woman I deserve a seat” attitude.
What if all of those seated are women and none of them gives theirs up for the pregnant person? I’ve seen that once before, and all I can say is that the women seated at that time were all disgusting.
9 ems // Apr 9, 2006 at 4:33 pm
opps bawal pikon! hahahaha..
sinasabi ko lang naman ang nakikita ko.. and even experienced first-hand. Am not generalizing men, kaya nga sinabi ko most lang diba? not all? heheheh… pero at least, yan ang nakita at na experience ko. lalo na sa lrt. kaya tuwang tuwa ako sa lrt nun nagkaroon ng rule na segregated na ang lalaki sa babae. isa ako sa mga nag rejoice!
needs sensitivity both with men and with women.
10 Jon Limjap // Apr 9, 2006 at 7:27 pm
Aaah… no wonder ganyan ang reaksyon mo.
If that’s the case, then I guess the real problem is how such offenders can be prosecuted, because such solutions are just lip service; it doesn’t solve the problem of why such offenses happened in the first place.
11 torn // Apr 17, 2006 at 10:00 pm
Passing through Ortigas MRT station the other day I saw a sign with an arrow pointing to the “loading station” for women, disabled, kids, and the elderly. So women not only have to have their own car, they have to be “loaded” onto the train!
12 Jon Limjap // Apr 18, 2006 at 1:40 pm
Doesn’t that make them sound like freight?
Woops. :p
Leave a Comment