All I'm saying is that the world works best when everybody does what their best at, and since men are GENERALLY stronger than women, a task which requires physical strength, such as opening a door, is most efficiently performed by a man.
As for pulling out chairs, well, that's something one generally does with someone they're on a date with, or a female acquaintance they might like to go on a date with, not usually with strangers as is often the case with the opening of doors.
If we ignore the fact that the amount of force that one must generate to open a door is so far below the threshold of intense exertion for any able-bodied adult that it is pretty much irrelevant, there is still a statistical problem with this argument.
You put the term "GENERALLY" in all caps, presumably so that nobody could mistake that you were saying that all men are stronger than all women, yes? To restate that, if on average men are stronger than women that does not imply that for any two people chosen at random we can expect that if person A is a man and person B is a woman, then A will always be stronger than B. This is the more likely result, for sure, but not by all that much. There are plenty of predictors on a person's strength other than gender.
If you only take gender into account when deciding if someone needs help with physical tasks, then you are elevating this one predictor to an unreasonable weight, when multiple other relevant factors can be estimated at a glance. The most important being muscle mass, to which strength is more or less proportional.
So, you say that women shouldn't have to do these things themselves, whereas your reasoning above only supports the idea that the weak shouldn't have to do these things for themselves. Thus, you're door-opening would be based on whether the receiver of this favour is bigger than you. Again, statistically speaking this will mean that you open more doors for women than men, but you are not now making the decision based on gender, and hence not sexist.
Seriously, the escapist is a really useless place to talk about anything other than games / movies, because it seems alot of the vocal people on these forums never lived in the real world.
Here's a tip about living the real world: intentions don't matter. Nobody cares if you intended to be nice, you don't get to decide how your actions are perceived by others.
A lot of escapists seem to have trouble with that fact.
So, afew people on here have called me sexist. What for? For suggesting that men treat women in a gentlemanly manner. Now, I can see that too a certain extent, like the whole "The world is unsafe for women, So I will keep you away from the world" style of gentleman-re IS sexist. However, what I was refering too was holding the door open for a women, pulling out her chair for her, offering her your jacket if it is cold, things like that. THAT is what I fail to see as being sexist.
So escapist, does the fact I want to be a gentleman make me sexist?
Being nice to a person of any gender is not sexist. The sexism comes in guys not doing the same for other guys.
And the only reason it isn't - I think - is because male ego would rather not have it. The way the machismo works they'd rather prove little things like "I GOT THIS DOOR ************! Yeah, opened that door like was a *****! Call me the door master!"
It is good to give your coat to a smaller guy who is cold, but ultimately he may take it the wrong way as if you want something out of it. Or that he can't deal with the charity. I would hold rush to fetch the door for a gentleman who was somehow frail but for a considerably able-bodied man he'd wonder what you were trying to prove.
Holding a door open, you should do that for EVERYONE! If you go through a door and let it drop right in someone's face, man or woman they will be mad.
You would not in fact be justified in making those generalizations at all actually. It would be quite discriminatory towards those involved. I'd certainly blame you for treating me or someone else a specific way due to how someone who shares irrelevant traits with me acted.
Based on the (theoretical) empirically collected evidence, the generalizations I listed in my example are totally justified.
If you examine the actions of individuals of several defined groups, and record those action for every individual, as you group them, you can then create a demographic assessment, in exactly the same way that a government census will assess the number of young families in a given neighbourhood, and then make budget decisions concerning school-funding for that area.
While examining a discrete individual will clearly show that that specific individual is different in some ways from other similar individuals, it is generally a safe way to begin building a framework for social interaction. I'm not arguing that all generalizations about a sample group are always applicable to any member of that sample group, but that the point to the use of sample groups is to provide referential framework.
Is it potentially discriminatory?
Yes, but is that relevant?
Is it valid to take a census in my neighbourhood, notice that a lot of young families with children live in my area, and then assign more school funding to my area?
I hope so.
Is it a logical, statistically-supported statement for the other poster to claim that, overall:
more women responded in a positive social manner (smiling, nodding, saying thank you) to a given social stimuli (a polite social action) than did men presented with the same social stimuli?
