Poll: "Benevolent Sexism"...Wait, what?!

[viscomica]

I don't think it's a terrible thing, but I do chuckle inside whenever I see a guy offer a young woman a seat on the subway

I never understood that. I love sitting while riding the subway (because duh) and if someone offered me their seat after a long day I wouldn't say 'no' just because of pride or whatever. But I seriously never understood why people offer women their seats.

 

[Steve Waltz]

I do agree that our society needs to view women as human beings who are just as valuable as men, and that we are in many ways not there yet

Chivalry exists because society teaches men at a VERY young age that women and children are important and worth protecting. Children are the future of humanity, and women create the children of our future. Both are worth protecting because they are the very foundation of humanity; I will happily call myself a sexist if it means I?m putting women and children before myself. Man, ever since I was a teenager I've had fantasies about taking bullets for women I loved. Society literally teaches little boys the OPPOSITE of what this feminist writer believes. MEN are the ones taught in society that we?re not as valuable as women, and only MRAs are stupid enough to fight against it. Men should die protecting women and children, because, as society teaches us, they are more important than men. It?s interesting to see a feminist study that MRAs probably would support, though.

This study is pissing all over the concept of Chivalry and it?s disgusting. Dismissing the concept of chivalry is like spitting on the graves of the men that gave up their lifeboat seats for women on a sinking ship, or the men that died after pushing an inattentive woman out of the way of a speeding car. The reason chivalrous men don?t treat women equal is because they believe women are more important than themselves. If Feminists want to demonize chivalrous men by calling them sexist, than I will proudly call myself a sexist for the fact that I would put a woman?s life before my own. Thanks to Liberals, apparently I am a sexist now. I wonder if tomorrow Liberals will somehow expand the term ?racism? to where it includes me.


Even though the writer of the article is kind of an idiot because she thinks society doesn?t value women as much as men, it?s nice that even she doesn?t stand entirely behind the study and would appreciate the actions of a chivalrous man. Of course, it just shows how entitled she is and fails to admit it.

 

[IOwnTheSpire]

Thanks to Liberals, apparently I am a sexist now. I wonder if tomorrow Liberals will somehow expand the term ?racism? to where it includes me.

Woah, where is this sudden liberal bashing come from? You're generalizing about a group that wasn't even mentioned in this thread before (I think). Not every liberal thinks the same way about this issue or any other issue, so there's no need to say 'This entire group of people are bad!'

 

[Sarge034]

How is doing ANYTHING based on sex alone sexist? Isn't sexism DISCRIMINATION based on sex? There are times where people have to be treated differently due to their sex, and I've never heard it called sexism.

No it's not JUST discrimination, at least not in the way you're thinking of it. First off, here's the definition.

":unfair treatment of people because of their sex; especially : unfair treatment of women

Full Definition of SEXISM

1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women

2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism

Do you think that treating a woman in a way you wouldn't treat a man simply based on their sex isn't sexism? Seriously? I give my jacket to women... but not men. I give my umbrella to women... but not men. I'll offer to carry something heavy for women... but not men. The man should always pay when taking a woman out. Discrimination doesn't always mean you treat one group like shit, sometimes it means you treat one group better than another. But regardless of how you treat one group differently, you are treating one group differently based solely on their sex.

EDIT- I will clarify that I believe in full equality. So both "good" and "bad" sexism piss me off. If you're close enough, I'll hold the door for you. If you're carrying something I'll hold the door for longer. If you look like you need help I might ask. I don't give two shits if you're male, female, white, black, tan, purple, or blue. Imma treat you like a person until you give me reason not to. THAT's why "chivalry" pisses me off.

 

[Silvanus]

Hold the door for anybody, regardless of sex/gender.


Really, I do not buy it when somebody complains that they just don't know what to do to avoid being sexist, as in the OP. Treat men and women generally the same and you're fine. It's incredibly easy to do.

 

[Azure23]

Feminism: so you can defer all responsibility for your safety onto strangers, blame bad decisions you made while blackout drunk (getting blackout drunk being one of them) on an imaginary "rape culture" which contradicts common sense, and still get mad at men who treat you like a person.

Meanwhile, some countries have a genital mutilation rate as high as 90%, marry 8-year-old girls to middle-aged men, and execute victims of actual rape. But nobody gives a shit about those atrocities, because their culture is just as valid as ours, right?

I see this kind of ridiculous zero sum argument all the time, and it's still just as misrepresentative of reality as always. By this kind of tortured logic we shouldn't attempt to fix, or even care about problems we may face at home before we fix the world as a whole, and that's just stupid. Advocacy is NOT a zero sum game, you can actually work on two or more things at once.

