Poll: Is treating women in Gentlemanly way Sexist?
- Thread starter BOOM headshot65
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'll hold a door open for anyone, it's just the right thing to do. You shouldn't really expect to be thanked or do it for one gender, or anything like that, you should just do it. Treating them differently because of gender, regardless of the reason or how you treat them, is still sexism, even if you mean well.
It pisses me off when a guy opens a door just for me, or offers to lift something just for me, or pulls out my chair just for me.
I can do it myself, cheers, and if you aren't going to do it for anyone else, shove off.
I can do it myself, cheers, and if you aren't going to do it for anyone else, shove off.
Treating people differently based on their gender in ways that aren't actually related to their gender (ie, only talking about which kind of underwear is the most comfortable for your man-parts with other guys is okay) is by definition sexist. I dunno what else there is to say on the topic.
Mortai Gravesend said:
I think my upbringing is completely germane, in this case. Sure, it may not resemble a valid defense of my position, but it`s still relevant, as far as how it colours my perception of the world around me.
I was raised to consider the comfort of women in my social surroundings, as a matter of courtesy, and as a sign of a decent upbringing. If I choose to be polite to women first and men second in most situations, it's not that I'm being sexist, that's simply one of the features that defines me, and it's due to the past impact of the women that hand a hand in raising me. I'm not going to apologize for it, either. I would certainly assist someone that needed it, regardless of gender, if I could do so, but I feel that being a gentleman isn't a sign that I'm a sexist, but that I'm well brought up by a family of farm-women.
Trust me, the last people I ever wanted to fuck with were the women in my family; they were every bit as tough as any of the men, every bit as capable in most tasks, and far more likely to hold grudges long enough to esure some appropriate payback. My grandfather might have been a better farmyard mechanic, but that's because my grandmother was (at least, arguably) a better shot with a rifle. That said, my mother is far more likely to change the oil in her car than my father is, but both are equally capable of cooking and sewing buttons back onto shirts.
Is it sexist to comment that my father was, generally speaking, more physically capable of some tasks than my mother was? When you consider that my father was 6`3`and 220lbs, and my mother was 5'4" and ~130lbs (I'm guessing her weight, because I was never dumb enough to ask her), it's common sense that some tasks were automatically easier for him.
And as far as holding a chair, the reason that I've been given for it is that it permits a woman wearing a skirt of dress to sit down without having to squirm about to adjust her clothing. My grandmother, who frequently wore jeans, is the one that gave me that explanation.
You have to admit that regardless of the gender of the other person, it's sort of awkward to watch them sitting across from you, shifting and squirming to address clothing that's pinching them in their `private places`.
I was raised to consider the comfort of women in my social surroundings, as a matter of courtesy, and as a sign of a decent upbringing. If I choose to be polite to women first and men second in most situations, it's not that I'm being sexist, that's simply one of the features that defines me, and it's due to the past impact of the women that hand a hand in raising me. I'm not going to apologize for it, either. I would certainly assist someone that needed it, regardless of gender, if I could do so, but I feel that being a gentleman isn't a sign that I'm a sexist, but that I'm well brought up by a family of farm-women.
Trust me, the last people I ever wanted to fuck with were the women in my family; they were every bit as tough as any of the men, every bit as capable in most tasks, and far more likely to hold grudges long enough to esure some appropriate payback. My grandfather might have been a better farmyard mechanic, but that's because my grandmother was (at least, arguably) a better shot with a rifle. That said, my mother is far more likely to change the oil in her car than my father is, but both are equally capable of cooking and sewing buttons back onto shirts.
Is it sexist to comment that my father was, generally speaking, more physically capable of some tasks than my mother was? When you consider that my father was 6`3`and 220lbs, and my mother was 5'4" and ~130lbs (I'm guessing her weight, because I was never dumb enough to ask her), it's common sense that some tasks were automatically easier for him.
If I was walking through a park during the winter, and came across a man, a woman and a child that had fallen into a mostly frozen over pond while walking across, would it be age-ist to rescue the child first, because I know I can accomplish that the most rapidly and with a minimum of danger to myself?
