Poll: Is treating women in Gentlemanly way Sexist?

[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

Tell me, how exactly is posting a definition that doesn't include hate not prove you wrong? I just proved you wrong with the definition I posted.

no, you didnt, because the essential part of discrimination, is irrational hate. tell me thats wrong, cause if you dont think irrational hate is the biggest part of discrimination, then im afraid there really is no point in this debate

 

[Vegosiux]

no, you didnt, because the essential part of discrimination, is irrational hate. tell me thats wrong, cause if you dont think irrational hate is the biggest part of discrimination, then im afraid there really is no point in this debate

Incorrect.

dis·crim·i·na·tion   [dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn]
noun
1.
an act or instance of discriminating.
2.
treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3.
the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4.
Archaic . something that serves to differentiate.

The only essential part of discrimination is treating someone differently, based on a label.

 

[DamianWolff]

Just came across this topic, voted and gotta say that I am one sexist guy. I don't try to be chivalric towards women, that stuff has been burned into my mind since early childhood. Partly by my father, who taught me by example. And partly by my favourite films and books. The nice guys who act nice and kick ass. Maybe I didn't notice the former part as a kid, but my brain did.

So yeah. Nowadays I try to be nice to anyone. Men or women. I generally enjoy helping people and being polite to them, even if it robbed me of the essential skill of badmouthing others (but hey, because of that I usually skip strait to hand-to-hand and that settles it).

But there are certain thing I do just for women. It's been discussed so I won't recount it. I do it, often without noticing. Have yet to have anyone complain.

SO yeah. Sexist guy reporting in.

 

[Phisi]

I treat everyone like that regardless of their sex. Just treating women by holding the door open or giving them your coat is sexist, you are offering someone something based on their sex.

 

[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

Tell me, how exactly is posting a definition that doesn't include hate not prove you wrong? I just proved you wrong with the definition I posted.

no, you didnt, because the essential part of discrimination, is irrational hate. tell me thats wrong, cause if you dont think irrational hate is the biggest part of discrimination, then im afraid there really is no point in this debate

You're wrong, and I have proof, unlike you:

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination

Note the lack of he word hate in there? It is about behaviors, not motivations.

Also let's see the dictionairy definition:

1.
an act or instance of discriminating.
2.
treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3.
the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4.
Archaic . something that serves to differentiate.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination

Notice how the word hate is not involved.

So I have evidence, are you going to just pretend it doesn't exist or are you going to show some intellectual integrity here and acknowledge it?

correct hate isnt mentioned, and it can be used in favor, but notice against, as in AGAINST>meaning not it favor.wonder why someone would go in favor against someone? could include hate, i suppose. whatevs, i overlooked in favor of. i was wrong. i was wrong on that. but, hey had fun mucking it out, so im satisfied ;p peace

 

[bullet_sandw1ch]

treating men differently than women is not sexism. i treat a man like i would my brother, or my uncle, you get what i mean. i treat a woman with class, elegance, and sophistication. the thing im getting at is i can treat women and men differently without being sexist. if i go drinking with a guy, we're bros. if i go drinking with a girl, im trying to get laid or we're just good friends. see what happens when men and women are treated the same?

example. i went drinking with my friend last saturday. this friend was a girl. we were both starting to get a little tipsy [one too many guiness and Yeagermeister] and a blonde newcomer walks up to me and says"is she your girlfriend?" no, i say. " you know its wrong to take advantage of a girl like that." i told the woman i was talking her out to celebrate her 22nd birthday, and that we were just pals. she then said "you treat your guyfriends like that, not a girl-friend" see what i mean?

 

[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

Tell me, how exactly is posting a definition that doesn't include hate not prove you wrong? I just proved you wrong with the definition I posted.

no, you didnt, because the essential part of discrimination, is irrational hate. tell me thats wrong, cause if you dont think irrational hate is the biggest part of discrimination, then im afraid there really is no point in this debate

You're wrong, and I have proof, unlike you:

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination

Note the lack of he word hate in there? It is about behaviors, not motivations.

Also let's see the dictionairy definition:

1.
an act or instance of discriminating.
2.
treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3.
the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4.
Archaic . something that serves to differentiate.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination

Notice how the word hate is not involved.

So I have evidence, are you going to just pretend it doesn't exist or are you going to show some intellectual integrity here and acknowledge it?

correct hate isnt mentioned, and it can be used in favor, but notice against, as in AGAINST>meaning not it favor.wonder why someone would go in favor against someone? could include hate, i suppose. whatevs, i overlooked in favor of. i was wrong. i was wrong on that. but, hey had fun mucking it out, so im satisfied ;p peace

Well... thanks for at least accepting the definition I cited in the end.

*shrugs* I hate being wrong, but im not so proud i cant admit it.I'll get ye next time ;p

 

[Davroth]

Now correct me if I'm wrong but sexism means "treating someone different based on gender".

