Poll: Is treating women in Gentlemanly way Sexist?

[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.

When there's nothing to warrant the difference in treatment it is sexist.

Umm....you kind of just fell back on your entire argument there. The reason that men may hold the door open for women but not other men is because it's a safe assumption that most women have a harder time opening a door (no matter how easy it may be for everyone) then men do.

Are you kidding? Opening a door isn't that hard. I think this is all that needs to be shown for why you're sexist here. Your excuse is so flimsy. "Girls can't open doors as easily". Yeah, sure.

Gender isn't something to warrant the difference in treatment, so saying that treating someone differently due to gender isn't contradictory.

Wow.....I don't even know where to begin.

First of all, did you completely miss the part where I said "no matter how easy it may be for everyone"? This isn't only about opening doors! I'm sorry if my hypothetical scenario was insufficient for you. Do I need to go out of my way to dream up a ludicrous scenario for you?...in which survival depends on lifting a 150lb weight? I know this is a petty example, but it doesn't matter, it's an arbitrary one that I'm using to make a valid point, and you can't seem to see through it.

Second, are you arguing that the phrase isn't true? Are you arguing that doors are harder to open for men? Because if not, then you must agree that they're harder to open for men, which is, according to you, a sexist thing to say. I assure you, it's not a perfect tie, so which one is it? Which sex has a harder time opening doors?

Third, when did this get personal? I only consider how far behind me a person is when deciding whether or not to hold the door for them, and now you're apparently accusing me of being sexist!

And finally, that last sentence is just flat out wrong. You're right; gender isn't enough to warrant a difference in treatment. Attributes, on the other hand, are, and guess what? Gender HEAVILY influences a person's physical and mental attributes. It's not my fault that we don't all have special glasses that can point out the women who are extremely physically capable or the men who exhibit maternal qualities, but until we do, I'm fine assuming that, unless demonstrated otherwise, any given man is stronger than any given woman and any given woman is smarter and more empathetic than any given man.

If you think that makes me sexist, you have fun feeling high and mighty. I don't know what reality you're living in where these things aren't facts. I got over my insecurities long ago.

 

[zxvcasdfqwerzxcv]

*snip*

You asked for evidence: here is some for you:

Cognitive Difference: http://www.livescience.com/3808-men-women-differently.html
Emotional Difference: http://www.livescience.com/4085-emotional-wiring-men-women.html
Social Difference: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=women-more-socially-aggressive

I would hope that the physical differences between men and women are apparent to you. There are numerous other examples and pieces of evidence demonstrating the valley the lies between the minds of men and women.

As for you last 'argument', you seem to miss the point entirely. We all have real-life experience of men and women, We experience their behaviours, their emotions and their actions. We can generate suppositions that are experience based from our constant social interactions. We use our empathy to predict behaviour. We make judgements based on our experience, our interactions, and our feelings. We live in a fast-paced, yet still highly social and interactive society. Therefore we are required to make generalisations. Generalisations are not prejudices. Prejudices are made before or without any actual experience. Sexism and other prejudices are power assertions. Generalisations are ways of dealing with vast amounts of new information.

It seems you would be only happy in a society of complete grey, where there is no contrast. Every person behaves exactly the same towards each other; all equals, all bland, all boring.

Also, not to be rude (in a thread concerning polite behaviour) but you cannot simply accuse me of empty words when you do not make any argument yourself, only refuting my argument. Bring in some evidence of your own perhaps, as a lack of evidence is your main argument.

 

[tensorproduct]

It matters because if you think it's sexist for a man to only hire women to be a babysitter or a secretary, than you must also think it's sexist for a woman to only hire men to move furniture or be a security guard. I, however, don't think either one is sexist.

(emphasis mine)
Your argument seems to be based on inherent gender differences making members of one demographic less capable of certain tasks than others. I think that I've seen or can guess at your reasoning behind babysitting, furniture moving and guarding security, but I wonder if you could explain what feminine trait makes for better secretaries?

 

[Thyunda]

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.