I'm aware that a variety of first aid courses give basic guildelines about rescue order at an accident scene, based on the individuals most likely to be able to assist me after I've rendered first aid, but that's a less relevant concern to my example. The fact is, it`s not age-ist to assume that rescuing the child first is likely to result in the least likelihood of endangering myself to the point of creating 4 casualties, and that it`s probably more likely to allow me the greatest chance to ensure the greatest number of successful rescues, in the situation I`ve outlined.
I'm aware that a variety of first aid courses give basic guildelines about rescue order at an accident scene, based on the individuals most likely to be able to assist me after I've rendered first aid, but that's a less relevant concern to my example. The fact is, it`s not age-ist to assume that rescuing the child first is likely to result in the least likelihood of endangering myself to the point of creating 4 casualties, and that it`s probably more likely to allow me the greatest chance to ensure the greatest number of successful rescues, in the situation I`ve outlined.
So, assuming your inherent hostility was restrained long enough for me to ever ask you out to dinner, would you object to going dutch? I will mention, though, that if wine were appropriate for the meal, I'd ask that you choose the wine, though; I don't drink wine, and wouldn't have a clue if any given was actually better than soapy water.Grey Day for Elcia said:
And as far as holding a chair, the reason that I've been given for it is that it permits a woman wearing a skirt of dress to sit down without having to squirm about to adjust her clothing. My grandmother, who frequently wore jeans, is the one that gave me that explanation.
You have to admit that regardless of the gender of the other person, it's sort of awkward to watch them sitting across from you, shifting and squirming to address clothing that's pinching them in their `private places`.
Yes, I pay my own way. I don't drink alcohol (I've had one sip of scotch in my life and it was probably the worst thing I've ever tasted, lol). I've never had trouble with sitting while wearing a dress or skirt--I just sweep my hand under my bum and sit, the same as I would if someone had pulled my chair out for me.Aerodyamic said:
EDIT: I mean to say no, I wouldn't object to going dutch as I pay my own way. Hopefully that wasn't confused.
I can honestly say that I hadn't ever bothered to examine the potential biological reasons that women might consistently and more frequently colder than men. However, based on a pretty reasonable amount of empirical experience, I've simply come to the conclusion that women are much more like to state they are cold than men are. I have also found that most women that I've had physical contact with tend to be cold.Launcelot111 said:
I'd be willing to do exhaustive studies concerning the phenomenon, but a lot of guys get weird when a heterosexual man looks them in the eye and states "I can only spoon on my right" with a completely straight face. On the other hand, I doubt I'd be able to legitimately claim that I need funding to cuddle a variety of women, regardless of any claims I might try to make about adding to the greater volume of scientific knowledge.
I am a champion cuddler, though, and I'm totally willing to trade platonic cuddles for cookies, time spent playing with puppies, or more cuddles.
No, I figured it out, so no worries there.Grey Day for Elcia said:
That said, if I offered to pay for dinner, it's based on the fact that I'm willing to do so because I enjoyed spending the time with you, and not because I feel you're legitimately incapable of paying for your share. I've done that on a number of dates, and after a number of dinners with friends; I'm more interested in demonstrating gratitude for agreeable company than in demonstrating that I'm a successful hunter/gatherer. I have allowed my date to offer the gratuity in most cases where I've paid for the dinner, though.
If I wanted to swing my dick around and loudly declare that I'm a successful hunter/gatherer, I'd probably buy an overpriced gas-guzzling car, a TV about 8 times larger than I need, and frequently pound my chest, grunt and scratch myself. In the meantime, I'll settle for knowing that I manage to pay my mortgage and still have money to spend on the people I like and the hobbies I enjoy.
Treating women differently to men = sexism. But I do not mean you are in an offensive way.
I do not think being a 'gentleman' is a bad nor negative thing. But if a girl/woman wants to be treated equally I haven't seen many willing or interested in picking up the other end of the bill/fair share of work or expecting 110%. Put in more plain language, they (ref not all but it's hard not to generalize with this topic) want to be treated in a way that suits them. Just because one person doesn't like it, doesn't mean you are wrong.