I won't even address the first part of your post because that is just a vipers nest of gross beliefs, but as to the second part; where are you getting your information!? Literally every feminist organization I know of cares deeply about those issues. I have a feminist acquaintance who is studying for her doctorate, she is in Saudi Arabia right fucking now giving lectures on the many health risks of genital mutilation, because it is both a public health and feminist issue. There are feminist organizations that have been established in middle eastern countries in the last decade with the express purpose of giving women in the situations you described aid and shelter from their abusers, many of them. A cursory google search turned up over a dozen. This is not complicated, this is basic research that you could have done before posting an inflammatory and factually incorrect screed against feminism.

Oh and has no one else noticed how stupidly the actual poll is worded? Does benevolent sexism exist? "Yes, if you're kind to a lady you're actually saying she's weak," no you silly person, it should be: "If you're being kind to a lady BECAUSE you think she's weak/inferior/whatever" then yes, that is benevolent sexism. Once again, shit isn't that complicated.

 

[Somekindofgold]

Sorry ladies, but I give up...because apparently no matter what I try to do, I'm being sexist. According to a new study conducted by Northeastern University in Boston, there's a form of sexism that's even more "insidious" and hurtful than outright hostile sexism. The "wolf in sheep's clothing", as the researchers called it, is "Benevolent Sexism".

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415256/study-being-nice-women-sign-sexism-katherine-timpf

So the next time a guy holds a door open for you, offers you his umbrella during the rain or his coat during the cold, or even offers to help carry something heavy for you, you shouldn't feel thankful that a kind person is trying to help you...no, you should be out-right offended that he would have the audacity to offer!

I remember back in the day when such behavior was considered being a gentleman...now I honestly have absolutely no idea how I'm supposed to treat a lady without coming across as a sexist.

What do you think, my fellow Escapists? Is "Benevolent Sexism" actually a thing? Should I stop holding the door open for women or offering them my jacket?

..You didnt know about this?

Sexism by itself is neither bad nor good, it is simply making a decision/holding a belief based on a persons sex, and no matter how hard people try that will always be the definition (god damn online dictionaries changing it to 'men attacking women' and stuff like that). The act of sexism by itself can not be seen as either bad or good because our sexes are different and require different approaches to decision making, it requires the benevolent and malevolent adjectives before that can be determined.

I mean christ the fact we have mens and womens bathrooms instead of unisex ones is sexist, but I dont see people saying its bad, because its a good system that makes sense.

The code of chivalry is also sexist because it teaches men that women are vital to humanity and need to be protected at all costs, even with your own life if necessary. But is that bad? well yes kind of but the train of logic is sound, women are necessary for children who are the future of our species, and when they are pregnant they're more vulnerable and require more protection.

So..yeah its been around for a while. I dont agree that benevolent sexism is bad all the time but the concept has existed for ages. Also whoever wrote that article is a bad person who should be sent into the corner to play with colored blocks.

 

[Azure23]

I do agree that our society needs to view women as human beings who are just as valuable as men, and that we are in many ways not there yet

Chivalry exists because society teaches men at a VERY young age that women and children are important and worth protecting. Children are the future of humanity, and women create the children of our future. Both are worth protecting because they are the very foundation of humanity; I will happily call myself a sexist if it means I?m putting women and children before myself. Man, ever since I was a teenager I've had fantasies about taking bullets for women I loved. Society literally teaches little boys the OPPOSITE of what this feminist writer believes. MEN are the ones taught in society that we?re not as valuable as women, and only MRAs are stupid enough to fight against it. Men should die protecting women and children, because, as society teaches us, they are more important than men. It?s interesting to see a feminist study that MRAs probably would support, though.

This study is pissing all over the concept of Chivalry and it?s disgusting. Dismissing the concept of chivalry is like spitting on the graves of the men that gave up their lifeboat seats for women on a sinking ship, or the men that died after pushing an inattentive woman out of the way of a speeding car. The reason chivalrous men don?t treat women equal is because they believe women are more important than themselves. If Feminists want to demonize chivalrous men by calling them sexist, than I will proudly call myself a sexist for the fact that I would put a woman?s life before my own. Thanks to Liberals, apparently I am a sexist now. I wonder if tomorrow Liberals will somehow expand the term ?racism? to where it includes me.


Even though the writer of the article is kind of an idiot because she thinks society doesn?t value women as much as men, it?s nice that even she doesn?t stand entirely behind the study and would appreciate the actions of a chivalrous man. Of course, it just shows how entitled she is and fails to admit it.

