That Fine Line Between Chivalry and Disrespect

[Rapscallion]

Duty to God and jousting aside, the idea was to exhibit courtesy and graciousness to all women. Similar consideration was to be given to all countrymen, men and women, young and old, rich and poor. You were to risk your life for lord or begger.

Considering women WERE chattel prior to this, it was actually a rather nice shift in perspective that encouraged respect for women in a time where they were still considered the font of all evil for having a vagina. >.>

I think it worth noting that the original 'knights' were not in shining armour. They were robber barons made good, and the code of chivalry was brought in to protect the less able to beat the shit out of people they disagreed with.

Most knights were basically bastards. With swords.

Rapscallion

[bara]

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. >_<

^-.-^

It's the dark, sneaking, quiet type of misogyny that wears the cloak of chivalry and puts women on pedestals to ensure they don't forget their places and think that they can be a man's equal.

Well, you invalidated your most of your posts when you made the jump from a fine line between chivalry and disrespect to Ninja Misogyny™.

Perhaps you should attempt to clarify your point. Its obvious to you Im sure, but you are not trying to convince you, you are trying to convince us. And we need better examples and a better definition of what you mean. Calling people halfwits and fools is not going to convince anyone. In fact, we have asked for better examples and the only one we get is from the_std and its a clear cut case of a guy who is a total asshole on every level.
Before you degenerate to calling people names, perhaps you should go over your own posts to see why we have asked for clarification on a few things and address them?
Just my opinion though.

[Andara Bledin]

Well, you invalidated your most of your posts when you made the jump from a fine line between chivalry and disrespect to Ninja Misogyny™.

My entire point is institutionalized and socially accepted misogyny. It's the attitude that results in people saying "boys will be boys," "a real man would...," and anything else that is blantantly sexist and yet tends to fly under everybody's radar beause either that's how it's always been done, or because someone has some simplistic notion that they're not sexist if they're doing it in a positive way.

Calling people halfwits and fools is not going to convince anyone.

I never called anyone a halfwit or a fool. Go back and read the actual words I wrote, not just half of them.

Some examples, taken from this forum:

The phrase "A real man" is used 26 times (not counting the two instances in this thread), and is used to describe how men are supposed to act.
The phrase "a real woman" is used 9 times, and half of those are about how women are supposed to look.

The phrase "boys will be boys" is used 24 times, mostly to point out how awful it is; but it's still a common and recognized term.
The phrase "girls will be girls" is used 1 time.

The phrase "hit a woman" is used 6 times.
The phrase "hit a man" is used 0 times.
The phrase "hit anyone" is used 0 times.
The phrase "hit someone" is used 0 times.

This is the behavior I'm talking about.

Most of the people who do it don't even realize that they're being sexist. Overt sexism has been placed on the 'unacceptable behavior' list along with overt racism, but it's still institutionalized. 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.

I'm trying to get people to think about why they do what they do and stop using ready-made cop-outs like saying "it's just being chivalrous" and the like. I want people to stop thinking that being noble to only half of the population is right and start thinking that we should be noble to all of the population.

^-.-^

[crashhelmet]

My entire point is institutionalized and socially accepted misogyny. It's the attitude that results in people saying "boys will be boys," "a real man would...," and anything else that is blantantly sexist and yet tends to fly under everybody's radar beause either that's how it's always been done, or because someone has some simplistic notion that they're not sexist if they're doing it in a positive way.


I never called anyone a halfwit or a fool. Go back and read the actual words I wrote, not just half of them.

Some examples, taken from this forum:

The phrase "A real man" is used 26 times (not counting the two instances in this thread), and is used to describe how men are supposed to act.
The phrase "a real woman" is used 9 times, and half of those are about how women are supposed to look.

The phrase "boys will be boys" is used 24 times, mostly to point out how awful it is; but it's still a common and recognized term.
The phrase "girls will be girls" is used 1 time.

The phrase "hit a woman" is used 6 times.
The phrase "hit a man" is used 0 times.
The phrase "hit anyone" is used 0 times.
The phrase "hit someone" is used 0 times.

This is the behavior I'm talking about.

Most of the people who do it don't even realize that they're being sexist. Overt sexism has been placed on the 'unacceptable behavior' list along with overt racism, but it's still institutionalized. 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.

