Is being a gentlemen sexist?

[Paradoxrifts]

I'm ageist, in that I only do that sort of thing for people older than myself. I don't care what you've got between your legs, if you're younger than me you can look after yourself.

 

[Nouw]

The core of sexism is the belief that woman should be treated differently than men. To hold a door for a woman and not a man is sexist, regardless of any preconceived social norms on proper etiquette are.

This.

To treat someone differently because of their sex is sexist.

I disagree entirely with that statement. It can't be summed up neatly like that, otherwise being heterosexual is the same as being sexist. Heck, being homosexual is the same as being sexist. Both involve treating members of one sex differently from the other (Would you have sex with members of both sexes if you weren't bisexual?). Saying that sexism is simply the act of treating one sex differently from the other is incorrect. Gray areas exist. To believe otherwise is, in my opinion, somewhat naive.

Of course there are going to be grey areas, I was just trying to sum it in a general, simple way in this context. I'm also not going to open the can of worms that is sexual preference >.>.

 

[aestu]

That only works if you can properly justify the difference in treatment with actual differences between men and women. Opening a door? No relevant differences.

Narrow-minded.

Human social mores are built around the nature of the human creature. The habit of opening doors for women is as built into the human creature as a natural product of our sexual dimorphism as the uncanny appeal of bacon is a product of our dietary craving for fats and salts.

Just because we no longer hunt wild animals for food so that we will not starve, is no reason to question our desire to enjoy bacon, than civilized life is to question the practice of opening doors for women.

 

[aestu]

Back it up or you're just spewing bullshit.

Your evidence is lacking. It's not particularly narrow minded to reject the claims of some uneducated guy spouting unsupported crap like that. You claim that it is built in as that? Provide evidence. Your word is worthless on its own.

Oh sorry, I guess you meant that YOU are narrow minded. Because refusing to question things is a perfect hallmark of it. Closed minded too, you forgot that in your little intro to your post. Also, doors are part of civilized life. I doubt you're going to bring evidence of men opening doors for women outside of civilized life. Not that you care about evidence, you just make shit up anyway.

It's called sexual dimorphism. If you don't know what that is then look it up.

I doubt you're going to bring evidence of men opening doors for women outside of civilized life.

It's called sex. As much as some man-hating feminists might like to claim otherwise, men are engineered to respect and protect women. The fact that human societies consistently evolve in the same ways that reflect this is testament to that.

Examples outside civilized life? Go look at the Native Americans, or other nomadic cultures. For a man to take a bride he must prove his mettle, prove he can protect and can provide. And further back, simians, our closest living relatives, do the same - gorillas and chimps offer gifts to females of their species (which may or may not agree to have sex with them!)

So there you go - there is the proof. But somehow I doubt it's really proof you want. Somehow I have no doubt that you will respond with vitriol and efforts to turn the aberrant exception into the rule.

 

[General Twinkletoes]

If you only hold a door open for girls, you're dumb. Most feminists I know get pissed off about that, and it doesn't make sense.

 

[aestu]

I know what it is. You have failed to show a link.

If you know what sexual dimorphism is (biological differences between the sexes) then a link is redundant.

It is sufficient to establish that such a thing exists, a point you have de facto conceded with your claim that you "know what it is". To ask for a link regarding a point no longer in question is the rhetorical equivalent of sulking.

Your evidence is irrefutable. Irrefutable because you have provided none to refute. When you're done telling us all how sexist you are, maybe you can actually provide evidence for once instead of the word of someone who has shown no ability to make a real argument?

You say this, then go on to engage the evidence that I provided and you claim I didn't. Hmm.

Examples outside civilized life? Go look at the Native Americans, or other nomadic cultures. For a man to take a bride he must prove his mettle, prove he can protect and can provide. And further back, simians, our closest living relatives, do the same - gorillas and chimps offer gifts to females of their species (which may or may not agree to have sex with them!)

Which fails to show anything about a god damn door. Old traditions happened, so what? Does not mean that a current tradition is based on it. It is also completely irrelevant to whether it is sexist or not. This also shows nothing about humans being engineered a certain way. You assumed the cause without providing an argument for it.

Those traditions establish that human attitudes about gender roles are culturally universal and are consistent even into our closest animal relatives, because they're driven by the ONLY thing common to all - biology.

Opening doors for women is an extension of who and what we are and have always been and will continue to be into the foreseeable future.

How expected.

Expected? Oh really? So you have prejudice.

Who's the bigot here, you or me?

 

[idarkphoenixi]

I think the fact is that most women want a gentleman.

Besides, it's just good manners. I don't hold a door open because I think you're incapable of doing it yourself. I hold it open to save you the trouble.

 

[Joccaren]

Simple:
If you do it only for women: Yes.
If you do it for both sexes: No, you're just being polite.

 

[Nerexor]

To me, something like this is so minor that I would think those who want to deal with gender inequality can find better things to complain about. "OMG this guy held a door open for me, what a douche." Get over yourself. No guy with even a quarter of a brain is holding the door for you because he thinks you're somehow incapable of doing it yourself, or out of some kind of urge to protect women (and on that topic, from what? Gotta watch out, those doors can be vicious bastards!). Of all things considered "chivalrous" opening the door for someone is a minor courtesy, don't get bent out of shape about it.

 

[templar1138a]

It's not sexist to hold the door, but I wouldn't refer to it as "being a gentleman." The concept itself is outdated and is, when you get down to it, a form sexism and classism.

I have yet to encounter a girl or woman who snaps at me for holding the door, but I've certainly heard about it. Never heard of anyone else getting mad for holding a door though.

I just refer to the act as simple courtesy. I only hold doors for people when they're within ten feet of me, since otherwise I'll be waiting on them. I will, however, hold it for them when they're a farther distance away if they have trouble walking or are overburdened. Sex doesn't enter into it.

However, I expect to be thanked for the effort. It doesn't have to be much. A simple "Thanks" or even an acknowledging nod if they're on the phone. But if no one says anything by the time they pass, I will firmly and pointedly say with projection, "You're welcome." In that case, if they're someone who frequents a place I do as well, I try to remember them and not hold the door for them from then on.