Chivalry is literally the poster child of benevolent sexism for a reason. It was a code of conduct created in a time where men thought so little of women that they sought to protect them from everything, completely robbing them of any possible agency. It has no place in modernity. Also, it was a complete joke even back when it was created. Men at arms and knights still raped freely, still subjugated and took what they wanted. It was the very definition of lip service. Also, women and children first is a well documented and debunked myth, with a few specific exceptions. Maybe instead of defining yourself as chivalrous, define yourself as civil? Because the issue raised in this article is frankly an issue of politeness, not sexism. Instead of being so inordinately proud that you can value a specific gender above yourself, be proud that you treat everyone with respect and the dignity afforded to them as a human being.

If the only reason that you are polite to women is because "they are the future" (ie: their capacity for breeding) then yes, that is in fact pretty fucking disrespectful. That you choose instead to blame a "damn liberal changing definitions" is a cop out.

 

[mecegirl]

I do agree that our society needs to view women as human beings who are just as valuable as men, and that we are in many ways not there yet

Chivalry exists because society teaches men at a VERY young age that women and children are important and worth protecting. Children are the future of humanity, and women create the children of our future. Both are worth protecting because they are the very foundation of humanity; I will happily call myself a sexist if it means I?m putting women and children before myself. Man, ever since I was a teenager I've had fantasies about taking bullets for women I loved. Society literally teaches little boys the OPPOSITE of what this feminist writer believes. MEN are the ones taught in society that we?re not as valuable as women, and only MRAs are stupid enough to fight against it. Men should die protecting women and children, because, as society teaches us, they are more important than men. It?s interesting to see a feminist study that MRAs probably would support, though.

This study is pissing all over the concept of Chivalry and it?s disgusting. Dismissing the concept of chivalry is like spitting on the graves of the men that gave up their lifeboat seats for women on a sinking ship, or the men that died after pushing an inattentive woman out of the way of a speeding car. The reason chivalrous men don?t treat women equal is because they believe women are more important than themselves. If Feminists want to demonize chivalrous men by calling them sexist, than I will proudly call myself a sexist for the fact that I would put a woman?s life before my own. Thanks to Liberals, apparently I am a sexist now. I wonder if tomorrow Liberals will somehow expand the term ?racism? to where it includes me.


Even though the writer of the article is kind of an idiot because she thinks society doesn?t value women as much as men, it?s nice that even she doesn?t stand entirely behind the study and would appreciate the actions of a chivalrous man. Of course, it just shows how entitled she is and fails to admit it.

Chivalry is literally the poster child of benevolent sexism for a reason. It was a code of conduct created in a time where men thought so little of women that they sought to protect them from everything, completely robbing them of any possible agency. It has no place in modernity. Also, it was a complete joke even back when it was created. Men at arms and knights still raped freely, still subjugated and took what they wanted. It was the very definition of lip service. Also, women and children first is a well documented and debunked myth, with a few specific exceptions. Maybe instead of defining yourself as chivalrous, define yourself as civil? Because the issue raised in this article is frankly an issue of politeness, not sexism. Instead of being so inordinately proud that you can value a specific gender above yourself, be proud that you treat everyone with respect and the dignity afforded to them as a human being.

If the only reason that you are polite to women is because "they are the future" (ie: their capacity for breeding) then yes, that is in fact pretty fucking disrespectful. That you choose instead to blame a "damn liberal changing definitions" is a cop out.

I don't think people really understand how big a part class(and in some cases nationality and race) played into chivalry. If a woman was not of a certain status she didn't receive any of that "protection". The same could be said for how women were treated during Victorian times. But even if we were to not go back so far and look at social norms in the 50's.

None of that stuff applies to all women, just certain women. It was also conditional, those women afforded that special attention had to behave in a certain way. Standards for what a lady should and shouldn't do were strict. A lot of stereotypically feminine women by today's standards wouldn't qualify as a lady back in the day. Either her style of dress would be too risque, or her career choice(really the fact that she had a career at all, even in a female dominated field) would be considered too masculine.

And in some ways such attitudes continue today. Some men ignore women that they don't find attractive. It's apparently a real issue for overweight women. Some have even noticed that men are a lot "nicer" to them after they loose some weight.

 

[persephone]

Funny story: my sister went to a private Catholic university, and there was a sizable population of what the other students called the "Catholic crazies," aka the "ankle length skirt brigade." People even most Catholics find insane, the type of people who give you dirty looks if your dress isn't ankle length and your sleeves don't cover your wrists, and who won't dance with the opposite gender at parties, because they had a seriously warped idea of what Christian sexuality was (and even all the conservative Christians around them thought they were insane).

