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

[Crimsom Storm]

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.

What he's saying is, it doesn't even have to be a good guy who's slapped. Attacking a woman at all (Ie, hitting a lady) is usually used to establish a man having some sort of creed or benevolence, that he's a "straight shooter" and an overall good guy. If you hit a woman, you've gone too far. It's also used to establish the "darker" character in a team, not just brooding, but also will attack a woman. This isn't about a power imbalance. In this case, he's referencing the fact that hitting a woman makes you outright evil.

Think of it this way then. When a woman is a villain, usually she can be "saved" by passion and love and whatever other groovy thing. This trope is rarely pushed forward for men, though most famous would be Loki and Thor from the Marvel universe. When it comes to Men however, most are left to stay on the side of evil. Women, however, are clearly savable and redeemable. This trend is getting bucked though, hell, Naruto is all about Naruto saving Sasuke from himself.

The double standard still exists though, even IF you're being attacked by said female. I've seen countless videos where a man is attacked by a woman, then he hits back, and like 3 - 4 guys suddenly jump the one guy and start beating the crap out of him for defending himself.

 

[chikusho]

What he's saying is, it doesn't even have to be a good guy who's slapped. Attacking a woman at all (Ie, hitting a lady) is usually used to establish a man having some sort of creed or benevolence, that he's a "straight shooter" and an overall good guy. If you hit a woman, you've gone too far. It's also used to establish the "darker" character in a team, not just brooding, but also will attack a woman. This isn't about a power imbalance. In this case, he's referencing the fact that hitting a woman makes you outright evil.

Yeah, this can of course be a problem. It's quite telling that we as a world think so little of women that they are basically puppies. "He's evil, he hit A WOMAN, the most helpless of creatures."
However, that was not what he described.

Think of it this way then. When a woman is a villain, usually she can be "saved" by passion and love and whatever other groovy thing. This trope is rarely pushed forward for men, though most famous would be Loki and Thor from the Marvel universe. When it comes to Men however, most are left to stay on the side of evil. Women, however, are clearly savable and redeemable.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. A male villain can't be redeemed? Have you even seen a movie?

 

[Azure23]

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.

Apologies in advance for the clumsy quoting, but im on a tablet and precise quoting is rather difficult.

1. I am not at all saying that you did anything to imply a need for haste on her part, rather that many people read that into the situation when someone opens a door for them 20 yards away. It's just something that happens. Believe it or not I've actually had similar discussions with a few people. It's not like I'm saying you did something wrong.

2. I apologize if this was insulting, that was not the intent. What I was saying is that this is a shared experience that many people can relate too. I've probably held the door for at least six people today, and I'm sure you've done similarly. Never the less, I shouldn't have made assumptions about you based on my and the vast majority of people I've spoken with's opinions.

3. If you say so guy. There are many reason for people to be short with someone. I'd tend to chalk something like that up to someone having a bad day rather than the near mythical encounter with the "offended by door holding feminist." But hey, I wasn't there.

4. Pretty much everyone in my peer group holds that opinion, and I was using such superlative terms in a (futile I now realize) attempt at humor. Also, come on, this is a common thing. So much so that holding doors for people who are too far is actually considered a prank to make the person feel uncomfortable, there are videos, and memes. Not very funny ones, but it's a thing.

5. I was assuming that the threats were empty because it's Peggy fucking Carter and if she killed everyone who was an asshole to women the SDR would be a bloodbath. So no, point not proved. And no, it's not portrayed as justified or reasonable, at least in my mind. It is played as darkly comedic. Here is Peggy Carter at the end of a long and shitty day dealing with chauvinist coworkers, she sees some asshole harassing her friend and gets what little satisfaction she can at a small and personal rebalancing of power. Yes it's played for laughs, have you ever heard of the saying "always punch up in comedy?" Your example changed too many variables, it ignores the power dynamics already in place in the period of the show. Perhaps if the setting was some future dystopia where women ruled men oppressively and through harsh sexual dominance then it would be more applicable. But maybe not, I don't think I've ever actually seen that setting outside of some of the later Dune novels (actually what you described totally happens, a group of powerful women in complete control of their society use sexual dominance to enslave men, when one of them tries to rape the hero Duncan Idaho (basically a cloned sex slave) he counter rapes her, and it's portrayed as justified.)

