Poll: Is treating women in Gentlemanly way Sexist?

[BrassButtons]

Nope, people just need to grow up and act their age.

"Oh my god, you have manners! YOU SEXIST PIG!"

It's not sexist to treat people differently based on gender in situations where gender is irrelevant? And the only way to have good manners is to treat men and women differently in those situations?

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Nope, people just need to grow up and act their age.

"Oh my god, you have manners! YOU SEXIST PIG!"

It's not sexist to treat people differently based on gender in situations where gender is irrelevant? And the only way to have good manners is to treat men and women differently in those situations?

Gentlemanly behavior only is applicable in situations where gender is relevant, obviously. Otherwise there's no "good manner" aspect to the situation thus behavior is by definition not gentlemanly.

 

[Lukeje]

Of course not, nothing will ever change that paranoia because, again, they are almost of a different species than us.

I don't think you know what the word `species' means. Hint: it has to do with the fertility of interbred offspring.

 

[Aerodyamic]

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.

You completely removed the portion of my post where I specified that individuals may differ from an observed, established behavioural norm for that group under a specified set of parameters. I'm not arguing that any SINGLE individual may not bear out the behaviour of the group within which that individual resides, I'm pointing out that the exceptions to a given rule do not invalidate a statement concerning the observed behaviours of that group to the specified stimuli.

Under the stated parameters of that persons observations, even if their information is clearly hearsay, it still justifies the statements I made, which I will re-iterate and reword, once again:

Women, when presented with a positive social stimuli, responded with a positive social stimuli more often than men did, in an ad hoc examination by an individual not attempting to collect a scientific data sample.

Please try to include all of a response when you quote something, rather than manipulating the presented to alter the actual context of the response, in the future.

 

[tensorproduct]

You completely removed the portion of my post where I specified that individuals may differ from an observed, established behavioural norm for that group under a specified set of parameters. I'm not arguing that any SINGLE individual may not bear out the behaviour of the group within which that individual resides, I'm pointing out that the exceptions to a given rule do not invalidate a statement concerning the observed behaviours of that group to the specified stimuli.

Under the stated parameters of that persons observations, even if their information is clearly hearsay, it still justifies the statements I made, which I will re-iterate and reword, once again:

Women, when presented with a positive social stimuli, responded with a positive social stimuli more often than men did, in an ad hoc examination by an individual not attempting to collect a scientific data sample.

Please try to include all of a response when you quote something, rather than manipulating the presented to alter the actual context of the response, in the future.

My apologies if you thought that I misrepresented your point, that was not at all my intention. I snipped to save space and I retained the part of your post that I thought most relevant to my criticism.

Can I assume that the part you feel addressed my point is the following?

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.

I most certainly should have left that in, as it is very relevant to why you are wrong. If this is about building framework for social interaction, you are not talking about demographics. Insurance companies have interactions with demographics, as do governments. As a social individual in need of a framework, you ought to remember that you do not have enough interactions with people for such demographic concerns to be an issue. As you interact with other people you are in a position to infer things about their demeanour independent of their gender.

As I said before, you use demographics when you are dealing with enough people that you can be sure the statistics will work, and when you don't have the resources to make a more detailed investigation of the individuals concerned. Neither of these things are apt in a social scenario.

If we take an actual example of an observed difference between men and women and not an anecdotal one, I can explain what I mean. Women have a longer life expectancy than men. This is well documented and extensively researched. It is an example of a demographic difference.

Suppose you meet a woman, Alice, and a man, Bob, both aged 30. You have no idea, in the absence of all other information, how long they will live. You would be mad (and more than a little rude) to place a bet that Alice is more likely to reach 80 than Bob. There are just too many factors to take into account.

If both Alice and Bob were to approach a life insurer for policies however, that is exactly what the life insurer would do. They would place bets on Alice's and Bob's odds of reaching 80, and they would give Alice better odds (or alternatively, worse rates). The life company is in a position to do this, because they interact with tens or even hundreds of thousands of people in this way. They have enough exposure to life expectancy that they can afford to assume that on average their policy holders will live to their life expectancy (77.1 for males, 88.5 for females according to the SSA), even though many many men will have longer lives than many, many women.