Just like with me, my sister learned to hold doors open for everyone, and she sure didn't stop once she got to this university. Most of the time, no problem; no one minded or cared. But the one person she told me about who did mind was actually a woman, not a man. She'd get acutely uncomfortable whenever my sister held a door open for *anyone*, but she wasn't the assertive type, so she'd quietly stand nearby, looking very uncomfortable, and sort of tell my sister "you know you don't have to do that." And my sister would just politely go on holding the door open, informing her it was no trouble at all.

 

[wulf3n]

Some men ignore women that they don't find attractive. It's apparently a real issue for overweight women. Some have even noticed that men are a lot "nicer" to them after they loose some weight.

It's arguable that's as much about said persons self confidence as it is the judgement of others.


OT:

I don't know, the original research paper leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It has a very "witch hunt" feel to it.

And when you think about it, benevolent sexism towards women is really just hostile sexism towards men.

 

[FelixLovestar]

Benevolent sexism aka chivalry does indeed exist, and it is a nuisance. However, I don't blame men for reacting in rather a hostile manner. 'Feminist' media has pretty much been bashing men non-stop for the last few years, from the way they sit, to the jokes they tell in private among close friends, to the rampant dismissal of men's issues (while claiming to be for 'gender equality'). People have grown tired of the endless man-bashing, so have chosen to mock these 'feminist articles'. It's a shame, as there IS a legitimate point being made here, but it's being presented VERY poorly.

 

[Cecilo]

Benevolent sexism aka chivalry does indeed exist, and it is a nuisance. However, I don't blame men for reacting in rather a hostile manner. 'Feminist' media has pretty much been bashing men non-stop for the last few years, from the way they sit, to the jokes they tell in private among close friends, to the rampant dismissal of men's issues (while claiming to be for 'gender equality'). People have grown tired of the endless man-bashing, so have chosen to mock these 'feminist articles'. It's a shame, as there IS a legitimate point being made here, but it's being presented VERY poorly.

Aye, it is getting sad, me, my friends and extended family just have given up on trying to keep up on what our gender have done this week, or this year, and we just all don't care anymore, the word misogyny, sexism, racism has lost meaning to us, with the extended definitions of sexism apparently taking on the idea that you cant be sexist against men because we have/had power, or that you can't be racist against whites because we have/had power.

More OT - When I was in School my female teachers would have us walk in lines from class to class, to try to teach us to be more orderly for high school I suppose (It didn't work, god how I wish it did), one of us would be assigned to go ahead and open each door ahead so not to break the line. I would normally volunteer and be praised for my volunteering, my mother taught me to hold doors open for women, specifically ones who had their hands full with groceries, entering young adulthood I would hold doors open for people who didn't even have anything in their hands if they were right behind me. So.. this is just more confusion adding to it and I frankly, just can't give a damn anymore.

 

[happyninja42]

Benevolent sexism is indeed a thing, but you are caricaturing it. Many feminists caricature it too, actually.

But as a concept I don't see why people have such a problem with it. MRAs constantly complain about what others would consider "benevolent sexism", which is essentially the preferential treatment of women by men. "Women and children first" was benevolent sexism. Women getting lighter prison sentences is benevolent sexism. The abuse of women being taken seriously and the abuse of men being treated like a joke is, again, benevolent sexism.

It's not, as you are suggesting, the same thing as "being polite". If you are polite to women in the same way you'd be polite to men (I'm assuming you'd hold the door open for anyone) that is by definition not "benevolent sexism".

And any feminist that does call that specific act of politeness "benevolent sexism" needs to chill the hell out. But I am unconvinced that many of them do that.

Yeah, I actually had this happen to me once. I was working a factory production job, and it was break time. I went outside to smoke, and saw a woman walking toward the door. Now, the pathway from the security/metal detector, to the main door leading into the plant is about a 20 yard distance. Nothing major, but it's a clear shot, so looking forward after I step out onto the break deck, I clearly see her approaching. So, being the polite guy I am, I hold the door for her. (I hold the door for everybody, this isn't a woman only thing) I stand there, because it only takes a person like maybe 10 seconds at a relaxed pace to get to the door. No skin off my ass to wait 10 seconds, I just prop the door open with my foot and fish around in my pocket for my smokes and lighter, I'm making productive use of the time afterall! She gets to the door, stops, looks up at me with this Fuck You expression, and says in a very insulted tone "I could've gotten that myself." And then walks in, all offended.