I'm trying to get people to think about why they do what they do and stop using ready-made cop-outs like saying "it's just being chivalrous" and the like. I want people to stop thinking that being noble to only half of the population is right and start thinking that we should be noble to all of the population.

^-.-^

So where's the middle ground? Where's the compromise? How can this be made "right"? Do we just ignore it all and hope it goes away?

If I say I don't believe in hitting women, I'm apparently sexist. If I say I do believe in it, I'm a misogynist. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

My side job as a bodyguard/security detail is for female friends of mine in the entertainment industry that have repetitive issues with stalkers and fans that can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

With the help of local news stations, police, and organizations like RAINN, I and a group of other instructors teach free classes to women and children (all genders) on how to defend themselves if someone tries to attack, rape, or kidnap them.

I do this because of how my parents raised me. I do this because of my 3 sisters and other friends that have all been in abusive relationships. I do this because I can.

Apparently, I do this because I'm sexist.

[Ginger Tea]

Damned if you do damned if you don't.
edit: crash's post wasn't up at the time, I'm just a slow typer these days.

Say I was going through a door and decided "fuck it" and let it close behind me chances are I might get some snark comment, even if its just audiable about letting the door close on someone (anyone) and as you previously posted, women can and will use chivalry to their advantage.

Without furlther clarification later on down the line, who was to know you wanted US to think about OUR behaviour when we open doors for women or any similar thing that we may or may not do for men.
To me and probably everyone else posting, I assumed you were going from general observation of others, yet you would dismiss these posts.

Well fuck. what, am I meant to interview everyone who opened the door why they did it and then as the person whom the door was opened their reaction.

Once on an Equality and Diversity course that a fair chunk of us went on (it was split into groups but ours was fairly decent turn out for the days staff), I asked

"If I am working in department A, but I have to go to B to get something and as I am near to where Person 1 needs something gotten from, I get it, no harm its in my general area.
Later I am near where person 2 needs something again no biggie.
Say I don't like person 3 (no specifics on gender race age or owt), do I have to get it for them?
It's not part of my job, I don't like this person, but it is not a work interfering hatred (I'll work with anyone, I just don't have to like them) do I have to get it or can I just say balls to it and carry on back to my department?"

Strangely she wanted clarification of Do not like,
"you know, I think this guys an arsehole."
"not following you."
christ I wanted to say "I have more respect for a peadophile than this guy"

There are some co workers that I will do jobs for, especially if they involve fixing my drops, need extra pots of salads (simple ones like just ham or beef) no biggie do em myself they look busy (and trust me these days they are busy) others I will give a list to as I am relatively indifferent to them.

Thursdays is 'butter day' and if one co worker is working in salads she normally asks if I can do the butter for her, if my day is going mosly OK, then yes I will if I can find time.
I have hinted that this could be done by one of the 11O'clockers as it doesn't take two to do the time killer job given to them till their is enough to be working in the main dispatch room.
Another co worker who is now on maternity leave got wind of this and when she was working on butter day, especially if I was one of the 11 O'clockers I would be given the list.
No problem, infact I prefered doing it myself as it had to be split anyway and the tickets were basically jumbled, so I split them as I sorted them.
Generally speaking those working in salads are 19 out of 20 going to be female, only one guy has worked there that I recall in the last few months and he's been the assistant.

So it's not sexist of me to do jobs for one and not another, its just down right honest to goodness favouritism pure and simple.

Also when trying to enter the nearby supermarket on the way home from work, if I have to go to the other trolly bay I inevitably get stuck trying to enter as each time I want to go in someone is comming out and I could go for the other side which has no one exiting, but in doing so I block whomever is leaving whilst I do so, so as it's not fair on them as they have already commited to going I stay put, but as I am about to go again another one comes out
rince and repeat, I stay in place as it's down right rude to intentionally block someones exit just to get into the shop a few seconds earlier.

With pull doors regardless of whos going in or out, if I'm pulling the door out I have to step backwards or atleast pause to open it and at times have back peddaled when I almost walk into someone comming the other way, if we both stop, I gesture for them to procede, I have not held the door open for them as our near collision has shown, but as I'm already holding it open and they would have a closing door comming at them if I went first, well it seems preferable as I've found some of those auto closing doors dont like being reopened mid close.