In the same way that nettles hurt my ass but nettle soup tastes pretty good.

Yes, because sexism tastes great in soup. Discriminating towards people just gets such a horrible rap for no reason. Yeah.

Your capacity for metaphor is astounding.

Your analogy was rather empty. There was no real link to the actual situation and why it would be comparable to nettle soup as opposed to nettles in your ass.

Sexism is the nettles.
Gentlemanship is the soup.

Did the bold parts turn invisible when you tried to read my post or are you just deliberately ignoring them?

Sorry I gave you credit for intelligence you apparently don't have.

So sexism as a whole is a bad thing. Like nettles as a whole are quite painful.

However. If you choose the right parts and boil them just right, mix 'em with some other nice things and you get good-tasting soup. Gentlemanship is taking the right parts of a bad thing, mixing them with common decency and good manners, and turning it into a fairly good thing.

Are you getting the picture now?

You seem to be missing the part where you actually show that it is a good thing. You know, the part that would actually validate the analogy.

Well I never met a girl who didn't like to have her chair pulled out for her, or to have the door held open for her. Y'know? Something to make her feel a little special, even if it IS just a tiny thing.

Well the topic already has examples of some girls not liking it so... Also not sure why liking sexism would be good.

And on the flipside - I don't know many guys who appreciate another guy making them feel special.

Well I do. But. I tend not to take them out to dinner.

Why exactly does this need to be about making someone feel special? Are you doing it to flirt with every girl you meet or something?

Yes. Kinda. Not intentionally. Like, I'm not doing it to flirt, but it comes as naturally as flirting.

And I just like making people smile. Terribly sorry that this doesn't fit into your perfect world.

AND. Wait. What was that other thing? Oh yeah - some girls not liking it. Yeah, well, I accidentally flirt with some guys, doesn't make me gay. The minority does not prove the majority.

 

[GrimGrimoire]

Massive snip

Your problem seems to be that you are judging out of the textbook definition of the word. If that would be the right thing to do in every occasion, the world would be a much simpler place.
Sadly, things doesn't work like that.

The OP (before this tread derailed) meant our subjective meaning, as with humans, that is the only way to discuss this in the manner it was meant.

As you can see from the pool, most people aren't offended by "Gentlemanly" behaviour. There are reasons (mostly cultural) we behave as we do. If the majority of people support this, it is more right than not. Man is a most subjective creature, and won't think or behave as a textbook definition of a word would tell them.

Dragging up some wordbook and telling a person that what they don't see as offensive, or something they even enjoy, is offensive, wouldn't do any good. One cannot tell people that they are wrong, people have to think, and understand it themselves. And if they still don't think this is sexist, and that few think it's a problem, then it's hardly a problem.

I guess it really comes down to this: If most people aren't offended, why change it? If most people find this kind of behaviour right, how is it wrong? And how would you telling them it's wrong make it any better?

TLR You can't claim that what your subjective meaning is the right one, the only way to decide one thing to be more "right" that another thing would be to go by the majority. And according to said majority, "Gentlemanly" behaviour is only for good, not for worse.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

Yes it is. But people need to start realizing that just because some things may carry the labels of "racist" and "sexist", it doesn't mean they're automatically something evil.

Racism and sexism have been beaten into your subconscious since the first moment you could speak. It's in TV ads, it's in the way people dress, it's in nearly everything.

Stop freaking out about it.

 

[Electrogecko]

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.

But what warrants it here is your own sexual preference. At least he first one. The second one not so much. That is kind of sexist. It's whether there is some kind of justification for it beyond simply gender. Sexual preference is something you can't control and it is a reason for some different behaviors.

Well, then I can use sexual preference to justify any difference in behavior that I have, and I'd love to hear how you would refute it.

You're probably a liar since you just made it up right now?

.........huh? Made what up? What are you talking about?.....and now I'm a liar as well as a sexist? You're reading comprehension (and comprehension in general) are astounding.

