Poll: Is treating women in Gentlemanly way Sexist?

[IamLEAM1983]

It just seems to me like the term "gentlemanly" still refers to the sort of eminently well-spoken aristocrats you'd find in a Jane Austen novel. You know, the kind of guy who's elevated tact to an art form and who can color the words "Fuck you" in so many pretty shades that to be actually slurred at or insulted by him becomes a compliment of the highest order?

There's a difference between reaching for a monocle and trying to slip "Quite" in every other sentence, and generally holding the door open for women. And disabled people. And other people in general, I might add.

The concept of a textbook gentleman seems to have been replaced with being able to show common courtesy, really. With gender and cultural equality being something most of us aspire to, sticking to notions stating that women need to be treated differently from men is more than a tad sexist.

I figure it's fine when you do it for your special someone, but I'd get pretty suspicious if I were a girl and my boyfriend or fiancé started to try and help me out for every little thing. There's being considerate, and then there's smothering the other person in the relationship.

 

[samaugsch]

I think the issue stems from the fact that many men can't separate the two. For them, being nice and being over-protective are the same thing.

Do try not to talk for me. There's enough sexism already without you adding that crap in about how I can't tell the difference because of my gender.

Since when does "many men" mean "all men"?

 

[Chao_Ulv]

I'd say that it's not sexist it's just polite, I assume most people are raised to treat women with respect. Also if I had to treat both genders exactly the same shit could get pretty awkward, everytime I say a women has a nice figure I'd have to say that her male friend also had a nice figure. Letting the door slam in a women's face because you think holding it open is sexist would be rude. I hold the door open for everyone be they male or female, ugly or smokin' hot, because I'm polite oh and because I think women are too weak to open the heavy door.

It is certainly sexist when your idea of politeness and respect involves discriminating against people.

ummm what?why is being polite to a woman sexist here, and how is being nice to women sexist.

Because doing it exclusively to women for no reason other than their gender is sexist. Not a hard concept, is it?

i kiss woman, but am i sexist for not kissing guys?

You seem to have confused politeness for sexual interest. Or do you think they're one and the same? I hope not.

women and men are two diffrent genders, and will be treated diffrently by others in diffrent social situations.

Yes, amazing. That doesn't mean it isn't sexist. Since when has "It happens" been proof something isn't sexist?

to say holding a door or offering a coat only to a woman is like saying me only going out with women and turning down gay guys is sexist

No, it isn't. Sexual interest is a different matter than politeness.

1. nope, havent confused anything.
2. nope still not sexist sexist is discrimination, discrimination is unjust or prejudicial treatment based on sex, race, or sexual orientation. i dont think being a gentleman is being unjust or prejudicial, therefore you are incorrect as far as i am concerned. if your going to further argue that your wrong subtly, please learn what sexist, then discrimination means. and the above sexual interest was an example, not to be taken to a literal point. :/

1. Yup, you're treating two different ideas as the same. You've clearly confused them. Or you're just being dishonest about it.
2. It's prejudicial treatment. You not thinking it is doesn't magically mean it isn't. It's judging them to be worthy of something based on nothing of their own personality, merely their gender. Prejudice. Also can the crappy rhetoric. "If you continue to disagree with me you're wrong subtly". That's bullshit used by someone who has no argument.

actually i proved my arguement, and consider it quite valid nowhere was it mentioned that men arent worthy, or whatever your going on about, but point remains sexist is discrimination, and discrimination is unjust treatment. me being a gentlemen DOES NOT mean i dont think men are worthy (i have held doors open for men) i think more men should prolly open doors for you, maybe make ya feel better ;p though just saying im wrong is about as effective as your absence of a sensible defense...