I was so stunned at the time that I just couldn't respond, afterwards, when I'd had time to process it, I wished I had swung the door in her face and said "Ok, fine then *****, get it yourself." But I didn't. I was just so shocked, I had never had anyone react that way before. Now, I honestly have no idea if she was a feminist or not, I'd never met the lady, she didn't work at our plant, she was obviously a consultant called in about something on the corporate level, not the production level. And growing up in the South of the US, "southern hospitality" was just sort of ingrained into me. It's just how a lot of us do things here. So having this lady not only not thank me for the courtesy, but directly insult me, was a culture shock to say the least.

It's very silly.

OT: Is Benevolent Sexism a thing, yes it is. It's pretty apparent if you look at things. Though one of my favorite examples of a bit of reverse/benevolent sexism, is in the entertainment industry. Whenever a guy hits a woman, he is instantly labeled "The Bad Guy", in fact this trope is frequently used to quickly and clearly establish which men are the antagonists, in a movie/tv show. One slap, and bam, he's in the bad guy checklist. But you flip those genders, and it's frequently played for laughs. "Oh haha, look at the woman beating up the guy, who is clearly in distress and not happy! Isn't that hilarious!" or "Oh look, that guy did something mildly offensive or insulting, so the obvious reaction and reasonable reaction is to physically strike him. Wonderful!" A perfect example from recent memory is in Agent Carter. There is a scene where there is an obnoxious fat man, annoying a waitress who is a friend to Agent Carter. So how does she respond? She takes a fork, jabs it under his ribs, and literally threatens his life if he doesn't leave and never come back. And this is the virtuous actions of the heroine. I'd love to see a show try that with the genders reversed, and the guy did something like that, or "If you don't stop harrassing my friend, I'm going to take you into the alley, and rape you and leave you naked in the street." Nobody would like that guy, but Peggy directly threatens a man's life, and it is played for comedic justice on behalf of the downtrodden working girl.

Another is the parade of women who slap Jarvis in the face, because of actions that another man did, not him and again it's played up for laughs. Also when Peggy decks Stark in the nose because of a lie that he said to her, she even gives him a bloody nose. All of these are examples of woman on male violence, that is considered just fine, and accepted, but if you flipped the genders, they would all be negative depictions of it. But really, what it implies is that the female threats of violence, aren't genuine. Either the misrepresentation of women as the "weaker sex", and thus physically incapable of seriously injuring a man, or the misrepresentation that women are less prone to actually doing violence than men.

And both of these annoy me greatly. I really get tired of seeing this in movies/tv/books/etc, as well as all the myriad other examples of double standards, on either side of the debate.

Ugh, ok, my little rant over.

TLDR: Yes benevolent sexism exists, yes it sucks, we need to work on getting rid of it, as well as all the other variations of sexism. The type of reproductive plumbing you have shouldn't have any bearing on how you are treated, either positively or negatively in our culture.

 

[Azure23]

Benevolent sexism is indeed a thing, but you are caricaturing it. Many feminists caricature it too, actually.

But as a concept I don't see why people have such a problem with it. MRAs constantly complain about what others would consider "benevolent sexism", which is essentially the preferential treatment of women by men. "Women and children first" was benevolent sexism. Women getting lighter prison sentences is benevolent sexism. The abuse of women being taken seriously and the abuse of men being treated like a joke is, again, benevolent sexism.

It's not, as you are suggesting, the same thing as "being polite". If you are polite to women in the same way you'd be polite to men (I'm assuming you'd hold the door open for anyone) that is by definition not "benevolent sexism".

And any feminist that does call that specific act of politeness "benevolent sexism" needs to chill the hell out. But I am unconvinced that many of them do that.

Yeah, I actually had this happen to me once. I was working a factory production job, and it was break time. I went outside to smoke, and saw a woman walking toward the door. Now, the pathway from the security/metal detector, to the main door leading into the plant is about a 20 yard distance. Nothing major, but it's a clear shot, so looking forward after I step out onto the break deck, I clearly see her approaching. So, being the polite guy I am, I hold the door for her. (I hold the door for everybody, this isn't a woman only thing) I stand there, because it only takes a person like maybe 10 seconds at a relaxed pace to get to the door. No skin off my ass to wait 10 seconds, I just prop the door open with my foot and fish around in my pocket for my smokes and lighter, I'm making productive use of the time afterall! She gets to the door, stops, looks up at me with this Fuck You expression, and says in a very insulted tone "I could've gotten that myself." And then walks in, all offended.

