Poll: Is treating women in Gentlemanly way Sexist?

[Oro44]

OT: no it's not sexist , it's being fucking nice . Can't a man be nice to a woman without being called sexist ? Fine , i'ma start slamming doors in their faces , let them freeze if it's cold and not give them a hand if they ask for help . Theres your equality.

So is that how you usually treat men? Because if you bothered to read at all the reason its sexist is that it treats them differently for no real reason. Gender being irrelevant to door opening and shit, thus not a real reason.

You...actually make me ill. There's no other word for it. I feel the poetic flair in my heart dying every time I read something you say.

OT: Yeah it's sexist. By...definition it's sexist. But I couldn't care less. I'm a gentleman and I'm damn proud of it. Not sure why this is such an issue with people. Gentlemanship, as you call it, is one of the things that makes life for living and not for existing.

It makes you ill that I say it's sexist and imply the obvious, that sexism is bad? I don't see why that idea is so terrible to some people. Sexism is unjustified and bad. How threatening. I don't see why it would be something that makes life worth living.

So remember. Treating men like crap, and women like not-crap is sexist, and bad.

Yes, actually it is sexist towards men and it is bad. I'm not sure how the blindingly obvious can be missed there.

I can see where you're coming from, I really can. But you're going off of a a very cold and calculated logic. The world isn't quite as black and white as you're making it.

Simply saying that I am going off a very cold and calculated logic does not in fact show a flaw. The world doesn't need to be particularly black and white for me to be right about this. In essence, you're not very convincing there, you're too vague in your criticism.

Alright, fine. I'm not going to argue as I see no point to it. You're set in your ways, I find your logic lacking in humanity and that's all I'll say.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

**snip**

Except that I said that many men don't understand the difference between holding open a door or two and protecting a woman from the world.

Not all men do it, but many men won't hold a door because they believe it's the same thing, and they don't want to be sexist. That's not necessarily bad - they are working to treat women equally, which is good, but there is nothing inherently wrong with holding the door open. I hold doors open for people, and I'm a woman. It's NICE.

So I thanked the OP for understanding that being nice and being a white knight are not the same thing. He can be a gentleman without being a white knight. Gentlemen, for the record, typically hold doors for old people in addition to women - because they're gentlemen.

There is no reason for being polite and considerate to be balled up with over-protectiveness, but it often is. Even men who are not overprotective will often associate the two.

So yes, many men do not understand the difference.

Although, now that you bring it up - many men ARE sexist. Many meaning more than a few. Not most - that is its own word - but many.

Look at it this way - if only 28% of men are sexist - a little over 1/4th - then that is 1 BILLION men worldwide. I think 1 billion qualifies as "many".

Anyway, the point is, when people ask you to get over being mean with your knee-jerk reactions to comments about how the OP is a more enlightened male than most (a compliment - he is superior to the average), you should get over it. I'm not saying you're sexist. I'm not even saying most of the people on this site are sexist. But there are enough sexists jerks out there that "many" is certainly an applicable word, even if that wasn't what I meant.

So not only are you wrong about what I meant in the first place, even if had been right, you are still wrong numerically.

 

[tensorproduct]

Yes because you are treating someone differently because of their gender.

Women's rights and equality and all that confuses me.

I mean is it really equality if we get in more trouble for hitting a girl, and they get time off to be pregnant and all that sort of stuff? and us men don't?

While we shouldn't get in more trouble for hitting a girl, time off for pregnancy is kind of direct. It's not as if guys have the physical burden of pregnancy to deal with.

Unless you can prove that the capacity to bear children doesn't actively prevent somebody from opening a door or moving a chair, I don't think that you'll persuade anybody that you're arguing with of anything.

 

[Electrogecko]

Assuming you will only do that for girls, sure.

Treating someone differently based on their gender like that is simply basic sexism. Thinking someone deserves to be treated differently like that really is an obvious case.

I disagree with the idea that treating men and women differently equals sexism.

I don't ask men out for dinner and I don't talk dirty (at least as much) in the presence of women. I don't think that makes me sexist. The sexes are different, and until we have a universal personal attribute assessment system, I think it's safe to make certain assumptions. It's all part of nature. We don't challenge women to wrestling matches and we don't clean and dress up nice before we meet guys.

When's the last time a guy called a woman sexist when he got asked by her to lift something heavy?

 

[RazielXT]

So I dont get it, does it hurt the girl if I hold doors open for her, offer help with luggage etc? My mother taught me to offer help rather than wait till girl asks for it. If she doesnt want help Ill just walk away, I dont care, but wasnt this supposed to be considered polite thing to do? What harm is done by this?

 

[Oro44]

OT: no it's not sexist , it's being fucking nice . Can't a man be nice to a woman without being called sexist ? Fine , i'ma start slamming doors in their faces , let them freeze if it's cold and not give them a hand if they ask for help . Theres your equality.

So is that how you usually treat men? Because if you bothered to read at all the reason its sexist is that it treats them differently for no real reason. Gender being irrelevant to door opening and shit, thus not a real reason.

You...actually make me ill. There's no other word for it. I feel the poetic flair in my heart dying every time I read something you say.

OT: Yeah it's sexist. By...definition it's sexist. But I couldn't care less. I'm a gentleman and I'm damn proud of it. Not sure why this is such an issue with people. Gentlemanship, as you call it, is one of the things that makes life for living and not for existing.

It makes you ill that I say it's sexist and imply the obvious, that sexism is bad? I don't see why that idea is so terrible to some people. Sexism is unjustified and bad. How threatening. I don't see why it would be something that makes life worth living.