 

[ThePS1Fan]

For all those people saying stuff like "Be classy and be nice to everyone". Take it from me, Random Pretentious Internet Guy #979876765675. Do treat everyone the same, just be a major douche all the time. Solves everything
[sub]Warning: Side effects of Being a douche include; Misanthropic Behaviour, Black eyes, Broken Noses, Wearing sunglasses after dark, And just being a generally unlike-able person.[/sub]

 

[Chao_Ulv]

I'd say that it's not sexist it's just polite, I assume most people are raised to treat women with respect. Also if I had to treat both genders exactly the same shit could get pretty awkward, everytime I say a women has a nice figure I'd have to say that her male friend also had a nice figure. Letting the door slam in a women's face because you think holding it open is sexist would be rude. I hold the door open for everyone be they male or female, ugly or smokin' hot, because I'm polite oh and because I think women are too weak to open the heavy door.

It is certainly sexist when your idea of politeness and respect involves discriminating against people.

ummm what?why is being polite to a woman sexist here, and how is being nice to women sexist.

Because doing it exclusively to women for no reason other than their gender is sexist. Not a hard concept, is it?

i kiss woman, but am i sexist for not kissing guys?

You seem to have confused politeness for sexual interest. Or do you think they're one and the same? I hope not.

women and men are two diffrent genders, and will be treated diffrently by others in diffrent social situations.

Yes, amazing. That doesn't mean it isn't sexist. Since when has "It happens" been proof something isn't sexist?

to say holding a door or offering a coat only to a woman is like saying me only going out with women and turning down gay guys is sexist

No, it isn't. Sexual interest is a different matter than politeness.

1. nope, havent confused anything.
2. nope still not sexist sexist is discrimination, discrimination is unjust or prejudicial treatment based on sex, race, or sexual orientation. i dont think being a gentleman is being unjust or prejudicial, therefore you are incorrect as far as i am concerned. if your going to further argue that your wrong subtly, please learn what sexist, then discrimination means. and the above sexual interest was an example, not to be taken to a literal point. :/

1. Yup, you're treating two different ideas as the same. You've clearly confused them. Or you're just being dishonest about it.
2. It's prejudicial treatment. You not thinking it is doesn't magically mean it isn't. It's judging them to be worthy of something based on nothing of their own personality, merely their gender. Prejudice. Also can the crappy rhetoric. "If you continue to disagree with me you're wrong subtly". That's bullshit used by someone who has no argument.

actually i proved my arguement, and consider it quite valid nowhere was it mentioned that men arent worthy, or whatever your going on about, but point remains sexist is discrimination, and discrimination is unjust treatment. me being a gentlemen DOES NOT mean i dont think men are worthy (i have held doors open for men) i think more men should prolly open doors for you, maybe make ya feel better ;p

Oh wow, you consider it valid, what a surprise. I never considered that possibility.

And you're right, nowhere was it mentioned that men aren't worthy. I never said you said it. Funny that, eh? You are, however, determining that women are worthy of something based on their gender. Discrimination. Not hard.

how. how is it discrimination. you say it is because it is is your arguement. there is no discrimination at all in this case, because i would have to have some bias towards men. not the case, so no discrimination. a case could be considered discrimination if the guy hated other men, but is not usually the case. seriously, come up with something besides it discrimination because you must hate men to pull a chair out for a women. circle logic isnt logic, its the lack of sense ;p however the poll speaks louder than your squaks, so i take my leave of this childish attempt at what i think is trolling, cuz no one could possibly believe this nonsense...

 

[samaugsch]

I got called a creepy perv one day when I held a door open for a girl. The door opened towards me and she was coming through the other side so I held it open for her. What the heck is wrong with that? I was raised to be polite to everyone and that's what I do.

You should've slammed it back into her face. :3

 

[Chao_Ulv]

I'd say that it's not sexist it's just polite, I assume most people are raised to treat women with respect. Also if I had to treat both genders exactly the same shit could get pretty awkward, everytime I say a women has a nice figure I'd have to say that her male friend also had a nice figure. Letting the door slam in a women's face because you think holding it open is sexist would be rude. I hold the door open for everyone be they male or female, ugly or smokin' hot, because I'm polite oh and because I think women are too weak to open the heavy door.

It is certainly sexist when your idea of politeness and respect involves discriminating against people.

ummm what?why is being polite to a woman sexist here, and how is being nice to women sexist.

