Chivalry Has Its Exceptions: Teaching Economics

Between scarfing down a vegan cookie (it tastes better than how it sounds) and reading "Stiffed" (review soon to come), I ran into one of my Economics professor. She taught Micro-Econ Theory, which basically consists of figuring out how the market works from a household/firm point of view. It is ridden with theories, which all economists, I hear, take as spoken truths. Micro-Econ is not like Macro-Econ, I am often reminded, for it lacks the speculation that accompanies the latter, and it is nearly a tried and true science. Amid the theoretics, she went on a 10-minute tirade on sweatshops. For sweatshops on a moral ground. She argued that if "kids want to lose their finger while working a 16-hour shift, that is their right," and it is better than "having no job at all." I wanted to debate with her at the time, but I knew it was not the place. It was her class, her economics class, it wasn't Theories of Justice. So I kept quiet, swallowed her "humorous" rant (she is sometimes a funny professor, I must admit), and twiddled my thumbs. I got an A in her class, so I guess I made a pretty good pupil of the devil.
Seeing her during the summer, detached from the class setting, I had a quick, pleasant talk with her. We joked about how much I love my school, and how I better be reading an econ book--the cover of the book never ran past her eyes. After gabbing it up for a few minutes, she dropped her napkins while being her usual sarcastic funny self. I almost left my comfy seat to help her pick them up. I always do that, no matter who I am dealing with, man, (beautiful or otherwise) woman, or (annoying or not) child. But I didn't. I sat there, looking at her struggle to pick up the napkins and juggle her stack of books and coffee. She didn't seem to catch on, and probably didn't think I would help her, as many women either do not want to be shown chivalry or never have because of their quality choice of mates. She managed to multi-task and we bid adieu. I did not feel remorse for acting like that which I often criticize: a douche.
Not letting it take over my whole lunch break, I did think about it later for awhile. Was it because I disagreed with her in so many levels that I decided not be chivalrous? If so, why do I discriminate when it comes to acting as a gentleman? Do I have ulterior motives when I show chivalry? Probably. I am human, but most specifically and importantly, I am man. There may be something in my subconscious that triggers the Clark Gabel? Might it be the Ingrid Bergman? Whatever the case, this professor Ingrid Bergman was not. Maybe more like a Reagan, but not an Ingrid.