[linguist]

So where's the middle ground? Where's the compromise? How can this be made "right"? Do we just ignore it all and hope it goes away?

If I say I don't believe in hitting women, I'm apparently sexist. If I say I do believe in it, I'm a misogynist. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

not really. what's wrong with saying you don't believe in hitting people? unless of course they're attacking you, in which case why should their genitalia matter?

With the help of local news stations, police, and organizations like RAINN, I and a group of other instructors teach free classes to women and children (all genders) on how to defend themselves if someone tries to attack, rape, or kidnap them.

and are men just expected to know how to defend themselves in the same situations? if they aren't being offered the same opportunities for self defense training, that is sexist.

also, you stated in this post that you hold back when training women. this does a disservice to those you claim to be teaching to protect themselves, and is the definition of sexist, as you're holding women to a different standard for no other reason than their gender.

[crashhelmet]

not really. what's wrong with saying you don't believe in hitting people? unless of course they're attacking you, in which case why should their genitalia matter?



and are men just expected to know how to defend themselves in the same situations? if they aren't being offered the same opportunities for self defense training, that is sexist.

Grown men are rarely targeted the way women and children are. There's no substantial demand for it.

These classes are taught from the viewpoint of what to do if someone tries to kidnap or rape you with important things to remember like:

1. Yell fire instead of help. You'll get more attention that way.
2. Ladies, don't wear your hair in a ponytail. It's easier to grab and pull you away. Where ever the head goes, the body will follow.
3. If someone pulls a weapon and demands your money, give it to them. Your life is more valuable than your wallet.
4. If they make you drive somewhere, crash the car. Chances are, you will not live long after you reach your destination.
5. Carry your keys in your hand so you're not digging through your purse, diverting your attention and allowing the opportunity to be grabbed.
6. If they grab you, hit them until they let go and then run, screaming
7. Stay in well lit areas
8. If you think you're being followed or someone is giving you that creepy vibe, ask them a question. Get them to acknowledge that you recognize them. it also gives you a chance to see their face.

We teach techniques on what to do if someone grabs you from behind, grabs your hair, grabs your arm, etc. We teach what to do if someone grabs you with your arms up or your arms down.

Again, most grown men aren't put into these situations.

also, you stated in this post that you hold back when training women. this does a disservice to those you claim to be teaching to protect themselves, and is the definition of sexist, as you're holding women to a different standard for no other reason than their gender.

Let's post here what I said. Pay attention to the bold print.

I'm not saying that some women don't deserve to be hit, especially if it's self-defense, it just doesn't sit well with my core beliefs.

The even bigger issue for me is I teach martial arts in my spare time and have difficulty teaching women at higher levels. I can easily hold back, as you would with anyone for training purposes, but that doesn't give them the experience they need to test their abilities. If they don't have a female friend to train with, I'll bring in a friend of mine on sparring days.

[Andara Bledin]

If I say I don't believe in hitting women, I'm apparently sexist. If I say I do believe in it, I'm a misogynist. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

Right... Because there's no saying "I don't believe in hitting people," or saying, "I wouldn't hit someone unless I had to." You quoted my whole post and still managed to prove that you cherry picked it so you could rebut things I didn't actually say.

Without furlther clarification later on down the line, who was to know you wanted US to think about OUR behaviour when we open doors for women or any similar thing that we may or may not do for men.

You mean like in post 14 where I clarified that I'm talking about "self-stated beliefs?" You know, like the one that linguist mentioned in the post right after yours. Or post 24, where I state outright that it's about getting people to take a look at their own motivations?

To me and probably everyone else posting, I assumed you were going from general observation of others, yet you would dismiss these posts.

My original post wasn't written as clearly as I'd have liked, but by page 3 you have no excuse to be making completely assinine comments such as this:

Well fuck. what, am I meant to interview everyone who opened the door why they did it and then as the person whom the door was opened their reaction.

At that point, it looks like you're not even trying to have a legitimate debate, since I've specifically stated multiple times that, no, you're not supposed to give a rat's ass about why other people are doing it; that's their job.

also, you stated in this post that you hold back when training women. this does a disservice to those you claim to be teaching to protect themselves, and is the definition of sexist, as you're holding women to a different standard for no other reason than their gender.

