That Fine Line Between Chivalry and Disrespect

[HYHYBT]

Well, again, for many people things like not hitting women are NOT because they see women as less than men (or more, for that matter.) Instead, they see it as simply one of the rules of etiquette. Logic might dictate that treating women differently in these respects means not seeing them as equals. But logic doesn't apply to etiquette, and therefore the conclusion (as a generality) is unfounded.

[Gravekeeper]

My comment about people acting like halfwits and fools was a direct result of people not reading what I'd written and reacting to what they thought I had written.

Perhaps you yourself should go back and read what you posted. Let me help:

It's like half the forum has decided to stumble around this thread like halfwits and fools rather than engage in intelligent discourse, and that's not even counting the people who have made posts that show that they quite notably didn't read a damn thing I've posted and are just going off what they think the title is supposed to refer to.

=p

[bara]

My comment about people acting like halfwits and fools was a direct result of people not reading what I'd written and reacting to what they thought I had written.

It's not my fault that those same people did the exact same thing again, thus proving my point for me.

^-.-^

I disagree. I think its more along the lines that people read what you wrote, but didn't take it the way you meant it.

This quote made your point clearly:

I'm just trying to get people to stop and think about what they're really doing when they talk about ideals that are, at their very core, sexist in nature.

Sorry, but making the comparison that people aren't reading what you wrote when it took you so long to clearly state your point isn't really their fault.

Compare giving directions to a location.
Before the above quote your directions were at best very general, such as 'go north'.
But what you should have said was 'go northwest'. Go the wrong direction long enough, and you are no where close to where you want to be.

While you did attempt to give corrections, people had already gone off on tangents. This almost always requires them to go back to a known location so they may receive new directions from that point.

This was the case here, by the time you realized no one was really sure what you were meaning and issued a clear statement, people were already in other counties and a couple people ended up in other states.

In my case (and I don't think I'm alone here), I was in another county and not sure where I was supposed to be going. Having only vague directions with no clear endpoint, I had to make my own based on the directions I was given. You also gave a horrible marker when you threw misogyny in the mix.

This was a horrible idea, as misogyny is the hatred of females. There exists no fine line between good manners and misogyny. They are on opposing sides. A person with good intentions, regardless of the motives, is not showing hatred.

Hopefully, I have successfully illustrated why so many people had no idea what you were talking about. But to be fair, every post here provided directions and they were all wrong. But directions from a false start point, no matter how accurate will never get you at the correct destination.

[Gravekeeper]

This was the case here, by the time you realized no one was really sure what you were meaning and issued a clear statement, people were already in other counties and a couple people ended up in other states.

Good analogy. That's problem #1 I had with this thread. The explaination was inadequate and when people didn't understand, she blamed the audience, not the explaination.

This was a horrible idea, as misogyny is the hatred of females. There exists no fine line between good manners and misogyny. They are on opposing sides. A person with good intentions, regardless of the motives, is not showing hatred.

And that neatly sums up problem #2 I had with this thread, thank you.

[Andara Bledin]

Let me know when you guys are done talking about my failure to elucidate to your satisfaction and get back to the topic of people being sexist and calling it chivalry.

^-.-^

[Canarr]

Let me know when you guys are done talking about my failure to elucidate to your satisfaction and get back to the topic of people being sexist and calling it chivalry.

^-.-^

Well, frankly: that tangent is your own damn fault. If you'd just taken a step back and said, "Sorry, my bad, didn't make my point come out right. What I wanted to say was..." then people wouldn't have spent the majority of the last few pages defending themselves against your unfair allegations of diminished mental faculties. Admitting to a mistake in presenting your point doesn't invalidate the point in itself; but insulting the very people you're trying to convince probably will. And, no: claiming people "stumble around like half-wits and fools" isn't in any way better than directly *calling* them half-wits and fools.

Andara, I have a tremendous respect for your abilities as a debater (is that a word?). While I may not always agree with your position on topics, I find them always concise and well-researched. Which is probably why I can't understand how you could screw this debate up so badly.

[siead_lietrathua]

on topic:
the concepts of being polite to women (chilvary) is NOT sexism. to WOMEN. which is what this thread was proposing.
it is not "Unfair treatment or discrimination based on a difference of sex or gender". not to WOMEN.
the people who CAN complain that chilvary is sexist, are MEN. because they don't get doors held for them, assisted over puddles, helped with heavy loads, other steriotype here, with the same frequency that it is given to women. they do not get treated with the same curtesy and politeness as women in these situations simply because they are men and can, in society's perspective, do it themselves just fine. so it can be sexist, but not against women.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm trying to find the "Like" button on your post, Canarr, but the forum seems to lack one. >.>

[Canarr]

on topic:
the people who CAN complain that chilvary is sexist, are MEN. because they don't get doors held for them, assisted over puddles, helped with heavy loads, other steriotype here, with the same frequency that it is given to women. they do not get treated with the same curtesy and politeness as women in these situations simply because they are men and can, in society's perspective, do it themselves just fine. so it can be sexist, but not against women.