If you treat women gentlemanly, but not other men, too, then yes, it's sexist. Is that a bad thing? Not in general. However, it all depends on if the woman in question wants to be treated in a gentlemanly way or not.

So. The correct answer is "yes". It's not a question of opinion. It's a question of semantic.


And for the record, I hold the door open for all genders. Men, women, everything in between.

 

[Dragonpit]

I think your reasons for acting gentlemanly are ultimately the defining factor here, but in the end, not really. I can't really say for sure; for all I know, you could just be doing it to get the attention of the women you're being a gentleman to, and there's really nothing wrong with that.

 

[Vegosiux]

And for the record, I hold the door open for all genders. Men, women, everything in between.

Holding the door open is quite a fun thing to do. 'specially if they're still 10 steps behind and you start taking note how many of them speed up if they see you holding the door for them.

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

Way I see it, I'll open a door for anyone, basic courtesy is not something you show to one gender, if you go beyond common courtesy with a specific person, all it does is come off as hollow ass kissing, and gets you nowhere, helping any guest to your home with their coat is normal, they are your guest after all.

But yeah common courtesy, go for it, being too "gentlemanly" as it were, makes you look weak in some situations, but common kindness is never bad.

Also, technically speaking due to the origins of the word in that usage, to be a "gentleman" you technically hafta be of noble birth.

Sorta like how I've had women tell me "I'm a Lady and I expect to be treated as one!", my reply is usually "You never told me you married a Lord!" or "When were you granted a title of land by royalty?", mainly because when I hear that, my brain translates it as "I expect you to buy me things and spend all of your time/money on me, so I can throw you away later." maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I've found that I'm usually right on that matter, I prefer normal women, women who are people who expect to be treated as people, commoners, y'know like just about all of us humans...

 

[Aerodyamic]

Because it is warrantless discrimination.

I frequently choose to hold doors, assist people with movement-impairment to go up or down steps and stairs, and generally try to be a decent human being, regardless of the gender of the person I'm trying to be polite to. That said, it is far more frequent that I am accosted by a female for that behaviour. I have to assume that it's because modern feminism defines females as completely and utterly capable in all situations as a male, regardless of the circumstances of the situation.

Do I feel I'm justified in helping an individual by offering to do a physically demanding task that I am, by dint of my physical fitness and career, better suited to perform?

Yes.

I am a physically fit male that works in a heavy-labour job, and I don't feel that it's offensive to offer to assist ANY individual, regardless of gender, with a physically demanding task, especially if the task in question is one I am physically equipped to perform more effectively (or safely) because I am a stronger human specimen.

If I offer to perform a physical task for a woman, I'm offering because I feel it's a task that, under the circumstances, I can undertake with greater safety or with a greater chance of success, or both; I would also feel the EXACT SAME WAY if I offered to complete the task for a man.

Spoiler: Hypothetical example

If I walk down the street, and see a man and a woman on opposite sides of the street trying to lift EXACTLY IDENTICAL objects into a typical garbage dumpster, and ONE of them is struggling to do so, and appears to be in danger of slipping or dropping the object in a way that would harm them, I would offer to assist them.

If both of them were struggling equally, I would ask them to BOTH wait while I assisted them, in turn, starting with whichever I'm closest to, ideally.

Spoiler: Concerning your comment about offering a coat to someone, because they're cold

In my own (personal) experience, I have frequently found that women are more often cold than men, and therefore, by careful, logical examination, will more frequently require me to offer them my coat. If I'm warm enough that I don't need my coat, and someone I know is obviously experiencing discomfort because of the ambient environmental temperature, I will offer them the loan of it for whatever period is reasonable, regardless of their gender.

However, if:

• I'm outside with a friend of each gender
  the level of friendship with both is equal
  both are cold
  neither one has a coat
  I have a coat and am not adversely affected by offering it to one of them

am I a sexist for choosing to offer the coat first to the woman, then to the man?

I'm sure that some feminists would try to spin the situation that way, but I was raised to behave that way, and I don't believe that to be "wrong", and I never will consider it "wrong", regardless of any contrary opinion. I cannot consider that behaviour sexist, nor will I accept accusations that I am being sexist in those circumstances, when I'm behaving in the polite manner I was raised to behave.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

It is sexist....but is it sexism that is actually a problem? I dont think it really matters that much whether women are getting their chairs pulled out for them or not.

 

[Scorekeeper]

Presuming you don't do for men what you do for women, yes, it's sexist. Do I care? Nope, 'cause I still do it.

 

[StBishop]

I think it probably is. I don't think that's bad though.

The amount of time I spend reading about the physiological differences between men and women it's hard to, in my mind, see men and women as the same. We're fundamentally different in many ways and thus I treat women slightly differently.

That said, I've been called sexist and chauvinistic enough to realise I probably am not the best judge of what's sexist.