Bingo!

This is precisely what I'm talking about.

Grown men are rarely targeted the way women and children are. There's no substantial demand for it.

The reason the classes are separated out like they are is actually a response to sexism, and, as such, cannot avoid that same sexism. In that one instance, it's excusable.

It's also interesting to note that you could break up classes by size just as easily, stop having any issue of sexism, and not have to teach different types of moves to people within the same class. Since the throw that a short woman is going to use on a taller attacker is unlikely to be the same move a tall woman would use on that same attacker, who is now the shorter of the combatants.

As for your list:

1. Yell fire instead of help. You'll get more attention that way. -
2. Ladies, don't wear your hair in a ponytail. It's easier to grab and pull you away. Where ever the head goes, the body will follow.
3. If someone pulls a weapon and demands your money, give it to them. Your life is more valuable than your wallet.
4. If they make you drive somewhere, crash the car. Chances are, you will not live long after you reach your destination.
5. Carry your keys in your hand so you're not digging through your purse, diverting your attention and allowing the opportunity to be grabbed.
6. If they grab you, hit them until they let go and then run, screaming
7. Stay in well lit areas
8. If you think you're being followed or someone is giving you that creepy vibe, ask them a question. Get them to acknowledge that you recognize them. it also gives you a chance to see their face.

Not a single one of those points is not just as valid for a man as it is for a woman.

Again, most grown men aren't put into these situations.

So? Most grown women aren't put into these situations, either. It's more likely, but it still doesn't happen to most of us.

As for your bold print:

I can easily hold back, as you would with anyone for training purposes, but that doesn't give them the experience they need to test their abilities. If they don't have a female friend to train with, I'll bring in a friend of mine on sparring days.

So, how is this not saying that you have difficulty treating women as equals?

You can hold back and treat them as lesser without any difficulty. Why can't you stop holding back?

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

There is a difference between perceiving a sleight to your masculinity if a woman holds the door for you because you were taught that ettiquette requires it be the other way around and thinking women are less than men.

It's not a logical difference, but it doesn't have to be.

[siead_lietrathua]

As for your bold print:

So, how is this not saying that you have difficulty treating women as equals?

You can hold back and treat them as lesser without any difficulty. Why can't you stop holding back?

^-.-^

er, i think he was saying he CAN hold back, not that he DOES. i would assume by the context of his posts that he doesnt.
if you want people to reflect inward on why they do something, that's fine. but if you get back "who cares as long as noone is being harmed" you might have to just accept that and move on. just because you want people to reflect and come to some higher understanding of chivalry being mysigonistic, doesnt mean they HAVE to, or that they can't disagree with you.

[Andara Bledin]

Considering that he says that he can hold back, but that holding back doesn't give them the training they need, and thus he needs to bring someone else in who will give them that training, I can't see how that means anything other than him being unable to not hold back when dealing with women.

It's good that he recognizes that fact and brings someone else in who doesn't have that same flaw. But it's important to not discount the fact that it is a flaw and that his inability to properly train women in self defense is likely not the only place that he exhibits it.

^-.-^

[siead_lietrathua]

because you are missing the line where he says "as you would with ANYONE for training purposes." emphasis mine, of course. he owuld hold back with ANYONE. you are putting sexism in where it isnt.
to the having female sparring partners: i've been in self defense classes as a teen. they had us spar with other females instead of a male instructor. why? to avoid anyone being able to claim sexual harrassment if the male accidently grabbed the wrong spot in a grapple.

[Gravekeeper]

5 pages now and still trying to pin it down.

This has become Schrodinger's Misogyny.

[Andara Bledin]

Only if you aren't paying attention.

There are people in this thread who have gotten what I'm trying to say, so it can't be all that arcane.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

Only if you aren't paying attention.

There are people in this thread who have gotten what I'm trying to say, so it can't be all that arcane.

If that were true, the majority of this thread would not have been a discussion on what exactly what the criteria for the target of your ire was. You failed to adequately explain, then referred to us as halfwits and idiots when people had trouble pinning down your nebulous criteria.