Well.... no. The sexism is not in the act of doing something for women that one wouldn't do for men. The sexism is in the *thought* that women *need* that.

Holding a door or lifting something up high or whatever is kind of a grey area, because those are things that most halfway decent people do for others on occasion. I won't hold a door for a woman if she's still half a block away, and I won't slam it in a man's face who's walking right behind me. I'll help a short person of either gender lift their baggage into an overhead compartment, but I won't give up my seat on the train for a (non-disabled) young woman any more than I would for a man.

There were a few good examples of well-meaning sexism in this thread - that one ex who'd drive half a continent to help a girl move a couch. Or the male truckers who go out of their way to do a female trucker's job for her. That's wrong, and that's stupid. I think the main point is: if you'd go out of your way to do something for a woman, but not for a man in her situation, ask yourself: why would I do that? And is that right?

@GK: I'm kinda feeling deeply honored, here

[siead_lietrathua]

Well.... no. The sexism is not in the act of doing something for women that one wouldn't do for men. The sexism is in the *thought* that women *need* that.

but alot of people in this thread said they dont do that stuff because they think women need it, they do it to be polite. which still leaves men as the ones being left out.
either way, i find it a silly debate. but figured i would toss another perspective at it.

[Andara Bledin]

Well.... no. The sexism is not in the act of doing something for women that one wouldn't do for men. The sexism is in the *thought* that women *need* that.

This. It's sexist against both men and women, just for different reasons.

For men, it's pretty obvious; you're not doing something for men that you're doing for women for reasons of sex.

For women, you're treating them like they're less capable than men and so should be helped at any opportunity.

Back in the times when chivalry was part of a code, it was due to the fact that, socially speaking, women were less than men. In this day and age, however, it's unnecessary, and as has been displayed with crashhelmet's inability to personally provide the same level of service to women that he provides to men with his teaching, it can be detrimental to the people it's supposed to be helping.

Sure, nobody deserves to be hit. But women don't deserve to not be hit any more than men do, and when the job requires hitting people, refusing to hit women is a handicap; it makes the job more difficult, requires the expenditure of extra resources to provide for someone else without the hang-up, and depending on how it's handled, it can be damaging to the self-esteem or just insulting to the women in question.

Admitting to a mistake in presenting your point doesn't invalidate the point in itself; but insulting the very people you're trying to convince probably will. And, no: claiming people "stumble around like half-wits and fools" isn't in any way better than directly *calling* them half-wits and fools.

First, blame-shifting is lousy debate form. "You started it" is never useful for advancing anything.

There's a world of difference in attacking what was posted versus attacking the people who posted it; it's written into the very site rules.

Which is probably why I can't understand how you could screw this debate up so badly.

That's simple; this issue pisses me off to the point where I have difficulty thinking straight. There's a reason that my original book of a rant was never posted; it was even less on point than what I did put.

That, and the fact that most people act sexist without ever realizing it, so when you point out that they are, they don't take it well. I may not have been that clear in the OP, but I've clarified my point on pertty much every single page since then, so anyone still not getting it isn't my fault.

And, yet again, because I don't feel like having to replay to the inevitable response:

Being nice for the sake of being nice: Humanist = good
Being nice because the person is a women (where you wouldn't be nice if they were a man, and absent other issues such as encumbrance or romantic aspirations): Sexist = bad

but alot of people in this thread said they dont do that stuff because they think women need it, they do it to be polite.

Just because they are "being polite," to women, the fact that it even matters what sex the recipient is, is sexism. By definition.

Why would they have a criteria for doing anything based on the other person being female?

What else do they do that they don't realize that's based on the other person's sex and how do their actions appear to those who are around them to see their unequal treatment of men versus women?

^-.-^

[SongsOfDragons]

I’ve read this thread from beginning to end with some fascination – it’s been just as back-and-forth as one of Fratching’s earlier discussions, the epic thread with Rubystars. I’ve resisted replying until now because I wasn’t able to frame my thoughts on the matter in such a way that (hopefully) wasn’t ad hominem or anything else.

I’m having to revert to my own personal opinion to share said thoughts, as that’s the only way. I know I don’t matter much and my opinion is against the grain of the majority, but it’s how I, personally, want to live. Simply put, Andara dumpling, oh lovely smart person who can often put my rants on a subject into coherent non-insulting English…I’m afraid, and I’m very sorry, that I’m going to have to respectfully disagree with you.