Because doing it exclusively to women for no reason other than their gender is sexist. Not a hard concept, is it?

i kiss woman, but am i sexist for not kissing guys?

You seem to have confused politeness for sexual interest. Or do you think they're one and the same? I hope not.

women and men are two diffrent genders, and will be treated diffrently by others in diffrent social situations.

Yes, amazing. That doesn't mean it isn't sexist. Since when has "It happens" been proof something isn't sexist?

to say holding a door or offering a coat only to a woman is like saying me only going out with women and turning down gay guys is sexist

No, it isn't. Sexual interest is a different matter than politeness.

1. nope, havent confused anything.
2. nope still not sexist sexist is discrimination, discrimination is unjust or prejudicial treatment based on sex, race, or sexual orientation. i dont think being a gentleman is being unjust or prejudicial, therefore you are incorrect as far as i am concerned. if your going to further argue that your wrong subtly, please learn what sexist, then discrimination means. and the above sexual interest was an example, not to be taken to a literal point. :/

1. Yup, you're treating two different ideas as the same. You've clearly confused them. Or you're just being dishonest about it.
2. It's prejudicial treatment. You not thinking it is doesn't magically mean it isn't. It's judging them to be worthy of something based on nothing of their own personality, merely their gender. Prejudice. Also can the crappy rhetoric. "If you continue to disagree with me you're wrong subtly". That's bullshit used by someone who has no argument.

actually i proved my arguement, and consider it quite valid nowhere was it mentioned that men arent worthy, or whatever your going on about, but point remains sexist is discrimination, and discrimination is unjust treatment. me being a gentlemen DOES NOT mean i dont think men are worthy (i have held doors open for men) i think more men should prolly open doors for you, maybe make ya feel better ;p

Oh wow, you consider it valid, what a surprise. I never considered that possibility.

And you're right, nowhere was it mentioned that men aren't worthy. I never said you said it. Funny that, eh? You are, however, determining that women are worthy of something based on their gender. Discrimination. Not hard.

how. how is it discrimination. you say it is because it is is your arguement. there is no discrimination at all in this case, because i would have to have some bias towards men.

No, you would not have to have some bias towards men, your behavior just needs to be biased towards one gender. Which it is.

not the case, so no discrimination. a case could be considered discrimination if the guy hated other men, but is not usually the case.

No, actually your hatred or lack thereof is not in the definition of discrimination.

seriously, come up with something besides it discrimination because you must hate men to pull a chair out for a women. circle logic isnt logic, its the lack of sense ;p

That isn't circular logic. Circular logic is self-referential. I did not say you hated anyone though, so do learn not to use strawmen.

(translation) NUH-UH!!!! i understand your language now there. you sir, are a closed box. no opinions can enter or exit but your own. again, the majority speaks for me, so your arguement, as black and white as it is, is not the majority opinion, and in my opinion, hopelessly misguided.

 

[Chao_Ulv]

I'd say that it's not sexist it's just polite, I assume most people are raised to treat women with respect. Also if I had to treat both genders exactly the same shit could get pretty awkward, everytime I say a women has a nice figure I'd have to say that her male friend also had a nice figure. Letting the door slam in a women's face because you think holding it open is sexist would be rude. I hold the door open for everyone be they male or female, ugly or smokin' hot, because I'm polite oh and because I think women are too weak to open the heavy door.

It is certainly sexist when your idea of politeness and respect involves discriminating against people.

ummm what?why is being polite to a woman sexist here, and how is being nice to women sexist.

Because doing it exclusively to women for no reason other than their gender is sexist. Not a hard concept, is it?

i kiss woman, but am i sexist for not kissing guys?

You seem to have confused politeness for sexual interest. Or do you think they're one and the same? I hope not.

women and men are two diffrent genders, and will be treated diffrently by others in diffrent social situations.

Yes, amazing. That doesn't mean it isn't sexist. Since when has "It happens" been proof something isn't sexist?

to say holding a door or offering a coat only to a woman is like saying me only going out with women and turning down gay guys is sexist

No, it isn't. Sexual interest is a different matter than politeness.