So remember. Treating men like crap, and women like not-crap is sexist, and bad.

Yes, actually it is sexist towards men and it is bad. I'm not sure how the blindingly obvious can be missed there.

I can see where you're coming from, I really can. But you're going off of a a very cold and calculated logic. The world isn't quite as black and white as you're making it.

Simply saying that I am going off a very cold and calculated logic does not in fact show a flaw. The world doesn't need to be particularly black and white for me to be right about this. In essence, you're not very convincing there, you're too vague in your criticism.

Alright, fine. I'm not going to argue as I see no point to it. You're set in your ways, I find your logic lacking in humanity and that's all I'll say.

Set in my ways? You didn't really give me anything real direct. It's not being set in my ways when you haven't elaborated sufficiently and I reject your argument because of that.

For example, how is my logic lacking in humanity? Sure you can say that, but you have pointed out no particular places or reasons to think those places are lacking in humanity. It's like going up to someone and saying "Oh there's a flaw in your math there" and refusing to tell them where or what it is.

Sorry, I know I said I was leaving, but I just wanted to clarify. I'm not trying to make an argument to accept or reject. I have my beliefs, you have yours which I happen to disagree with, but I'll respect that. Really nothing to debate about that.

 

[tensorproduct]

Yes because you are treating someone differently because of their gender.

Women's rights and equality and all that confuses me.

I mean is it really equality if we get in more trouble for hitting a girl, and they get time off to be pregnant and all that sort of stuff? and us men don't?

While we shouldn't get in more trouble for hitting a girl, time off for pregnancy is kind of direct. It's not as if guys have the physical burden of pregnancy to deal with.

Unless you can prove that the capacity to bear children doesn't actively prevent somebody from opening a door or moving a chair, I don't think that you'll persuade anybody that you're arguing with of anything.

Because those are the only two examples of sexism that exist.

Actually they're not. Not by a long shot. What made you think that I was saying that they were?

Could you explain to me your hamburger metaphor further? I still don't understand how it was relevant to whether or not women should have to move chairs or get out a car unassisted.

 

[krazykidd]

OT: no it's not sexist , it's being fucking nice . Can't a man be nice to a woman without being called sexist ? Fine , i'ma start slamming doors in their faces , let them freeze if it's cold and not give them a hand if they ask for help . Theres your equality.

So is that how you usually treat men? Because if you bothered to read at all the reason its sexist is that it treats them differently for no real reason. Gender being irrelevant to door opening and shit, thus not a real reason.

Yes , yes i do. I don't hold doors open for men . I don't offer them my coat . And i don't usually help male strangers when they ask me for help . I was taught by my mother to be a gentleman to women . Now i don't expect anything in return , but i do do it to be nice . But i guess it's sexist now , so i'll treat them as i treat men , equally bad .

It probably won't fix the crux of the issue given your attitude about it which just suggests you don't get it.

Now i understand that by definition it is sexist , but it is positive sexism isn't it? But people really complaining about it is silly . I'll give you an example . The make a wish foundation grants children with terminal illness wishes . I could say that is discrimation to children without terminal illnesses by definition . But is it wrong? No . And calling them out on that would be flat out stupid .

You do realize there is a significant difference between someone who is terminally ill and someone who isn't? And that one has no time or opportunity to see their dreams? There's no such difference between men and women. No difference between men and women would warrant the differences 'gentlemanly' behavior gives.

But discrimination is discrimination . Regardless the reason . Or are you suggesting discrimination is okay depending on the motive? Because the one making up the motive will always think they are right, be it racism , sexist , homophobia or granting a sick child their wish . It is dicriminaion by definition .

Edit: it's a matter of percepective

 

[Frission]

I don't know. I would have normally said no, but seeing some of the responses changes that. After all, most people here don't act like a gentleman just to be nice, but because of some sort condescending view on women. There's a severe lack of sincerity. The fact that they are unbearably smug about makes it worse.

Being nice is holding out doors, but also not turning violent at the slightest threat of provocation or ungratefulness.

 

[Spade Lead]

If class has become sexist, then I am becoming a misanthrope.

People need to lighten the hell up and enjoy life.

Hell, you lost that race to me, allow me to hold the door for you.

This is club misanthrope. Everything is overcharged and no one is friendly, but at least we all hate each other equally.

 

[tensorproduct]

Unless you can prove that the capacity to bear children doesn't actively prevent somebody from opening a door or moving a chair, I don't think that you'll persuade anybody that you're arguing with of anything.

???

He was talking about time off for pregnancy. I said that was fine for women and not men because the physical burden only applies to one of them.

Everyone else I'm arguing with didn't say anything about pregnancy. If someone wants to help someone with a physical issue impeding them I'm fine with that. Pregnancy would fit under that.

Apparently I wasn't clear in my point. Apologies for that.

What I meant was that the only physical difference between men and women that has been brought up in this whole discussion that is in any way relevant to the ability to move a chair several inches across the ground is that members of one demographic group are significantly more likely to be pregnant at any time that said chair-moving must take place. (Never mind for the moment that pregnant women are perfectly capable the vast majority of the time.)

As the arguments in favour of chivalrous behaviour frequently have roots in the idea of women being less physically able than men, I meant that one would have to positively prove that the capacity for pregnancy does not impede chair-moving or door-opening in order to demonstrate that this idea and the associated behaviours are unjustified.

I suppose that I shouldn't have tried to make a joke in a room clearly not in the mood for humour.


P.S. Damn, the captcha has become essay style...