As an individual, you just do not interact with enough people to assume anything but the most basic stuff based on gender. Stuff like, what genitalia do they have (and even then you'll be wrong from time to time). So, such statistics are not a basis for a social framework.

 

[BrassButtons]

BrassButtons, Dreiko basically said it for me. If you are a "Gentleman" you treat everyone, man and women, with respect and use correct manners. I do have a question for you, why did you assume that I was only talking about women? Do you not believe that being a "Gentleman" includes men as well?

The OP's question heavily implies treating women and men different (and he outright states it in the thread that spawned this one--not saying I expect you to have read that, just want to be clear that I'm not trying to misrepresent the OP), so I took your response in that context. But if you treat everyone equally, then good for you

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Simply put, sexism is rude. Being gentlemanly is about having good manners.


If a person is offended by someone holding her chair for her or holding the door for her, it is gentlemanly to NOT do those things when treating this person. If a person seems to dislike certain kinds of attention or niceness, the gentleman will ADJUST to that person's needs and desires.



That is the true identity of the proper gentleman; a social chameleon aimed at spreading joy, courtesy and class around.




Reading the above, you'll see that by definition you can not be gentlemanly and sexist at the same time. The second you start being sexist you've instantly insulted someone and have thus stopped being a gentleman.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

If you're not a dick to anyone, that is not discrimination (racist, sexist, ageist, nationalist<?>, etc.)
If you are a dick to everyone, that is not discrimination.
If you are more or less of a dick to any particular group, that is discrimination.

So, just don't be a dick; or be a dick to everyone.

 

[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.

I disagree. A man should always be more respectful to everyone he meets, same for women. Women are no more deserving of your respect than your fellow man. Likewise, men are no more deserving of your respect than a woman.
Its not the death of Chivalry per se - but its extending it to everyone, rather than just women. If you're trying to flirt with a woman - sure, be nicer to her than to other people. If its a situation with a person standing outside a door, and if its a woman you'll open it for them, but if its a man you'll leave them to open it themselves - I see that as wrong.

If you can give a good and reasonable explanation for why we must treat women as more important - go for it. Saying "Its just how we should act" is like saying all women should stay in the kitchen as "Its just how they should act". Old cultural stereotypes aren't necessarily valid in the present day - no matter which side they favour.

That's not quite what I'm trying to say, and it's my fault for not properly wording what I had written earlier. I'm not saying that women are deserving of more respect than men (or vice versa), but that there are certain ways a man should act towards women that they wouldn't nessecarily act towards fellow men. Would you act the same on a date with your girlfriend as you would when hanging out with friends that are guys? I don't mean that you should treat women with more respect than men, I'm just saying that there are certain things that you should and shouldn't do when interacting with females.
Oh, and I don't mean that I would open a door for a woman but not a man; I usually end up being one of those people who holds the door open for everyone coming in, to the point where my family is like "Come on already!".
I hope you get what I'm trying to say, I'm having difficulty finding the words to properly express my opinion. I'm sure my entire argument comes off as very redundant, and I apologize for that. I know what I'm trying to say, I just can't find the right way to express it without coming off as a hypocrite or a jerk. Perhaps I could be one or both of those things, and if so, please forgive me, as I have no intention of acting that way.

 

[sumanoskae]

I don't think it's necessarily sexist, at least not in the traditional sense. But I think it's pointless.

Why is it so important to specifically treat WOMEN this way? if you want to be nice, just be nice to everybody. Being exclusively nice to women makes it seem like your only being kind because you think you have to be, or you revere women above men. Neither of these conclusions are positive.

Why is it the standard to "Hold open the door for a lady" instead of "Hold open the door".

I hold open the door for everyone, regardless of gender.

It's kind of hard to defend a position against the accusation of sexism, when you're literally treating people differently for no other reason then their sex.

The bottom line is, I don't have a problem with being decent to girls, I take issue with NOT being decent to everybody.

 

[SteewpidZombie]

If a women calls me sexist for being polite or a Gentleman as others would say it, I reserve my right to call her a *****. I hold doors open for everyone, I try and be polite to people and respect their opinions, I even change my habbits and try to dress in nice clothes when I am in a public setting. But it's when you have ignorant people turning up their noses and proclaiming a self-justified sense of pride and honor that has been injured by my 'sexist' actions of simply trying to be polite, then I basically say "Fine, F**K you and have a nice day".