I'm a sexist, in a gentlemanly manner. If a woman cannot accept that, it is fine with me. Most of those aren't what I would consider 'ladies'.
(waits for the retorts and flaming to begin)
I do not think being a 'gentleman' is a bad nor negative thing. But if a girl/woman wants to be treated equally I haven't seen many willing or interested in picking up the other end of the bill/fair share of work or expecting 110%. Put in more plain language, they (ref not all but it's hard not to generalize with this topic) want to be treated in a way that suits them. Just because one person doesn't like it, doesn't mean you are wrong.
I'm a sexist, in a gentlemanly manner. If a woman cannot accept that, it is fine with me. Most of those aren't what I would consider 'ladies'.
(waits for the retorts and flaming to begin)
Gender is but one predictor muscle mass (and muscle mass isn't a particularly good predictor of resistance to cold, body fat is probably better.) It's a major predictor, but not the only one. So, if you were in the scenario above (two cold people, the option to give a coat to just one of them), you would do better to observe each person to see who is more in need. If you always, regardless of all other factors, give the woman your coat then yes, that's sexist.Launcelot111 said:
For example, the woman could be a marine and well-used to hardship, whereas the man could be a wimpy computer scientist. That's not even an extreme example. If you're right there, it makes more sense to make a judgment call based on the individuals concerned than to assume that because statistically women are smaller then this woman is smaller.
On the other hand, say you were faced with this sort of issue on an industrial scale. You must now make a decision for a hundred thousand man-woman pairs. Given that you don't have time to make a thorough investigation of the relative cold-resistance of each individual, then it starts to make sense to use gender as a predictor because it has statistically significant weight. That's basically how insurance companies work.
Something I feel I should note concerning the fitness of someone trying to perform a job:
If my house is on fire and a firefighter shows up to rescue me, if they're obviously physically incapable of assisting me, I don't care if they're male or female, they're not physically capable enough. By the same token, if I'm at work, and someone is physically incapable of doing their share of the work, and thereby increasing my work load, I'm not cool with that, regardless of their gender.
That said, there are simply some physical tasks that change based on the gender-specific anatomy of men and women; the arms and hips of men and women have different physical designs (for lack of a better term), and some types of load carrying tasks are actually easier for one sex or the other.
For instance, a small load of a medium weight that is more easily carried on the hip by a women is more comfortably carried in front of a man. It's not particularly an argument that one is better than the other, it's more a reminder than men and women are physically assembled differently, and it can impact the way or ability of an individual to perform certain physical tasks.
If my house is on fire and a firefighter shows up to rescue me, if they're obviously physically incapable of assisting me, I don't care if they're male or female, they're not physically capable enough. By the same token, if I'm at work, and someone is physically incapable of doing their share of the work, and thereby increasing my work load, I'm not cool with that, regardless of their gender.
That said, there are simply some physical tasks that change based on the gender-specific anatomy of men and women; the arms and hips of men and women have different physical designs (for lack of a better term), and some types of load carrying tasks are actually easier for one sex or the other.
For instance, a small load of a medium weight that is more easily carried on the hip by a women is more comfortably carried in front of a man. It's not particularly an argument that one is better than the other, it's more a reminder than men and women are physically assembled differently, and it can impact the way or ability of an individual to perform certain physical tasks.
I think the correct answer to the question is 'yes,' because it implies that a woman is less able to do such a thing for herself. But I think some kinds of 'sexism' are justified. There is a biological basis for 'gentlemanly' behaviour, because in the wild women really were less able to take care of themselves. So even if in our society it is unjustified, it is harmless if you don't take it personally and as a reflection of women in modern society. Humans are emotional creatures so it is normal to act in instinctive ways sometimes because that's what our natural emotional responses are based on.
i've got to be clear; are you saying you would only hold the door open for a woman?
if yes, you're a sexist, n also a douche
if no, why bring it up as a question about sexism? as it is the way you treat everyone it cant be sexist
if yes, you're a sexist, n also a douche
if no, why bring it up as a question about sexism? as it is the way you treat everyone it cant be sexist
I've been on workplace assesments about lifting loads, carrying any weight oon your hip is bad for your spine, regardless of genderAerodyamic said:
I hold/open doors open for people. If I opened doors exclusively for women, then that could indeed be construed as a sort of "benevolent chauvinism" as one columnist I read once described it. If you think that a person must be sexist solely because they held/opened a door for a woman, then you are wrong.