Absolutely, provided that we've defined the observation correctly.
I don't dispute that many action have a hidden social weight to them, nor will I argue that some action could, given the right angle of observation, be used as bias against those actions, but you're just as guilty of generalization as anyone else here. In fact, that's the part of the point to statistical analysis: to examine the biases of groups. That said, not all actions need to be minutely dissected for microscopic examination for bias.
Here's my point, in a nutshell:
If:
100% of people that (ate tomatoes) prior to 1890 [are dead]
99% of people that (ate tomatoes) prior to 1910 [are dead]
95% of people that [ate tomatoes) prior 1930 [are dea]
etc...
Based on that example, I can infer that tomatoes are poisonous. I can alter the variables within each set of brackets, and define different parameters, but the fact remains that I have demonstrated that a bias can be created relatively easily.
So:
If I say hello to 100 women and some number of them greet me in return, I can state that that percentage of women are LIKELY to return a social greeting.
If I then greet 100 men, and some number return the greeting, I can then state that that percentage of men are LIKELY to return a social greeting.
If I compare those 2 percentages, I can then outline the differences in the percentage of women and men that are LIKELY to return a social greeting.
That's not sexist, that's statistics. Capthcha= Easy as cake, which it really is.
Edit: captcha burp! It suddenly changed to "he loves her"!
Is it a logical, statistically-supported statement for the other poster to claim that, overall:
more women responded in a positive social manner (smiling, nodding, saying thank you) to a given social stimuli (a polite social action) than did men presented with the same social stimuli?
Absolutely, provided that we've defined the observation correctly.
It is not statistically supported if you have not in fact done appropriate observations, and "In my experience" does not represent a statistically significant sample size in the messy world of sociology. Science uses control groups and double blind testing to eliminate biases that people bring with them without realizing it.
Even then, if we suppose that your hypothesis is born out by some proper testing and analysis, that really tells you very little about any individual. Statistics are used when dealing with very large numbers of people where two things hold true
1) There are enough individuals that the law of large numbers will allow for the observed effect to be present with a reasonable degree of certainty
2) It would be too time consuming to gather other data that might also be relevant on a statistical level. Gender is among the easiest data points to determine about a person.
When you're dealing with individuals, you really have neither of these things going for you. The probability that any one individual will defy gender norms is quite high, and you have a chance upon meeting a person face-to-face to determine a whole bunch of other things about them other than their gender.
I think such broad assumptions can be made overall in how male ego interacts to the point where it's a REASONABLE CONVENTION for a guy to pull a chair out for a woman as she sits down to eat at a table... but for a guy to do that with another guy, BY CONVENTION that would not be taken in a good way.
If I'm on a date or something similar, I'll open doors because... that's what you do in that type of situation. Cultural thing, like kiss on a woman's hand or talking to an older person using "sir/ma'am" instead of "you".
Holy balls, a kiss on the hand?! When and where are you from, dude? I have never, in my entire life seen somebody do that. Hell, if you can get away with it without it appearing incredibly dorky, good for you.
In Poland, older generations (parents, grandparents) still kiss women on the hand.
I don't, obviously, the "youngsters" don't do that because it's just embarrassing for both parties.
I still don't see why acting according to my culture's expectations, at least in some minor things, like treating women better than men is considered evil. They expect it, and I was taught to do it, so where is harm if both parties agreed upon it voluntarily?
Oh for the love of Christ, us men have to listen to women prattle on every day about how men are dicks because of something terrible we did back in high school and we cant even attempt to do something about it by being nice to them? Women can act like the most self-righteous bellends in the face of a single second of male hostility and we cant even hold the door open for them without being called sexist. It makes me sick, I love women because they are so interesting and charming and able to do and wear whatever they want. But they are universally different from men because they think on completely different levels than us and are able to reproduce. They are almost of another species compared to us, why shouldn't we treat them differently? We treat animals differently than us, men cant treat women differently because they're different? Even though a woman could spend countless hours of the day saying how different women are because they're so much better than us? Its like were not even allowed to treat women with respect, because women just want more things to use as cannon fodder against our tyranny. I would never cheat on a woman, does that stop them from thinking that I'll cheat on them every second of the day? Of course not, nothing will ever change that paranoia because, again, they are almost of a different species than us. We are genetically destined to think differently of women than men, and for the love of god we just cant hold the bloody door open for one of them. Fuck you.