I was so stunned at the time that I just couldn't respond, afterwards, when I'd had time to process it, I wished I had swung the door in her face and said "Ok, fine then *****, get it yourself." But I didn't. I was just so shocked, I had never had anyone react that way before. Now, I honestly have no idea if she was a feminist or not, I'd never met the lady, she didn't work at our plant, she was obviously a consultant called in about something on the corporate level, not the production level. And growing up in the South of the US, "southern hospitality" was just sort of ingrained into me. It's just how a lot of us do things here. So having this lady not only not thank me for the courtesy, but directly insult me, was a culture shock to say the least.

It's very silly.

OT: Is Benevolent Sexism a thing, yes it is. It's pretty apparent if you look at things. Though one of my favorite examples of a bit of reverse/benevolent sexism, is in the entertainment industry. Whenever a guy hits a woman, he is instantly labeled "The Bad Guy", in fact this trope is frequently used to quickly and clearly establish which men are the antagonists, in a movie/tv show. One slap, and bam, he's in the bad guy checklist. But you flip those genders, and it's frequently played for laughs. "Oh haha, look at the woman beating up the guy, who is clearly in distress and not happy! Isn't that hilarious!" or "Oh look, that guy did something mildly offensive or insulting, so the obvious reaction and reasonable reaction is to physically strike him. Wonderful!" A perfect example from recent memory is in Agent Carter. There is a scene where there is an obnoxious fat man, annoying a waitress who is a friend to Agent Carter. So how does she respond? She takes a fork, jabs it under his ribs, and literally threatens his life if he doesn't leave and never come back. And this is the virtuous actions of the heroine. I'd love to see a show try that with the genders reversed, and the guy did something like that, or "If you don't stop harrassing my friend, I'm going to take you into the alley, and rape you and leave you naked in the street." Nobody would like that guy, but Peggy directly threatens a man's life, and it is played for comedic justice on behalf of the downtrodden working girl.

Another is the parade of women who slap Jarvis in the face, because of actions that another man did, not him and again it's played up for laughs. Also when Peggy decks Stark in the nose because of a lie that he said to her, she even gives him a bloody nose. All of these are examples of woman on male violence, that is considered just fine, and accepted, but if you flipped the genders, they would all be negative depictions of it. But really, what it implies is that the female threats of violence, aren't genuine. Either the misrepresentation of women as the "weaker sex", and thus physically incapable of seriously injuring a man, or the misrepresentation that women are less prone to actually doing violence than men.

And both of these annoy me greatly. I really get tired of seeing this in movies/tv/books/etc, as well as all the myriad other examples of double standards, on either side of the debate.

Ugh, ok, my little rant over.

TLDR: Yes benevolent sexism exists, yes it sucks, we need to work on getting rid of it, as well as all the other variations of sexism. The type of reproductive plumbing you have shouldn't have any bearing on how you are treated, either positively or negatively in our culture.

You know when someone holds a door open for me that I'm not even close to, forcing me to quicken my pace and act all grateful and shit for something that would have taken me literally half a second, I tend to get mildly annoyed too, because it's a generally mildly annoying thing. Now, to be fair, determining the distance at which you can comfortably hold a door open for someone without a tacit implication that they should hurry up because hey you're holding the door for them is a fuzzy, imprecise science. However I think most people will safely say that 20 yards exceeds this distance. And don't try to act like you don't know what I mean, when someone holds a door open for you from too far away it's uncomfortable and awkward. Perhaps what you read as offense on her part was really just an uncomfortable person sincerely telling you that it wouldn't have put her out at all having to open that door herself.

I don't know, I've never encountered one of these "offended at door holding feminists" myself, nor have I encountered anyone who has in real life. I'm inclined to think that- like a good myth, someone once misinterpreted a natural phenomena and crafted a narrative and creature out of it, the myth slowly gaining credence as it spread from person to person, their shared experience of making people slightly uncomfortable with their overlong door holding adding fuel to the fire. You know what I think the real problem is? Normal social behavior is fucking hard, it's so full of little cues and actions with specific windows of appropriateness, if something goes on just a second too long it can become irrevocably weird. Door holding is just one of those things. It's got a specific time frame when it's a nice, polite thing to do, and once you exceed that, you put an unspoken burden on the walker, that they should hurry up, that they are beholden to you for your magnanimousness. Maybe I'm overthinking it, I am terribly prone to doing that. But it's not just me right?