If I pet a cat and a dog with each hand, and the cat consistently attempts to scratch and bite, while the dog consistently wags his tail, and I'm not doing anything that restricts the ability of either animal to come and go as they please, I'm eventually going to stop trying to pet that cat.Mortai Gravesend said:
I prefer to bleed as little as possible, given the choice.
Is that discrimination based on species, a study in harm reduction, recognition of a reward for behaviour, or all of the above? If I repeat that example 1,000 times, and find that over that sample size, cats consistently attempt to use my arm for a scratching post, and dogs consistently wag their tails like some kind of furry propeller, and then I stopped by your place for a visit, would you blame me for only petting your dog, while carefully observing your cat for signs of homicidal aggression directed at one of my manipulatory appendages?
If I perform a specific action for two different groups, and am constantly given a positive response by one group, and a negative response by the other, it'd be masochistic to continue repeating that action for the second group. That's no different than observing a child that has picked up a hot object and given themselves a burn; that child is astonishingly unlikely to pick that object, under those circumstances again.
Honestly, if I hold a door for 100 people, equally divided into 2 groups of 50 people in blue shirts and 50 people in green shirts, and a large number of blue shirts act graciously in response, but a much smaller number of green shirts respond graciously, I would feel justified in claiming that people in blue shirts are, in fact, generally nicer individuals.
Sure, I'm make a sweeping generalization about sartorial choices impacting the behaviour patterns of individuals, but that's something I'm willing to do.
I think that's a totally plausible conclusion to arrive at, based on the information given, although I think the comment would have been better worded as "I think that women are more likely to respond graciously than men, if I perform a polite action."
Why does everyone respond while I'm responding to someone else? Not that I mind being popular, but it means I keep having to edit posts to include the new discussion, and I'm certain that I'm going to address the wrong person, at some point. I find that irksome, but I'd muddle on, and hopefully get everyone answered.Mr Ink 5000 said:
It's also equally bad to lifts loads beyond your own body mass, and I regularly do that in my job; my point was more that the female body are adapted in certain specific ways, as opposed to the males body and it has an impact on the manner in which some tasks are accomplished by one gender of the other.
yes it is sexism as in you are treating someone differently based on their gender.
no as in its not bad sexism.
pulling the chair out as in on a date or in general situations? on a date i can understand cause your trying to impress them etc but i wouldnt normally pull chairs out for anyone.
if they were seriously cold i would give most people my jacket (i have internal insulation) but really in a normal situation they should have planned ahead and brought their own jacket.
but basically what im trying to say is gender shouldnt be the issue it should be kindness and politness to any one and everyone.
no as in its not bad sexism.
holding the door im fine with. but really you should hold the door for everyone. its just rude shutting a door in someones face no matter the gender.BOOM headshot65 said:
pulling the chair out as in on a date or in general situations? on a date i can understand cause your trying to impress them etc but i wouldnt normally pull chairs out for anyone.
if they were seriously cold i would give most people my jacket (i have internal insulation) but really in a normal situation they should have planned ahead and brought their own jacket.
but basically what im trying to say is gender shouldnt be the issue it should be kindness and politness to any one and everyone.
Your bit about paying because you enjoyed their company reminded me of something someone once said in my presence: "All women are basically prostitutes; you have to take them out to dinner and buy them things (give them money) so they'll have sex with you."Aerodyamic said:No, I figured it out, so no worries there.
That said, if I offered to pay for dinner, it's based on the fact that I'm willing to do so because I enjoyed spending the time with you, and not because I feel you're legitimately incapable of paying for your share. I've done that on a number of dates, and after a number of dinners with friends; I'm more interested in demonstrating gratitude for agreeable company than in demonstrating that I'm a successful hunter/gatherer. I have allowed my date to offer the gratuity in most cases where I've paid for the dinner, though.
