Poll: Is this sexist?
- Thread starter TheLefty
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes, it's the definition of sexism. You based it on the fact that they were female. Treating people different because of gender is the definition of sexism.
If it was "I won't take money from a friend" then it's not sexist. If it was "I don't want to take money from YOU" then it's not sexist. If it's "Leave me alone, you *****, and let me finish this instance" then it's very rude, but not sexist (***** in that instance can be used towards both genders).
But since it's "I won't take money from you BECAUSE YOU'RE A GIRL" it's as sexist as it gets. There are WORSE instances, but not more sexist, by definition.
Now, your motivation behind this may not have been sexist. I'm not saying anything about that, but the statement is. Granted, the fact that you made the statement in the first place, especially as a reflex hints at some innate sexism in how you think about things. Chivalry had it's place, but in the current day it needs to be reworked, and updated. It's not about helpless ladies and gallant men anymore, it's about individuals, on both sides, of both genders.
If it was "I won't take money from a friend" then it's not sexist. If it was "I don't want to take money from YOU" then it's not sexist. If it's "Leave me alone, you *****, and let me finish this instance" then it's very rude, but not sexist (***** in that instance can be used towards both genders).
But since it's "I won't take money from you BECAUSE YOU'RE A GIRL" it's as sexist as it gets. There are WORSE instances, but not more sexist, by definition.
Now, your motivation behind this may not have been sexist. I'm not saying anything about that, but the statement is. Granted, the fact that you made the statement in the first place, especially as a reflex hints at some innate sexism in how you think about things. Chivalry had it's place, but in the current day it needs to be reworked, and updated. It's not about helpless ladies and gallant men anymore, it's about individuals, on both sides, of both genders.
Naw...I don't think that's sexist. And here's the thing, I'm a girl. Girls ***** half the time about guys not being chivalrous and the other half about being pigs. Seems to me that if you're nice to me great, but I really don't care if its because I am a girl. This might be teetering on offensive, but only slightly. Don't worry about it and tell your friends they need to chill out and stop being so dramatic.
Guess what? Look at it any way you want, there is no pleasing the opposite sex.Kiefer13 said:
And I disagree, I feel the fairer sex should be treated more politely because
a) Thats how I was raised
and
b) Thats ultimately what they want.
This isn't saying I tell all of my male friends to fuck off every time I see them, but I treat females nicer than I do males. If that means I am sexist, then I don' really give a damn because I will continue to be gentlemanly whether they like it or not.
Chivalry is dead, my friend. In fact, the Age of Chivalry never really existed. Knights were killing, raping and pillaging the same as everyone else. They just wore shinier armor.
I say it was kinda sexist. While I'm sure you didn't mean to say it the way you spoke it, in some deep dark recess of your psyche, a little piggy spoke up and caused your pride to overtake your reason.
I say it was kinda sexist. While I'm sure you didn't mean to say it the way you spoke it, in some deep dark recess of your psyche, a little piggy spoke up and caused your pride to overtake your reason.
There are varying definitions of sexism. The one I usually use is: "Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender."
Another common one is "the belief that one gender is inferior to another."
If you want to evaluate whether or not you were being sexist, first choose your definition. You were stereotyping the male role as "never receiving aid from girls", so in that sense you were being sexist.
You were not being sexist in the sense that you didn't especially treat their gender as inferior to males.
It is commonly assumed that sexism is only negative stereotypes, but really if you treat people significantly differently based solely on their gender, you are exhibiting a behavior that stereotypes the genders into different roles. In that sense, chivalry is inherently sexist. Showing a woman courtesy merely because she is a woman, is therefore sexist. I doubt any woman will call you on it however. (unless that woman is your girlfriend/spouse and you are showing undue courtesy to another woman)
Some women even lament the passing of such behaviors, because it has mostly positive results for them. In reality though, chivalry is a code of conduct stemming back to unenlightened times, when women were not highly regarded at all. A man's world, where might ruled the lands, and women could never be landowners.
I would recommend you do not be chivalrous, but rather be courteous, if you wish to avoid being sexist.
HANDY GUIDE
If you refuse to let a girl pay because she is a girl, that is sexist.
If you refuse to let a girl pay because you do not wish to impose, it is not.
If you refuse to let a girl pay because you do not borrow money on principle, then it is not.
Another common one is "the belief that one gender is inferior to another."
If you want to evaluate whether or not you were being sexist, first choose your definition. You were stereotyping the male role as "never receiving aid from girls", so in that sense you were being sexist.
You were not being sexist in the sense that you didn't especially treat their gender as inferior to males.
It is commonly assumed that sexism is only negative stereotypes, but really if you treat people significantly differently based solely on their gender, you are exhibiting a behavior that stereotypes the genders into different roles. In that sense, chivalry is inherently sexist. Showing a woman courtesy merely because she is a woman, is therefore sexist. I doubt any woman will call you on it however. (unless that woman is your girlfriend/spouse and you are showing undue courtesy to another woman)
Some women even lament the passing of such behaviors, because it has mostly positive results for them. In reality though, chivalry is a code of conduct stemming back to unenlightened times, when women were not highly regarded at all. A man's world, where might ruled the lands, and women could never be landowners.
I would recommend you do not be chivalrous, but rather be courteous, if you wish to avoid being sexist.
HANDY GUIDE
If you refuse to let a girl pay because she is a girl, that is sexist.
If you refuse to let a girl pay because you do not wish to impose, it is not.
If you refuse to let a girl pay because you do not borrow money on principle, then it is not.
Oh, I never said you shouldn't do those things. Of course, I'd open doors for women, or offer to pay for stuff. But, I also do that for my guy friends, as well.Satin6T said:
I'm just saying that you shouldn't use the term 'chivalry' as the reason to do these things. For me, its just the kindly thing to do, regardless of the gender.
But WHY are you going to continue to do that? That is the important thing. If you are treating them differently based solely on an archaic code based on the premise that women are inferior, then you are sexist in a bad way.Satin6T said:
Treating women with courtesy is not a bad thing, but do so because you respect the person, not because of their genital type.
Yes, yes it is. Think about it, true it's not aggressively sexist, but remember that you don't necessarily have dislike the other gender to be sexist. The problem with prejudice isn't just the injustice committed on the victims, it's the very fact that one treats somebody differently because of their gender/race/etcetera. So it wasn't maliciously sexist, it wasn't necessarily sexist against them, but it was sexist simply because you thought of them differently then yourself
