Is being a gentlemen sexist?

[DocBalance]

If you only hold the door for women, then yes, not only is that sexist but it's also going to lead to some very confusing, rude situations.

If you just hold doors as a general rule though, I fail to see the issue.

 

[Vegosiux]

If you're treating women differently because they're female, you're being sexist by very definition. Doesn't matter if you're being nicer or meaner to them than you are to men.

Also, of course it's sexist! Why, women can't be gentlemen at all!

 

[ntw3001]

So... what, did you scurry over to the door just to hold it open? She probably didn't like that because it's weird.

 

[Subjective Effect]

I don't want to continue this conversation. Let us please drop it.

I'd rather not.

Treating people differently based on their sex is sexist. Bam. Done. Please stop trying to look cool.

I'm not trying to look cool, I'm trying to extinguish this logical fallacy.

By your definition the doctor is being sexist because he's treating women differently based on their sex. Similarly the doctor would be racist by testing an African for Sickle Cell disease, but not a white European.

Yeah, there are differences. But both sexes can open a door equally as well. Being a "gentleman" in the sense it's used in here is treating a woman as lesser and it's now an obligation to help them. That's sexist.

It would be sexist if this were the case, but it's not. My girlfriend is perfectly capable of opening doors and carrying stuff, and I know this. But I do it for her anyway, not out of obligation, not because she needs help, but because it's nice to do so. Yes, it stems from the FACT that women are generally weaker than men, seen as the fairer sex and so treated in a slightly different way. But they ARE different, they dress different, have physical differences, generally behave in a different way. This is biology, not some man-made segregation.


This is the problem with you PC crazy mouth frothers - you have to assume that there is something negative behind everthing. It's like the nutjobs that get mad when someone tells them that black people have a denser body mass than white people. It's not racist, it's just a fact and it has no negative connotations.

 

[Don Savik]

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.

I agree. If being flirty is being labeled as wrong because its "sexist" then I think people need to rethink what the word means.

And we really need a new topic on The Escapist besides sexism. Its getting really boring. I guess I'm just sick of people calling each other "sexist" and "misogynist" because they have any kind of contradictory ideas. We've become a youtube comments section at this point.

 

[Evil Smurf]

just be nice to everybody

 

[Vegosiux]

This is the problem with you PC crazy mouth frothers - you have to assume that there is something negative behind everthing. It's like the nutjobs that get mad when someone tells them that black people have a denser body mass than white people. It's not racist, it's just a fact and it has no negative connotations.

The word "sexism" inherently isn't positive or negative, it is merely a description of behavior where you treat one sex different than the other. It's a purely neutral, purely objective description. Nothing more.

So yes, treating women worse than men because they're women, is sexist. But so is treating them better for the same reason.

But people somehow got it into their skulls that anything ending with "-ism" is inherently negative, which is untrue. But that is not the fault of people who actually understand what the word means.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

To answer everyone's question I used to open men my age (still do with little children or old men or women) but when I do this guys think am being gay or "treating" them like a girl.

What??!! Seriously? I hold the door for people, and have the door held for me, all the time, regardless of gender. No one ever thinks twice about it. I find it VERY hard to believe that more then one guy thought you were gay just because you held the door for him. I think it's a very reasonable assumption that you're just over-thinking it. (Though if a ton of guys have immediately accused you of being gay after you held the door for them, I guess I'll shut up. But that's probably not what happened.)

OT: It's not sexist if you hold the door for anyone. It's sexist if you single girls out. The girl shouldn't have assumed it was the latter, she sounds a bit crazy. Case closed.

 

[00slash00]

its very simple. if you would hold the door open for a random female or help her carry her bags or control your language in her presence, but wouldnt do the same for a random male, then you are being sexist.

 

[aestu]

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.

Ok.

But is that wrong?

I would argue that sexism, as you describe it, is not wrong, because men and women are different.

What is wrong is bigotry, which is disparaging others on the basis of who they are.