1. nope, havent confused anything.
2. nope still not sexist sexist is discrimination, discrimination is unjust or prejudicial treatment based on sex, race, or sexual orientation. i dont think being a gentleman is being unjust or prejudicial, therefore you are incorrect as far as i am concerned. if your going to further argue that your wrong subtly, please learn what sexist, then discrimination means. and the above sexual interest was an example, not to be taken to a literal point. :/

1. Yup, you're treating two different ideas as the same. You've clearly confused them. Or you're just being dishonest about it.
2. It's prejudicial treatment. You not thinking it is doesn't magically mean it isn't. It's judging them to be worthy of something based on nothing of their own personality, merely their gender. Prejudice. Also can the crappy rhetoric. "If you continue to disagree with me you're wrong subtly". That's bullshit used by someone who has no argument.

actually i proved my arguement, and consider it quite valid nowhere was it mentioned that men arent worthy, or whatever your going on about, but point remains sexist is discrimination, and discrimination is unjust treatment. me being a gentlemen DOES NOT mean i dont think men are worthy (i have held doors open for men) i think more men should prolly open doors for you, maybe make ya feel better ;p

Oh wow, you consider it valid, what a surprise. I never considered that possibility.

And you're right, nowhere was it mentioned that men aren't worthy. I never said you said it. Funny that, eh? You are, however, determining that women are worthy of something based on their gender. Discrimination. Not hard.

how. how is it discrimination. you say it is because it is is your arguement. there is no discrimination at all in this case, because i would have to have some bias towards men.

No, you would not have to have some bias towards men, your behavior just needs to be biased towards one gender. Which it is.

not the case, so no discrimination. a case could be considered discrimination if the guy hated other men, but is not usually the case.

No, actually your hatred or lack thereof is not in the definition of discrimination.

seriously, come up with something besides it discrimination because you must hate men to pull a chair out for a women. circle logic isnt logic, its the lack of sense ;p

That isn't circular logic. Circular logic is self-referential. I did not say you hated anyone though, so do learn not to use strawmen.

(translation) NUH-UH!!!! i understand your language now there. you sir, are a closed box. no opinions can enter or exit but your own. again, the majority speaks for me, so your arguement, as black and white as it is, is not the majority opinion, and in my opinion, hopelessly misguided.

That is called argumentum ad populum. It is in fact a basic logical fallacy. I think that is emblematic of your mode of thought.

And it is more than nuh-uh. I pointed out some facts. Do you disagree? Well state it and why. It's all very simple concepts I gave you.

unjust in discrimanation is based of of nfair, unequal treatment, based on the idea of said being inferior or other, usually perpetuated by hate, or disgust. now find me a case where a person, sex, or race was discriminated against based off of liking. therefore, hate or some dislike must be present for there to be discrimination. and sexism once and for all, would require discrimination on the male or female. this was not the OP situation. your attempt at discrediting mass opinion is also cute. like your opinions*pinches cheek* ;p

 

[Creator002]

Nope.

Because I act like a gentleman towards everyone.


I'm classy like that.

This is exactly how I operate. If you treat everyone the same, how can you be sexist? ^.^

 

[Don Savik]

It's not sexism; it's sexuality.

To call this sexism, means flirting is sexism: because people are generally attracted to a single gender (bisexuality excluded, obviously). It's blatant discrimination too, because you could be flirting with anyone, but no: you only flirt with one person based on looks. If you prefer asian girls, you're racist too. Scumbag.

They should lock you up without a trial for just that.



If someone ever says that to you again, punch them in the crotch. The fucker deserves it.

Bingo!

Like it or not, if we're attracted to someone we treat them differently. If I see a nice lady and some homely dude, I'll be more inclined to hold the door open for the latter.

And generally men are attracted to women and women to men, so it's not too difficult to understand that we treat the opposite gender differently. If there's a nice check-out girl in a store I'll be more up beat than if there's some bloke behind the counter. This is simply how our brains are wired.

By the posts in this thread one would assume that you're a sexist simply by being attracted to women instead of men and vice versa.