If I wanted to swing my dick around and loudly declare that I'm a successful hunter/gatherer, I'd probably buy an overpriced gas-guzzling car, a TV about 8 times larger than I need, and frequently pound my chest, grunt and scratch myself. In the meantime, I'll settle for knowing that I manage to pay my mortgage and still have money to spend on the people I like and the hobbies I enjoy.
There are so many things wrong with it that it's hard to even know how to respond, lol.
(I'm not suggesting you were even remotely hinting at the quote I gave. Just reminded me, is all.)
How well is that attitude working out for you?marurder said:
The version of that quote that I came across was: "Marriage, in it's traditionally accepted forms, is a socially accepted form of prostitution; a man assumes complete responsibility for providing for a woman's needs, and she provides him with sexual favours."Grey Day for Elcia said:Your bit about paying because you enjoyed their company reminded me of something someone once said in my presence: "All women are basically prostitutes; you have to take them out to dinner and buy them things (give them money) so they'll have sex with you."Aerodyamic said:No, I figured it out, so no worries there.
That said, if I offered to pay for dinner, it's based on the fact that I'm willing to do so because I enjoyed spending the time with you, and not because I feel you're legitimately incapable of paying for your share. I've done that on a number of dates, and after a number of dinners with friends; I'm more interested in demonstrating gratitude for agreeable company than in demonstrating that I'm a successful hunter/gatherer. I have allowed my date to offer the gratuity in most cases where I've paid for the dinner, though.
If I wanted to swing my dick around and loudly declare that I'm a successful hunter/gatherer, I'd probably buy an overpriced gas-guzzling car, a TV about 8 times larger than I need, and frequently pound my chest, grunt and scratch myself. In the meantime, I'll settle for knowing that I manage to pay my mortgage and still have money to spend on the people I like and the hobbies I enjoy.
There are so many things wrong with it that it's hard to even know how to respond, lol.
(I'm not suggesting you were even remotely hinting at the quote I gave. Just reminded me, is all.)
No, it's not progressive, and it sure as hell isn't political correct, but it's a functional and simultaneously offensive description of the way marriage was structured in the past, which is why I'm at least happy to see that society is trying to redefine marriage as "When 2 people agree to share the costs and burdens of putting up with each others shit, to the exclusion of all other parties".
That said, most dates are intended to eventually lead to 2 individuals 'bumping uglies', but I usually trying to avoid putting out on the first date; I find I have a tough time getting dates if word gets around that I'm easy. Well, more accurately, if I were outed as easy, I'd probably get a lot of dates, but they'd be dates with the wrong sort of people, although there was a time in my life where those kinds of dates weren't something I turned down.
I'm not sure that I've matured much as I've gotten older, but I've certainly become more cautious about the risk of needing shots because I caught the drip. Things like that are embarrassing to explain to prospective love interests, usually.
I'm not adverse to a relatively chaste goodnight kiss after whoever was driving has seen the other participant to their door, though.
Personally, yes. You my friend are sexist against your fellow man if I were to take you at your exact word. Let me explain.BOOM headshot65 said:
I would hold a door open for anyone, male or female. Not because I ama gentleman, but because I am polite.
I will pull a chair out for a person to be polite, and especially if they need help with it for whatever reason, be it arm fulls of shopping, lack of strength whatever, though admittedly, I won't go out of my way to pull a chair out for someone if they are more than capable, I've never understood the idea of doing it as ritual, but I'll happily help anyone.
I will offer my jacket to someone (again, male or female) if they are cold and I am not. However, if it's a freezing gold night and a girl is out in a little dress and nothing else, and I'm wearing my nice warm winter jacket, you're darn sure I'm keeping it on. If they needed it because they were in shock, hypothermic, whatever, of course they have it, but if you're stupid enough to not dress for the weather, that's your fault.
I consider myself a fairly polite person, but there are very few examples I can think of where I would help a woman in a way that I would not help a man/child/pet/whatever.