By that reasoning, holding the door open is sexist - but disparaging the man for it is bigoted.

 

[DarkRyter]

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.

Ok.

But is that wrong?

I would argue that sexism, as you describe it, is not wrong, because men and women are different.

What is wrong is bigotry, which is disparaging others on the basis of who they are.

By that reasoning, holding the door open is sexist - but disparaging the man for it is bigoted.

Wrong and Right don't really exist as genuine properties of reality.

On a grander scheme of things, the differences between a man and a woman don't amount to much. Both men and women are ultimately dust floating about in a void.

 

[aestu]

Wrong and Right don't really exist as genuine properties of reality.

Somehow I think that if I burned down your house, murdered your kids and shot your dog, you'd think it's "wrong".

On a grander scheme of things, the differences between a man and a woman don't amount to much. Both men and women are ultimately dust floating about in a void.

Then why post?

 

[DarkRyter]

Somehow I think that if I burned down your house, murdered your kids and shot your dog, you'd think it's "wrong".

Perhaps it would. But me thinking it's wrong doesn't make it wrong.

Then why post?

Because fuck the police

Because I want to. Beyond that, there's really no justification, but it's not like there's anything wrong with that.

 

[aestu]

Perhaps it would. But me thinking it's wrong doesn't make it wrong.

No, it's wrong because you have a right to certain things in this world, just like everyone else.

 

[DarkRyter]

Perhaps it would. But me thinking it's wrong doesn't make it wrong.

No, it's wrong because you have a right to certain things in this world, just like everyone else.

Why?

(Honestly, I really wish I could just leave the word "why" as a response, because it would be way more poignant and it brings my point across, but I don't want to go to internet jail, so just pretend like this post is just the word "why".)

 

[Vegosiux]

Perhaps it would. But me thinking it's wrong doesn't make it wrong.

No, it's wrong because you have a right to certain things in this world, just like everyone else.

It's wrong in the context of the society. Sure that may actually be the only context that matters, but reality isn't leaning on either side of this one. It's a context that's here because we created it, not because it'd always be here. But us being a part of reality...okay now I'm giving myself a migraine.

But what I'm saying here is, gravity, for example is a genuine property of reality. Bodies with mass attract each other whether or not there's someone around to observe it. Our morality system is our construct, and becomes meaningless once we're not around.

 

[BrassButtons]

Ok.

But is that wrong?

I would argue that sexism, as you describe it, is not wrong, because men and women are different.

Which of the differences between men and women are relevant to door-opening?

The problem isn't with door-opening exactly, but with the basic thought process behind it. If you're doing things for women because they are women, in situations where being a woman shouldn't be relevant (like opening doors), then you're dealing with people as gender-stereotypes first, and individuals second. This is not something I think we should be encouraging.

 

[Easton Dark]

Snip

I asked nicely to stop? If you can't carry on a discussion without insulting, then I'm not interested.

 

[Deathmageddon]

If holding a door open is sexist, then I'm not paying for dinner.

 

[aestu]

The problem isn't with door-opening exactly, but with the basic thought process behind it. If you're doing things for women because they are women, in situations where being a woman shouldn't be relevant (like opening doors), then you're dealing with people as gender-stereotypes first, and individuals second. This is not something I think we should be encouraging.

Give me a break. Gender is a part of personal identity. What you call a stereotype is reality. And rational thought processes only go so far. People are ultimately driven by what they are as human creatures and not what they think or read in books.

You and what you want isn't rational and neither is anyone else or their wants, and part of self-knowledge, especially so far as "gender identity" is concerned, is accepting that.

Accepting that, does, indeed, accepting that people are who they are and want what they do, and to find social values that suit everyone. It is give and take. Such is the basis for a fair, happy and stable society. Telling people to be who you think they should be based on some ideology designed that might work with androids is a recipe for misery and social failure. It's also arrogant unto insanity.