I had a such event once, the subject was weather we drive or walk to a destination. I suggested we walk so it was agreed upon. There was a need to carry a ps3 with us and it wasn't mine so it's owner felt she had to carry it. I felt since it was my suggestion to walk it was my responsibility to carry it plus I wasn't carrying a schoolbag with me either while she had her own. A pretty stuffed to the brim bag at that.
She seemed to be somewhat defensive about my suggestion to carry the ps3, instantly saying something along the lines of "I can't carry it..." to which I replied "it's not that you can't, it's that you shouldn't have to, cause I'm here", she thankfully smiled at that and let me feel manly and helpful (I like feeling manly and helpful) by handing me the ps3.
I don't think I was being sexist, since I wouldn't have acted any differently if my friend was male and the situation was the same...but I do think she initially felt I was being sexist, which brings my attention to the way I addressed her concern.
I think women don't mind or despise gentlemanly help from men since men are indeed physically stronger than women on average (and this specific friend of mine is quite small and thin, while I'm 6'2" and 180-190 pounds so the burden of a ps3 would be much smaller on me) as long as men don't deny their capability of also completing the task.
The goal of gentlemanly help should always be maximum efficiency and GOOD MANNERS. Not diminishing women's capabilities of completing tasks and making them feel useless.
Oh for the love of Christ, us men have to listen to women prattle on every day about how men are dicks because of something terrible we did back in high school and we cant even attempt to do something about it by being nice to them? Women can act like the most self-righteous bellends in the face of a single second of male hostility and we cant even hold the door open for them without being called sexist. It makes me sick, I love women because they are so interesting and charming and able to do and wear whatever they want.
Not all women "prattle on" about how horrible men are, nor are we all "self-righteous", or even all "interesting and charming," in the same way that not all men are jocks who drink beer and know how to fix an engine.
I would never cheat on a woman, does that stop them from thinking that I'll cheat on them every second of the day? Of course not, nothing will ever change that paranoia because, again, they are almost of a different species than us.
I'm a woman, and I think the idea that all men are cheaters is horribly sexist and idiotic, so clearly not all women think that way. It's almost as if we're individuals, with the ability to form our own thoughts and opinions regardless of what other members of our gender think.
We are genetically destined to think differently of women than men
To be a gentleman is essentially to have good manners. One should be a gentleman with both men and women. If a man reserves his gentlemanly manner for only women then he is sexist.
If I'm on a date or something similar, I'll open doors because... that's what you do in that type of situation. Cultural thing, like kiss on a woman's hand or talking to an older person using "sir/ma'am" instead of "you".
Holy balls, a kiss on the hand?! When and where are you from, dude? I have never, in my entire life seen somebody do that. Hell, if you can get away with it without it appearing incredibly dorky, good for you.
In Poland, older generations (parents, grandparents) still kiss women on the hand.
I don't, obviously, the "youngsters" don't do that because it's just embarrassing for both parties.
I still don't see why acting according to my culture's expectations, at least in some minor things, like treating women better than men is considered evil. They expect it, and I was taught to do it, so where is harm if both parties agreed upon it voluntarily?
Oh, I'm not knocking the kissing of a lady's hand. Actually, that sounds awesome! I would do it myself except, frankly, people would look at me funny.
The reason that some of this behaviour is seen as discriminatory is that it reinforces the notion that women are incapable of doing for themselves certain things. It's not the worst thing in the world, by anybody's standards, but it can be insulting and degrading (if only a little). It reinforces male stereotypes as well. The stereotype of being a big, strong protector and provider might not seem all that bad to a couple of kick-ass dudes like ourselves, but not every guy is that or wants to be like that.
As you say though, these are cultural expectations, but those change. You note yourself that in a couple of generations, hand kissing has gone from normal, expected behaviour to embarrassing.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