I'm on a gaming forum so I'm sure there are other people here who have a drive to deconstruct social interactions to find out what, if anything, you did wrong, or could do differently, or if that fucking group of guys are actually laughing at YOU and not some funny joke that you actually heard one of them tell. No? Just me? You liars! 8p

Also this is neither here nor there but surely you understand the difference between a man (in the late forties no less) sexually harassing and belittling a woman and getting some empty (if scary) threats shot his way and a woman getting threats of rape for the same behavior to a man, who, by virtue of the time period and the inherent power dynamics of said time period, wouldn't really be at risk anyway. Seemed like kind of a tortured analogy considering that what the show portrayed in that scene was completely endemic in the culture of postwar America, versus your gender bent imagining, which manages to be at the same time both ridiculous and grotesque. Ridiculous in the sense that you wouldn't generally see a woman belittle and sexually harass a man in public, and grotesque in, well, I'm sure you know what I'm referring to. Sorry if this comes off strong, but I liked the show quite a bit.

 

[ryukage_sama]

I like the way it was addressed in Agent Carter.

 

[happyninja42]

You know when someone holds a door open for me that I'm not even close to, forcing me to quicken my pace and act all grateful and shit for something that would have taken me literally half a second, I tend to get mildly annoyed too, because it's a generally mildly annoying thing.

No, sorry but you're just wrong. I didn't hint for her to speed up her pace, I didn't even look at her, as I stated above, I was busy utilizing the time to get out my smokes and lighter. My entire demeanor was one of relaxed patience.

And don't try to act like you don't know what I mean, when someone holds a door open for you from too far away it's uncomfortable and awkward.

I love how you preload this statement with insult in it. Classy.

Perhaps what you read as offense on her part was really just an uncomfortable person sincerely telling you that it wouldn't have put her out at all having to open that door herself.

Nope, I was there, I saw her face, I heard her tone, it was the annoyed, pissed off reaction of someone who felt offended. Not embarrassed and uncomfortable.

I don't know, I've never encountered one of these "offended at door holding feminists" myself, nor have I encountered anyone who has in real life. I'm inclined to think that- like a good myth, someone once misinterpreted a natural phenomena and crafted a narrative and creature out of it, the myth slowly gaining credence as it spread from person to person, their shared experience of making people slightly uncomfortable with their overlong door holding adding fuel to the fire.

The fact that you've never encountered it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Seeing as I have directly encountered it, I would tend to disagree with you.

You know what I think the real problem is? Normal social behavior is fucking hard, it's so full of little cues and actions with specific windows of appropriateness, if something goes on just a second too long it can become irrevocably weird. Door holding is just one of those things. It's got a specific time frame when it's a nice, polite thing to do, and once you exceed that, you put an unspoken burden on the walker, that they should hurry up, that they are beholden to you for your magnanimousness. Maybe I'm overthinking it, I am terribly prone to doing that. But it's not just me right?

Yes you are overthinking it. And no you're probably not the only person in the world that has the opinion.

Also this is neither here nor there but surely you understand the difference between a man (in the late forties no less) sexually harassing and belittling a woman and getting some empty (if scary) threats shot his way and a woman getting threats of rape for the same behavior to a man, who, by virtue of the time period and the inherent power dynamics of said time period, wouldn't really be at risk anyway.

Oooh! *claps* Yay! Thank you for proving my point! You automatically assume her threats are empty threats, why? She held the sharp object directly into his flesh, and pressed it hard, inciting direct pain to make him freeze in place while she threatened him. We all know damn well by watching the show that Carter is more than capable of acting out that threat, but you say they're empty. How does he know that? He doesn't. If you are assuming she won't do it beacuse she is 1) Incapable of actually threatening him because she's a woman, or 2)Unlikely to do so because she's a gentle woman, and they just don't do violent things like that, then congratulations, it's reverse sexism. It's ok for her to threaten him, but not ok for the guy to threaten her. By your logic, I could say the same about the guy who threatens the woman with violence, or sexual assault to make her stop acting like a *****, and just wave it off because "oh come on, it was an empty threat, you don't really think he'd rape her for being a bit of an abonxious ***** do you?". We as the audience might know that, but the character in the story doesn't know that. She's a total stranger to him, and vice versa.

Seemed like kind of a tortured analogy considering that what the show portrayed in that scene was completely endemic in the culture of postwar America, versus your gender bent imagining, which manages to be at the same time both ridiculous and grotesque.