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

I suppose it can be, yes. Doesn't it originate from an earlier time when women were thought of as inferior to men?

 

[Olas]

I have an idea. Let's rephrase the question. Is treating MEN in an UNgentlemanly way sexist?

 

[Joccaren]

That's not quite what I'm trying to say, and it's my fault for not properly wording what I had written earlier. I'm not saying that women are deserving of more respect than men (or vice versa), but that there are certain ways a man should act towards women that they wouldn't nessecarily act towards fellow men. Would you act the same on a date with your girlfriend as you would when hanging out with friends that are guys? I don't mean that you should treat women with more respect than men, I'm just saying that there are certain things that you should and shouldn't do when interacting with females.

I get what you're trying to say, but I'm still somewhat disagreeing of it.
Would I act the same way on a date with a girlfriend as I would hanging out with my guy friends? Depends on the girl. I know some that would be more than happy to just hang out watching movies and getting drunk. I know others that would prefer to go out to dinner instead.
Likewise, I have some guy friends who's idea of hanging out is to watch movies and get drunk, and others who would prefer to go to a restaurant and have a nice conversation over dinner.
If the girl wanted to do the same thing I'd do when hanging out with my guy friends, the only way I'd treat her differently would be to kiss her and flirt with her - she is my girlfriend after all.

Oh, and I don't mean that I would open a door for a woman but not a man; I usually end up being one of those people who holds the door open for everyone coming in, to the point where my family is like "Come on already!".

Yeah, tell me about it. I think my family at least has started getting used to it.
I used the door example as it is sadly one of the most common things people bring up when talking about Chivalry and such - would you hold a door open for a woman.

I hope you get what I'm trying to say, I'm having difficulty finding the words to properly express my opinion. I'm sure my entire argument comes off as very redundant, and I apologize for that. I know what I'm trying to say, I just can't find the right way to express it without coming off as a hypocrite or a jerk. Perhaps I could be one or both of those things, and if so, please forgive me, as I have no intention of acting that way.

Heh, we're all hypocrites most of the time. I haven't met one person who isn't/wasn't.
I find that overall the whole 'Treat women differently' argument falls to pieces fast however, as sure there are some women who would want to be treated like that, there are others who would want to be treated like your guy friends, there are others that would want to be treated completely differently. Its part of the fact that we're all individuals [I'm not!].
There isn't really any reason to treat women any differently from men. You treat each how they want to be treated. Whilst sometimes a member one gender may want to be treated differently from one of the other gender, there are other times members will want to be treated the same as the opposite gender.
If most of the females you know want to be treated differently, and so you do treat them differently, I see little problem with it. Its when people go out of their way to treat women in a 'Chivalrous' manner, even when they don't necessarily want to be, or whilst not doing the same to men as well that I disagree with.

 

[Leethe1Girl]

Ha ha, wow this thread is huge

I actually had something happen to me just today: I was helping my dad add a section to the black chain-link fence outside. While he closed the clasp to secure the new section to the new post I had to keep hold of the fence and pull it so that it was as taut as possible.

I help my dad with housework and woodworking and reno jobs all the time... and I like to think I don't LOOK like some girly-girl. But there's an older dude we know around the area, he saw us working and came on over to take my place. He didn't even ask if I needed help, he just tried to put is hands where mine were.

Of course I appreciate the offer to help but I was doing my job perfectly well and I told him so. I had to shove his damn hands out of the way before he finally relented.

He's a nice guy and wasn't being rude... and I hope I wasn't too harsh to him. But no, sorry, I don't need some dude to jump in and help me in this situation. Hold the door open for me, that's fine, I'll hold it open for you too. And if I'm struggling with something I'm sure assistance would be appreciated, but I think we should be helping anyone who's struggling, guy or girl.

Aaaand this turned into a long rant. -__- sorry.