6. I am sorry that you have experienced that, yes, it is an uncomfortable and dehumanizing experience, I fully agree. What I thought I was clearly saying in the post was that the situation you described would be nearly unthinkable of in the late forties. And once again, your example does not perfectly match, it ignores the period and context surrounding it. If it were happening in the hypothetical context I presented above, then yes, I think most would agree that it is acceptable. And, if played with the same tone and acting chops, darkly comedic. See you are still presenting two contextually different situations, regardless of whether the actions are the same the context that informs them are vastly different.

7. I can understand that criticism, naturally the best part of any marvel spin off property is the stuff that ties back into the larger universe, and, aside from a few old captain America villains and a callback to black widow, there wasn't really much of that. However, as a fan of WWII period pieces, I've gotta say they tend to focus more on the blind optimism and patriotism due to America just having won a war and having a very strong economy. I haven't seen that many that are interested in deconstructing the negative aspects of postwar America, so for me at least, it was a refreshing change.

 

[runic knight]

So, judging from people's responses, the main thing I get out of all of this is that sexism is defined by the motivation of the individual doing the action, not the action they are doing itself. While that seems horribly obvious to me, I suppose seeing it from the Benevolent Sexism side as defining what is or isn't sexism is useful. Wonder how that in turn may be looked at when people start arguing other actions are sexist simply because, but I suppose that is just my thoughts wandering a bit there.

Myself, I tend to do a lot of those actions described. Holding doors, offering ride, coat off my back... I always called it "Don't be a selfish jackass" and tended to not play favorites based on gender too much.There may certainly be a bit of "two birds, one stone" thing if I have interest in the person I am doing something for, but I want to believe that most people are no entirely motivated by personal gain when making a simple nice gesture such as that.

 

[Chris Moses]

There's a notion which people are calling "Pussypass" these days. (It's a terrible name. Don't blame me, I didn't come up with it.)

Which essentially is the phenomenon in which women are get lighter sentences, or no sentences at all for the crimes they commit.

It seems perhaps to be born from the idea that women aren't as responsible for their own actions, and as such have mitigating factors that mean they're not due as much punishment in law as male offenders are.

It may also be cultural attitudes to typically consider males to be more violent and aggressive, and women to be the opposite, thus women committing crimes is sometimes seen as "Having misguided intentions".

It's rather hard to say if this falls into the category of "Benevolent sexism" or just discrimination against men. However, it's seemingly a well documented thing. I'm not sure if there's been any studies into it however.

Funny and I had heard that a woman who kills her husband (even an abusive one) gets a stiffer sentence than a man who kills his wife. Unfortunately, I have no source, citation, or empirical evidence to back that up, and thus I have not taken it to heart.

I just find it interesting that you can "hear 2 opposite conclusions on the same subject".

 

[Vault101]

Sorry ladies, but I give up...because apparently no matter what I try to do, I'm being sexist

I'm sorry....but did the grand comitee of Femenazi's refer to YOU personially?

or were you under the impression that the whole world revolves around you?

 

[Yuuki]

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!

Making a thread about this was completely redundant considering that news article itself is written by a female who is openly mocking the study.

The research/study is a joke and this thread is a joke.

But we've reached 4 pages, I think the OP has accomplished what he set out to do.

Sigh.

 

[Ramzal]

Just understand that many men are just... raised to be helpful to women and they're not trying to insult women by doing these gestures as for the majority they are taught to do these things by women.

I do understand that.
However, I also wish some dudes would realise that a woman not wanting their help is not a personal slight.

You can see it here in the thread, guys getting offended that someone might not appreciate them doing something they've decided is nice. You did it yourself in the original post.

If someone takes it that personally when another person doesn't want their help, it makes me question their motives as `just being nice`. If you're just being nice, it's fine when the other person doesn't want your help.

Yes, many men are raised to be nice to women. Many women are also raised to do things by themselves.

A good tip for me would be- if the person looks like they are struggling or asks for help then it is a good time to be offering help.

If that's all you got out of my post, you missed my point by a long shot.