Yes, the analogy was made extreme to prove a point. Nobody seems to actually give a shit that the guy was threatened with death because he was being a sexist pig. And yes I agree he was being an ass, but the fact that the actions she did, that were deemed a justified and reasonable response, would not be allowed if the genders were swapped. That he deserved that threat because he was being an ass. No matter what era the story was being portrayed in, I think this is an annoying aspect of our culture, and the depection of sexes.

Ridiculous in the sense that you wouldn't generally see a woman belittle and sexually harass a man in public, and grotesque in, well, I'm sure you know what I'm referring to.

You also don't generally see women hold a man at knifepoint and threaten to kill them, so I fail to see why one is ok to accept as regular behavior, and the other is too extreme to consider. And on a personal note, I've experienced a woman who was sexually harrassing a guy, as I was the guy being harrassed, so I can say that it does happen, and it's uncomfortable as hell. But ok fine, let's scale back my example to perfectly match Peggy's. The guy doesn't threaten her with rape, instead, he pulls out a knife, and threatens to kill her instead. Is this now any more acceptable a response? Considering the somewhat minor actions done by the parties in question? No, no it's not. It's not cool either way. And to allow one variation of it be applauded, and the other demonized, isn't fair, and polarizes shit. That is what annoys me about this type of sexism in media. I don't like any of it.

Sorry if this comes off strong, but I liked the show quite a bit.

You liking the show doesn't have any bearing on the issues I've brought up. xD I liked the show too, except for all the blatant sexism and bigotry displayed from every facet of the show. And yes, I know "this was just the way it was back then." It still sucked. The one asshole cop that constantly mocked the crippled agent with lines like "Man, there's no way she's going to downgrade from a vibranium shield, to an aluminum leg" The "Peggy is a secretary" behavior of all the agents, all of it, was annoying. They spent too much time (in my opinion), on the whole "She's a tough woman trying to make her way in a Man's World!" cliche story, and it ditracted from the actual interesting Marvel stuff going on. I've never liked the WW II era, mostly because of that blatant sexism/racism that was intrinsic to the time. I know it's still around now, but the ingrained aspect of it grates on ever nerve I have, and shows that highlight that shit (like Agent Carter), make it hard for me to enjoy the show as much as I might like to.

 

[chikusho]

You forgot the third, correct answer in the poll.

Benevolent sexism is a real problem, which is being grossly misrepresented in this article I read.


Benevolent sexism is about assuming a woman lacks ability, agency and competence. It's about a patronizing behavior which can actually be way worse, than your regular run-of-the-mill hostile sexism, or even blatant misogyny.

The implicit and subtle suggestion of a womans inferiority through benevolent sexism is really hard to identify, process and respond to. Whereas hostile sexism is immediately recognized and can actually motivate to action. Benevolent sexism is used to dress up an accusation of incompetence with praise, which sows uncertainty and doubt in the recipient, while the hostile kind can be either disregarded completely or met with an act that proves the assumption wrong.

 

[chikusho]

Whenever a guy hits a woman, he is instantly labeled "The Bad Guy", in fact this trope is frequently used to quickly and clearly establish which men are the antagonists, in a movie/tv show.

In both the examples you provided, you're failing to consider the power imbalance between the characters. The hero character (quite often an outmanned, outgunned underdog) gaining control of a situation with violence and threats of violence happens in all types of fiction, although it's typically male on male. One of the many reasons we don't see a male hero being violent against a female villain in a similar situation is because women are rarely portrayed as having the kind of power that merits that kind of response.
It's impossible to flip the genders in some of the situations you described simply because that would just make it a person in power using the same power to kick someone who's already down.

 

[Crimsom Storm]

Try to think of it this way: If you're holding the door open for everyone, you're a pretty nice person. If you're holding it open just for women, then you're a slave that's had "chivalry" ingrained into your mind so hard that you believe that servitude to females is somehow something to be thought of as wonderful. Kind of like not raising a hand to a lady, and how our culture expects us to be "whipped" by girlfriends/wives, where they pretty much dress their men tell them how to act and to deliver their every need, IE, mentioning they're cold, then hubby runs off to mess with the thermostat.

We live in a world where women actually want to be the bread winners and want to be empowered and doing their own thing. That's great, I'm all for that. The next time a woman swings at a man and gets decked back, I expect her to wave off the oncoming wave of White Knights that are going to kick the absolute crap out of the guy for "daring to hit a lady". Feminists are quick to flee to said Knights when they're actually attacked.

I know that a few of the larger profile feminists (including a certain one infamous to gamers) tends to travel with armed, male guards all the time. Given how against the Damsel In Distress trope they, I'd expect them to wave it off unless their guard was staffed exclusively by women...