Also, the word 'sexist' needs to get back in the kitchen where it belongs.

I know I'm quoting you from 5 pages in, but your post and the other guys are SPOT ON EXACTLY WHAT I WANTED TO SAY. Thank you. So many people in this thread think that we should all behave like asexual androids. Generally at this point I just hold doors open for old people at this point, because they physically need help sometimes. Now watch me get attacked because someone thinks I'm 'ageist' or something.

 

[Vegosiux]

Treating someone differently because of their gender is sexist by definition. It doesn't matter if you treat them better or worse. But yes, this is another one of those concepts that get called an "-ism" only when they're negative and something else when they're positive.

 

[Chao_Ulv]

I'd say that it's not sexist it's just polite, I assume most people are raised to treat women with respect. Also if I had to treat both genders exactly the same shit could get pretty awkward, everytime I say a women has a nice figure I'd have to say that her male friend also had a nice figure. Letting the door slam in a women's face because you think holding it open is sexist would be rude. I hold the door open for everyone be they male or female, ugly or smokin' hot, because I'm polite oh and because I think women are too weak to open the heavy door.

It is certainly sexist when your idea of politeness and respect involves discriminating against people.

ummm what?why is being polite to a woman sexist here, and how is being nice to women sexist.

Because doing it exclusively to women for no reason other than their gender is sexist. Not a hard concept, is it?

i kiss woman, but am i sexist for not kissing guys?

You seem to have confused politeness for sexual interest. Or do you think they're one and the same? I hope not.

women and men are two diffrent genders, and will be treated diffrently by others in diffrent social situations.

Yes, amazing. That doesn't mean it isn't sexist. Since when has "It happens" been proof something isn't sexist?

to say holding a door or offering a coat only to a woman is like saying me only going out with women and turning down gay guys is sexist

No, it isn't. Sexual interest is a different matter than politeness.

1. nope, havent confused anything.
2. nope still not sexist sexist is discrimination, discrimination is unjust or prejudicial treatment based on sex, race, or sexual orientation. i dont think being a gentleman is being unjust or prejudicial, therefore you are incorrect as far as i am concerned. if your going to further argue that your wrong subtly, please learn what sexist, then discrimination means. and the above sexual interest was an example, not to be taken to a literal point. :/

1. Yup, you're treating two different ideas as the same. You've clearly confused them. Or you're just being dishonest about it.
2. It's prejudicial treatment. You not thinking it is doesn't magically mean it isn't. It's judging them to be worthy of something based on nothing of their own personality, merely their gender. Prejudice. Also can the crappy rhetoric. "If you continue to disagree with me you're wrong subtly". That's bullshit used by someone who has no argument.

actually i proved my arguement, and consider it quite valid nowhere was it mentioned that men arent worthy, or whatever your going on about, but point remains sexist is discrimination, and discrimination is unjust treatment. me being a gentlemen DOES NOT mean i dont think men are worthy (i have held doors open for men) i think more men should prolly open doors for you, maybe make ya feel better ;p

Oh wow, you consider it valid, what a surprise. I never considered that possibility.

And you're right, nowhere was it mentioned that men aren't worthy. I never said you said it. Funny that, eh? You are, however, determining that women are worthy of something based on their gender. Discrimination. Not hard.

how. how is it discrimination. you say it is because it is is your arguement. there is no discrimination at all in this case, because i would have to have some bias towards men.

No, you would not have to have some bias towards men, your behavior just needs to be biased towards one gender. Which it is.

not the case, so no discrimination. a case could be considered discrimination if the guy hated other men, but is not usually the case.

No, actually your hatred or lack thereof is not in the definition of discrimination.

seriously, come up with something besides it discrimination because you must hate men to pull a chair out for a women. circle logic isnt logic, its the lack of sense ;p

That isn't circular logic. Circular logic is self-referential. I did not say you hated anyone though, so do learn not to use strawmen.

(translation) NUH-UH!!!! i understand your language now there. you sir, are a closed box. no opinions can enter or exit but your own. again, the majority speaks for me, so your arguement, as black and white as it is, is not the majority opinion, and in my opinion, hopelessly misguided.