You see, when talking about ideals, presenting a hypothetical scenario as a means to make a point is not an invalid argument, and does not make anybody a liar. If a realistic scenario serves to make an argument look stupid, then guess what? The argument is stupid. I can justify any behavioral changes I make around woman with "I do it because I'm sexually attracted," and I challenged you to refute that claim in any sort of logical way, but instead, you just call me a liar......how mature.

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.

They are different. But unless you give a good reason based on those differences to treat them differently then they are irrelevant. Just pointing at them without making a link is lazy and pointless.

Part of nature? Sounds like an unjustified excuse.

You just fell back on your initial argument once again, and as I said before, I can use sexual preference to justify any behavioral changes I make around women, let alone the plethora of scientifically proven differences between the genders. Also, based off of what you just said, I guess you're okay with women not being allowed to participate in military field operations?

Didn't fall back. Also talking about a plethora of scientifically proven differences without giving them is weak. Further they need to be relevant differences that have an actual effect.

Do I need to requote you're inital post in order to irrefutably prove that you did indeed change your argument? Because I don't want to embarass you.....just go check page one. And asking for a scientific source to prove basic things like women are smarter and men are stronger? That's not even necassary on scientific sites, let alone ones where I find posts like yours.

And nature is the best excuse there is. Nature is the only thing that matters in this whole damn world! Humans way too often forget that sexism and racism are rooted in survival instinct and are far from being completely concious decisions. We are animals...creatures of habit and impulse, and trying to control, change, or even outlaw these habits should always be questioned.

I mean you're making shit up to defend yourself.

Once again, I'm so dumbfounded that all I can say is "HUH!?"
What did I just make up? Everything we are is a result of evolution....that's a pretty universally accepted scientific truth.

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

Why would that matter?

......this is the 3rd time I've had to bring up that I was responding to your initial argument, which was "treating men and women differently is sexist."

It matters because if you think it's sexist for a man to only hire women to be a babysitter or a secretary, than you must also think it's sexist for a woman to only hire men to move furniture or be a security guard. I, however, don't think either one is sexist.

You must have missed something, but the last time I heard X isn't relevant as it's not my opinion on X.[/quote]
I'm pretty sure you mean Y isn't relevant because it's not your opinion on X.....except I have no idea what X and Y are.....you failed to include that.....as well as everything else that was supposed to be substantial in your post.

Once again, this entire exchange only started because your first post was so incredibly easily refuted that you refuted it yourself in your first reply to me. You claim that it's not your opinion, but then why did you jump to defend it so?

 

[Electrogecko]

It matters because if you think it's sexist for a man to only hire women to be a babysitter or a secretary, than you must also think it's sexist for a woman to only hire men to move furniture or be a security guard. I, however, don't think either one is sexist.

(emphasis mine)
Your argument seems to be based on inherent gender differences making members of one demographic less capable of certain tasks than others. I think that I've seen or can guess at your reasoning behind babysitting, furniture moving and guarding security, but I wonder if you could explain what feminine trait makes for better secretaries?

It's so nice to get such a fair and reasonable question proposed in such a fair and reasonable way.....Mortai Gravesend can learn a thing or two.

I would imagine that women are better at organization. I would also assume that they're better at dealing with people.....communication, empathy, that sort of thing.

Some people might think it's sexist of me to say, but there's also the fact that most men would prefer to be greeted by a woman for the reason of physical attractiveness. On the flip side though, I have no problem with an office that deals with a demographic of mostly women employing an attractive male as a secretary.

But more than anything else, I used secretary because I couldn't think of any other woman-oriented jobs that were so for any reason other than flat out intelligence.

 

[Dfskelleton]

If chivalry is considered sexist, then I truly have lost all respect for society. I'm not saying one sex is better than another, and as far as rights go we should all be equal, but when it comes to social etiquette, a man should always be more respectful of a woman. It's not sexism, it's just how we should act.

 

[Thyunda]

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.

In the same way that nettles hurt my ass but nettle soup tastes pretty good.

Yes, because sexism tastes great in soup. Discriminating towards people just gets such a horrible rap for no reason. Yeah.