 

[Aerodyamic]

You completely removed the portion of my post where I specified that individuals may differ from an observed, established behavioural norm for that group under a specified set of parameters. I'm not arguing that any SINGLE individual may not bear out the behaviour of the group within which that individual resides, I'm pointing out that the exceptions to a given rule do not invalidate a statement concerning the observed behaviours of that group to the specified stimuli.

Under the stated parameters of that persons observations, even if their information is clearly hearsay, it still justifies the statements I made, which I will re-iterate and reword, once again:

Women, when presented with a positive social stimuli, responded with a positive social stimuli more often than men did, in an ad hoc examination by an individual not attempting to collect a scientific data sample.

Please try to include all of a response when you quote something, rather than manipulating the presented to alter the actual context of the response, in the future.

My apologies if you thought that I misrepresented your point, that was not at all my intention. I snipped to save space and I retained the part of your post that I thought most relevant to my criticism.

Can I assume that the part you feel addressed my point is the following?

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.

I most certainly should have left that in, as it is very relevant to why you are wrong. If this is about building framework for social interaction, you are not talking about demographics. Insurance companies have interactions with demographics, as do governments. As a social individual in need of a framework, you ought to remember that you do not have enough interactions with people for such demographic concerns to be an issue. As you interact with other people you are in a position to infer things about their demeanour independent of their gender.

As I said before, you use demographics when you are dealing with enough people that you can be sure the statistics will work, and when you don't have the resources to make a more detailed investigation of the individuals concerned. Neither of these things are apt in a social scenario.

If we take an actual example of an observed difference between men and women and not an anecdotal one, I can explain what I mean. Women have a longer life expectancy than men. This is well documented and extensively researched. It is an example of a demographic difference.

Suppose you meet a woman, Alice, and a man, Bob, both aged 30. You have no idea, in the absence of all other information, how long they will live. You would be mad (and more than a little rude) to place a bet that Alice is more likely to reach 80 than Bob. There are just too many factors to take into account.

If both Alice and Bob were to approach a life insurer for policies however, that is exactly what the life insurer would do. They would place bets on Alice's and Bob's odds of reaching 80, and they would give Alice better odds (or alternatively, worse rates). The life company is in a position to do this, because they interact with tens or even hundreds of thousands of people in this way. They have enough exposure to life expectancy that they can afford to assume that on average their policy holders will live to their life expectancy (77.1 for males, 88.5 for females according to the SSA), even though many many men will have longer lives than many, many women.

As an individual, you just do not interact with enough people to assume anything but the most basic stuff based on gender. Stuff like, what genitalia do they have (and even then you'll be wrong from time to time). So, such statistics are not a basis for a social framework.

Wow.

I think you're completely ignoring the point, or you're completely misinterpretting my point, because you'd rather type out a lenghty diatribe that doesn't really refute me all that well.

IF MANY PEOPLE OF ONE GROUP DO ONE THING ON A CONSISTENT BASIS, I CAN INFER THAT OTHER PEOPLE OF THAT GROUP WILL GENERALLY BEHAVE IN THE SAME MANNER.

That's the point I've been making, while you've apparently hauled out your Stats102 books and re-typed the introduction for me. As a matter of fact, an individual can make assumptions based on personal experience; those assumptions may be hearsay, but that doesn't mean that the experiences can't be repeated by other people, if the parameters are established clearly enough.

 

[tensorproduct]

Wow.

I think you're completely ignoring the point, or you're completely misinterpretting my point, because you'd rather type out a lenghty diatribe that doesn't really refute me all that well.

IF MANY PEOPLE OF ONE GROUP DO ONE THING ON A CONSISTENT BASIS, I CAN INFER THAT OTHER PEOPLE OF THAT GROUP WILL GENERALLY BEHAVE IN THE SAME MANNER.

That's the point I've been making, while you've apparently hauled out your Stats102 books and re-typed the introduction for me. As a matter of fact, an individual can make assumptions based on personal experience; those assumptions may be hearsay, but that doesn't mean that the experiences can't be repeated by other people, if the parameters are established clearly enough.

That part there in BOLD, that is exactly what I have been arguing against. The science of statistics does not support such an inference. I gave you an example of how such inferences would not be reasonable to make about all people you meet. If you do not understand statistics well enough to grasp this, you should stop making points that rely upon it.