That is called argumentum ad populum. It is in fact a basic logical fallacy. I think that is emblematic of your mode of thought.

And it is more than nuh-uh. I pointed out some facts. Do you disagree? Well state it and why. It's all very simple concepts I gave you.

unjust in discrimanation is based of of nfair, unequal treatment, based on the idea of said being inferior or other, usually perpetuated by hate, or disgust.

Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership - or perceived membership - in a certain group or category. It involves the actual behaviors towards groups such as excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to another group. It involves excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to other groups

The word prejudice (or foredeeming) is most often used to refer to preconceived judgments toward people or a person because of race/ethnicity, gender, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, nationality or other personal characteristics. It can also refer to unfounded beliefs[1] and may include "any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence."[2] Gordon Allport defined prejudice as a "feeling, favorable or unfavorable, toward a person or thing, prior to, or not based on, actual experience."

Nope, no mention of hate or disgust or inferiority. Got a better definition that doesn't just come from you saying so? Do provide it!

now find me a case where a person, sex, or race was discriminated against based off of liking. therefore, hate or some dislike must be present for there to be discrimination. and sexism once and for all, would require discrimination on the male or female. this was not the OP situation. your attempt at discrediting mass opinion is also cute. like your opinions*pinches cheek* ;p

The rest is worthless if your definition is wrong, so I'll leave that to rot for now.

But mass opinion is not a valid source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Logical fallacy, like I said. I've discredited it, now feel free to try to defend it instead of blathering.

nope. im done feeding your nonsense. actually prove sexism exists in this situation. please, do this. all of this is opinion. and my blathering makes sense to me, and i think its quite logical. but really, your in it to troll, im convinced now. have fun provig your non-existent point. and you still didnt gimme a case of discrimination not based on hate, so its not rotting, your feedback it. seriously gimme a case.please ;p

First either accept that your definition was wrong, or provide a better one. I've given an outside definition. You haven't. Your move. Also do remember that calling people trolls is not nice.

i dont need to. prove im wrong and that discrimination does not need hate.cant do it can ya? and i recall the troll comment,my apologies

 

[Don Savik]

It's not sexism; it's sexuality.

To call this sexism, means flirting is sexism: because people are generally attracted to a single gender (bisexuality excluded, obviously). It's blatant discrimination too, because you could be flirting with anyone, but no: you only flirt with one person based on looks. If you prefer asian girls, you're racist too. Scumbag.

They should lock you up without a trial for just that.



If someone ever says that to you again, punch them in the crotch. The fucker deserves it.

Bingo!

Like it or not, if we're attracted to someone we treat them differently. If I see a nice lady and some homely dude, I'll be more inclined to hold the door open for the latter.

And generally men are attracted to women and women to men, so it's not too difficult to understand that we treat the opposite gender differently. If there's a nice check-out girl in a store I'll be more up beat than if there's some bloke behind the counter. This is simply how our brains are wired.

By the posts in this thread one would assume that you're a sexist simply by being attracted to women instead of men and vice versa.

Also, the word 'sexist' needs to get back in the kitchen where it belongs.

I know I'm quoting you from 5 pages in, but your post and the other guys are SPOT ON EXACTLY WHAT I WANTED TO SAY. Thank you. So many people in this thread think that we should all behave like asexual androids. Generally at this point I just hold doors open for old people at this point, because they physically need help sometimes. Now watch me get attacked because someone thinks I'm 'ageist' or something.

Well if it's flirting, calling it 'gentlemanly' is a pretty big misnomer. It's simply being manipulative, crude, and kind of unfaithful.

Yea, yea, I'm a terrible person, I get it. See, you already know this, and I obviously don't care for your soulless android words (and neither does anyone else on this page apparently), so can you keep your personal attacks to yourself please? I don't care if you think I'm the scourge of humanity, there is really no need to rip apart people's word to the degree your are doing. We are never going to meet, and humans aren't going to change overnight, so in the mean time can you just relax and let people have their opinions?