Your capacity for metaphor is astounding.

Your analogy was rather empty. There was no real link to the actual situation and why it would be comparable to nettle soup as opposed to nettles in your ass.

Sexism is the nettles.
Gentlemanship is the soup.

Did the bold parts turn invisible when you tried to read my post or are you just deliberately ignoring them?

Sorry I gave you credit for intelligence you apparently don't have.

So sexism as a whole is a bad thing. Like nettles as a whole are quite painful.

However. If you choose the right parts and boil them just right, mix 'em with some other nice things and you get good-tasting soup. Gentlemanship is taking the right parts of a bad thing, mixing them with common decency and good manners, and turning it into a fairly good thing.

Are you getting the picture now?

You seem to be missing the part where you actually show that it is a good thing. You know, the part that would actually validate the analogy.

Well I never met a girl who didn't like to have her chair pulled out for her, or to have the door held open for her. Y'know? Something to make her feel a little special, even if it IS just a tiny thing.

Well the topic already has examples of some girls not liking it so... Also not sure why liking sexism would be good.

And on the flipside - I don't know many guys who appreciate another guy making them feel special.

Well I do. But. I tend not to take them out to dinner.

Why exactly does this need to be about making someone feel special? Are you doing it to flirt with every girl you meet or something?

Yes. Kinda. Not intentionally. Like, I'm not doing it to flirt, but it comes as naturally as flirting.

Comes as naturally isn't the same thing. Either you're claiming your behavior is sexually based like flirting you're denying it.

And I just like making people smile. Terribly sorry that this doesn't fit into your perfect world.

Yes, with sexism. I'm sure the leader of the KKK would smile if I made a racist joke about Obama.

AND. Wait. What was that other thing? Oh yeah - some girls not liking it. Yeah, well, I accidentally flirt with some guys, doesn't make me gay. The minority does not prove the majority.

A poor example since that isn't what makes someone gay.

Wait, why is flirting sexually based? Are you that socially dense?

And no. It's...you're an idiot. I have tried to be polite about this, but now you're comparing being nice to a girl to making racist jokes with the KKK. I've never had a complaint out there in the real world.

Or in here. Just you. Just...you. You fucking robot.

And I'm fairly sure if I flirted exclusively with guys I would actually be gay.

If you flirted exclusively with guys that would not make you gay. It'd be a hint you were, but that isn't how it is defined.

The rest of your post... that's not for me to deal with.

Yeah, that's a hint at being reported. Well if you don't want to be criticised for your behaviour, stop behaving like it.

Your view doesn't make any sense. It's the view of somebody whose concept of society is from their bedroom window with a news story about rape on the TV. Like...we're all supposed to be identical. That's just not right.

 

[Joccaren]

If you so it only for women - yes it is sexist. If you do it for everyone - no it is not sexist, it is just common courtesy.

 

[zxvcasdfqwerzxcv]

What a sad world you live in where gender is the only difference between people. I notice a lot more differences, just because I don't put much value in the only one you think exists doesn't mean I want everything the same. It just means I'm able to see more relevant differences than you. Sorry.

Yes, actually I can accuse you of it. Refutation is good enough.

Two points:
-This is a topic concerning gender, gender differences and gender behaviour. Therefore my arguments have been in context of that. Your arrogance at 'seeing more relevant differences' is not unsurprising, given your conduct. Of course YOU see these things, YOUR views are flawless, and it is up to everyone else to have the burden of proof. All you appeal to is ignorance. Of course I see more than just gender differences; I appreciate the tremendous diversity of humanity - it is the source of our strength, our innovation and creativity, our capacity to do great things and terrible things.

-Refutation is not sufficient. The burden of proof also lies with you. In this thread you have proven nothing. All I have seen empty refutations and ad hominem attacks. Learn to argue a point (then again this is the internet, I should be so lucky as to have a proper intelligent argument). Saying "that's irrelevant" without explaining how is not an argument. Perhaps by the end of the life of this thread you'll actually have a argument, however I shall call it a night. I'll leave you to your refutations.