The point of my post is that if someone does something nice for you, you don't respond with hostility. In your case, this was on going after you had asked him several times to calm down with the helping you bit. For my case, this was right off the bat of dating her for the world record shortest date life ever. I had the door open for her, she let it brew in her, got angry and decided to turn it into something negative. That is far from fair to twist someone's motives for doing something that required little to no energy from either party into something that is negative. If she said nothing at all about the door being held open for? That would have been fine. However she chose to get mad about the fact that I held my car door open for her and suggest sexism underneath it. People who look for conflict on that level are poison.

That is pretty shady in of itself and I was out for a date and a good time, not to debate whether or not me holding a door of my own car open for her was my plan to undermine women. She ruined a night, set it to a bitter and angry tone over absolutely nothing and I ended the date because I am not going to waste my time trying to convince someone that my actions are not enough namely since what you do is far more important than what I say.

I was raised that if someone does something for you, you say "thank you." What you don't say is a slight equal to "fuck you for doing that for me."

 

[Akjosch]

The poll is missing the obvious "If you're discriminating based on someone's sex/gender alone, you're acting sexist." option. "Benevolent sexism" is such a silly phrase - it's just plain sexism.

Just treat everyone equally[footnote]And by "equally", I don't mean "nicely". That's up to you.[/footnote], how about it?

 

[Phasmal]

If that's all you got out of my post, you missed my point by a long shot.

The point of my post is that if someone does something nice for you, you don't respond with hostility. In your case, this was on going after you had asked him several times to calm down with the helping you bit.

Please understand, that dude was not helping me. He was annoying me. He just thought he was helping, that doesn't make it true.

For my case, this was right off the bat of dating her for the world record shortest date life ever. I had the door open for her, she let it brew in her, got angry and decided to turn it into something negative. That is far from fair to twist someone's motives for doing something that required little to no energy from either party into something that is negative. If she said nothing at all about the door being held open for? That would have been fine. However she chose to get mad about the fact that I held my car door open for her and suggest sexism underneath it. People who look for conflict on that level are poison.

Yeah, it sucks that your date went sour. < That might sound sarcastic but I'm being sincere.

That is pretty shady in of itself and I was out for a date and a good time, not to debate whether or not me holding a door of my own car open for her was my plan to undermine women. She ruined a night, set it to a bitter and angry tone over absolutely nothing and I ended the date because I am not going to waste my time trying to convince someone that my actions are not enough namely since what you do is far more important than what I say.

Uhhhhh... from the sounds of it you two weren't well matched so it's probably for the best.

I was raised that if someone does something for you, you say "thank you." What you don't say is a slight equal to "fuck you for doing that for me."

I agree, manners are important. So is not being pushy. You're perfectly entitled to try and help me for instance, and I'm perfectly entitled to say `thanks but no thanks`.

 

[RawSteelUT]

I voted yes, but I have to state a qualifier. If you're ONLY kind to women, then yes, it's a form of sexism. You're both saying that women aren't as capable as men, and men aren't as worthy of kindness as women.

I have always believed that you should be nice to everyone. Male, female, white, black, gay, straight, and everything in between. Golden Rule and all that.

 

[Halla Burrica]

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I generally do nice things to people because I either like those people or I at least like doing something nice, for some reason. It's hard to describe, but I just get this warm, sort of fuzzy feeling when I help others, sometimes whether I know them or not. It makes me feel good. Can't remember gender ever being important. An old lady once asked me for help with her garage, and I helped, because I didn't have anything better to do and helping people has a positive effect on me. Another time I was exciting this hospital, and on my way out I held the door open for some guy on his way in, because that felt like a nice thing to do. I suppose in a way, that means I do this for personal gain, rather than acting on some instinct of compassion. Is that a bad thing? Wish I knew.

 

[Saltyk]

Ugh. I hate this sentiment. I had a woman get angry at me for holding a door open for her once. I'm kinda happy I live in a area where that sort of thing is seen as simple courtesy.

Here's the deal, people. I hold the door open for everyone. Male. Female. Young. Old. Ugly. Beautiful. I don't care. If I see you right behind me, I'll at least wait and hold the door open until you can reach it. Often I will stand aside and hold it for you, especially when I see elderly people who obviously have trouble just plain walking.