I’m a woman, so I’m probably seen as the victim in these general situations – I can’t speak for how the men can defend themselves. I, personally, have never considered treatment of me by passers-by – whether holding the door open, standing aside to let me pass, greeting me on the walk to work – to be anything but politeness; I haven’t noticed any difference in treatment between me and the guy next to me. I think I’m lucky that I’ve never really been treated badly because of my gender, twats who honk horns as they go past notwithstanding.

People are already reducing their helpful behaviour towards children for fear of being accused of paedophilia. I don’t want to live in a world where people’s politeness all has been restricted because of the fear of being accused of sexism. I personally find that the wishes for modern equality (i.e., the stuff we have in the West today, not what’s going on in Saudi Arabia nor the suffragettes in 1912) are little more than demands to force everyone to the lowest common denominator, where nobody is allowed to compliment any positive difference because ‘it’s still X-ism and/or discrimination’. No – I want our positive differences to be celebrated, to be liked. If demanding this equality means that people can’t compliment others or be polite in the street any more, then I don’t want it and I’m happy to live without it. Sorry. I know it might annoy others, but I cannot agree that that is an ultimately positive thing.

Do I treat men differently? … I don’t know. (I’m writing this on Word and this sentence has been open for like half an hour…) I hold the door open for anyone who’s behind me. I go to help people with baby buggies – it’s usually ladies pushing them, but sometimes it’s a man. I probably wouldn’t want to talk to a man about my ‘time of the month’ face-to-face, or any other womanly problems, it’s embarrassing to me and likely to them too. Otherwise…no, not really, I’ve played Halo with men and women, cooked the same meal for men and women, watched TV with my dad and my mum both. I hate misandry, probably more than misogyny, because the latter has defence leagues and the former is waved off as a joke too much.

I work for the Fire Service, which is a career and job traditionally dominated by men – and let me tell you, they dominate it today. I work in training and I know what they have to go through, and what they can choose to go through – it’s hard stuff, difficult and smelly (really) and most of the women here work in the admin posts. But there ARE female firefighters, I see them every day. And they are awesome!! I find ones who have a driving qualification to drive those humongous appliances blues-and-twos at 80mph down civvy street – I find the ability to do that is one of the best things I work with because the skill involved is immense, and having some of the minority gender in the Fire Service able to do that too is just cool, because it means that if I ever wanted I could do it too. One of our instructors (male) said to me the other day that anyone can become a retained FF, even me, once you get through basic training.

Right that’s my personal thoughts down on e-paper. I’m going to run away and build my hotel in Minecraft before I get shat on by the rest of the forum… *meep*

[Andara Bledin]

If demanding this equality means that people can’t compliment others or be polite in the street any more, then I don’t want it and I’m happy to live without it.

It doesn't. All equality demands is that you give equal treatment to equal people regardless of unrelated factors.

You don't be nice to women but ignore men in the same situation any more than you would help a white guy but not a black one, or be polite to people with blonde hair and ignore those with red.

I mean, really, is it that much more difficult to just be nice to everyone than to be watchful for a certain type of person to be specifically nice to?

Based on the rest of what you posted, that's what you do already. Is it really so terrible to try to get everybody else to work themselves up to the same level of courtesy without qualifications?

^-.-^

[Nekojin]

on topic:
the concepts of being polite to women (chilvary) is NOT sexism. to WOMEN. which is what this thread was proposing.
it is not "Unfair treatment or discrimination based on a difference of sex or gender". not to WOMEN.
the people who CAN complain that chilvary is sexist, are MEN. because they don't get doors held for them, assisted over puddles, helped with heavy loads, other steriotype here, with the same frequency that it is given to women. they do not get treated with the same curtesy and politeness as women in these situations simply because they are men and can, in society's perspective, do it themselves just fine. so it can be sexist, but not against women.

I think you're missing the point. Chivalry toward women is subtly sexist toward women because it's an implied suggestion that they're not fully capable of doing things themselves. It becomes overt when the chivalrous person doesn't offer the same aid and support to men - or, especially, to a less-attractive female.

[siead_lietrathua]

I think you're missing the point. Chivalry toward women is subtly sexist toward women because it's an implied suggestion that they're not fully capable of doing things themselves. It becomes overt when the chivalrous person doesn't offer the same aid and support to men - or, especially, to a less-attractive female.

i have never seen a man claim (or act) that they dont belive women are capable of doing it for themselves. i took a poll of guys and girls i work with today just for lulz on this topic.
every guy said they do it because that's how they were raised. not that women are weaker or incapable, but that women are to be treated respectfully.

maybe that's why i'm having such a hard time with it. i keep seeing posts about how it's done to demean woman but the entire culture i grew up in was one of treating women with respect. and if treating people with respect because of their sex does not a sexist make. because if you ask a man if they hold doors/ etc. for women, they will probably say yes. but they might not clarify they do it for everyone because it wasn't a part of the question.