I don't do this because I judge you incapable or weak or inferior. I do this because it's polite and I have some basic consideration for my fellow man. If someone holding a door for you is some sort of horrible crime, you need to get your priorities in order. I assure you there are far worse things a person can do to do.

 

[Gorrath]

The poll is missing the obvious "If you're discriminating based on someone's sex/gender alone, you're acting sexist." option. "Benevolent sexism" is such a silly phrase - it's just plain sexism.

Just treat everyone equally[footnote]And by "equally", I don't mean "nicely". That's up to you.[/footnote], how about it?

If i'm treating men and women differently because I am sexually attracted to women and not sexually attracted to men, am I still being sexist? The answer is a resounding "yes." I think people automatically equate sexism with unethical or immoral, even though there are situations in which discriminatory actions/policies make more sense. The idea that I as an individual should treat men and women the same in all situations is nonsensical; there are lots of things I would do for/with a woman that I wouldn't do for/with a man, though all of those things fall firmly into the realm of the romantic. That's why this subject is more nuanced than this thread seems to think.

I don't mean to pick on you post specifically by the way. I was actually writing with an intent to agree with you until I thought about what I wanted to say and realized that I do agree with your sentiment but the devil is in the details.

 

[Akjosch]

The poll is missing the obvious "If you're discriminating based on someone's sex/gender alone, you're acting sexist." option. "Benevolent sexism" is such a silly phrase - it's just plain sexism.

Just treat everyone equally[footnote]And by "equally", I don't mean "nicely". That's up to you.[/footnote], how about it?

If i'm treating men and women differently because I am sexually attracted to women and not sexually attracted to men, am I still being sexist? The answer is a resounding "yes." I think people automatically equate sexism with unethical or immoral, even though there are situations in which discriminatory actions/policies make more sense. The idea that I as an individual should treat men and women the same in all situations is nonsensical; there are lots of things I would do for/with a woman that I wouldn't do for/with a man, though all of those things fall firmly into the realm of the romantic. That's why this subject is more nuanced than this thread seems to think.

The thing though is: It's fine if the "sexism" is based on biology. You being sexually attracted to just one sex (or gender) and choosing who to have sex with along those lines is such a case. Being mindful of pregnancy and its effects on females is another example, as are general issues related to reproduction. Aside of that, there's a bunch of disorders and illnesses which only or predominantly afflict one sex (breast cancer, osteoporosis, Alzheimer's as examples for women, colour blindness, autism and so on for men); here again it's biology which dictates a "sexist" treatment.

Other than that? We shouldn't treat someone differently because of their sex or gender. We can treat someone differently because we want to have sex with them, that makes sense, but that applies to only a very small part of the population in any case.

 

[Gorrath]

The poll is missing the obvious "If you're discriminating based on someone's sex/gender alone, you're acting sexist." option. "Benevolent sexism" is such a silly phrase - it's just plain sexism.

Just treat everyone equally[footnote]And by "equally", I don't mean "nicely". That's up to you.[/footnote], how about it?

If i'm treating men and women differently because I am sexually attracted to women and not sexually attracted to men, am I still being sexist? The answer is a resounding "yes." I think people automatically equate sexism with unethical or immoral, even though there are situations in which discriminatory actions/policies make more sense. The idea that I as an individual should treat men and women the same in all situations is nonsensical; there are lots of things I would do for/with a woman that I wouldn't do for/with a man, though all of those things fall firmly into the realm of the romantic. That's why this subject is more nuanced than this thread seems to think.

The thing though is: It's fine if the "sexism" is based on biology. You being sexually attracted to just one sex (or gender) and choosing who to have sex with along those lines is such a case. Being mindful of pregnancy and its effects on females is another example, as are general issues related to reproduction. Aside of that, there's a bunch of disorders and illnesses which only or predominantly afflict one sex (breast cancer, osteoporosis, Alzheimer's as examples for women, colour blindness, autism and so on for men); here again it's biology which dictates a "sexist" treatment.

Other than that? We shouldn't treat someone differently because of their sex or gender. We can treat someone differently because we want to have sex with them, that makes sense, but that applies to only a very small part of the population in any case.

Right, that's exactly my point. Not all instances of sexism are inherently immoral or unethical. These instances, as you say, are generally based on biology. I bring this up because of the plethora of posts that indicate that benevolent sexism is always bad when a fair portion of it stems from romantic interest. The only thing I'm not sure I agree with is where you say this applies to a very small part of the population. Maybe in practice that's true? I'm not sure. I probably find about 33% of the planet's population to be sexually attractive. (I pulled that statistic out of my ass. I find a lot of women attractive!)

 

[Akjosch]

The only thing I'm not sure I agree with is where you say this applies to a very small part of the population. Maybe in practice that's true? I'm not sure. I probably find about 33% of the planet's population to be sexually attractive. (I pulled that statistic out of my ass. I find a lot of women attractive!)

The context of my "very small part of the population" assertion is: How many of those 33% will you ever interact with? And how many of those will be "off limits" due to consanguinity or social norms you prefer to uphold, and thus should be treated with the same respect (or lack thereof) you afford everyone else?

What's left is a very small part of the population indeed.

 

[Gorrath]

The only thing I'm not sure I agree with is where you say this applies to a very small part of the population. Maybe in practice that's true? I'm not sure. I probably find about 33% of the planet's population to be sexually attractive. (I pulled that statistic out of my ass. I find a lot of women attractive!)

The context of my "very small part of the population" assertion is: How many of those 33% will you ever interact with? And how many of those will be "off limits" due to consanguinity or social norms you prefer to uphold, and thus should be treated with the same respect (or lack thereof) you afford everyone else?

What's left is a very small part of the population indeed.

No doubt, that's why I qualified it with, "Maybe in practice..." I'm certain I'm not alone in acting that way though and I feel that this probably plays a major role in benevolent sexism. If we assert that sexism based on biological drive for romance/sex isn't inherently immoral or unethical and demonstrate that romantic interest plays a sizable role in the practice of benevolent sexism, we may assert that benevolent sexism isn't an immoral or unethical practice, depending on the rest of the context of any situation.

For example, buying my wife dinner while we were dating and taking her out for a show would be a sexist act on my part because I would not have done those things for a male friend of mine who was of the same economic standing she was. However, even though it is a sexist act based on benevolent sexism, it was not an immoral or unethical act. If I had found out that she hated the idea of me paying for dates and I continued to insist on doing it anyway, then that act of benevolent sexism would become more problematic. It's not so much that benevolent sexism is necessarily a problem, the problem is that individuals react to benevolent sexism in different ways. Some appreciate it and others do not.

This makes it very confusing when dealing with strangers, especially ones who you might have a romantic interest in. Will she be offended by an act of benevolent sexism? Will she be offended if you don't indulge her in some benevolent sexism? That's why I took some issue with your initial statement of, "Just treat everyone equally." It sounds like a fine idea, one I would even support, except treating everyone the same becomes an issue because not everyone wants to be treated the same and you aren't likely to treat someone you have a romantic interest in the same as someone you don't. I hope that better explains my position.

 

[K12]

Yes benevolent sexism is a thing but it isn't the same thing as being polite and considerate as you're trying to characterise it.

It's along the lines "Don't use that kind of language there are ladies present" or "This isn't a suitable subject for a lady". It's a kind of sexism that protects women on the assumption that obviously they couldn't handle it because they're women. The kind of thinking that makes people think that women shouldn't work with serious crime or gory injuries because they'd swoon and faint.

I hold the door open for anybody and I'd help anyone if they look like they're struggling carrying something. Seriously guys who worry about this stuff are weird. If you hold a door open for a woman and they told you off for it then shut it in her face.

Surprisingly enough women are individuals who aren't all going to want to be treated the same way. The whole idea that you're looking for a "way to treat the ladies" is quite telling. A general way of behaving decently will work for most people and if someone goes off on one at you for it then they're probably a moron.

 

[sumanoskae]

It baffles me how many people defend the idea of "The Gentleman" under the pretext that it is just a form of kindness; it seems that they simply do not comprehend the fundamental problem with that idea.

The primary point here is that by "Being a gentlemen" you are inherently making a distinction; if you're just being "Nice", then why do you call yourself "Chivalrous" instead just "Nice"?

If, in a vacuum, I say "All women deserve respect" as opposed to "All people deserve respect", the natural assumption is that I am making a distinction between men and women; I'm making a broad statement but purposefully leaving a large group of people out of it.

So the natural progression for "You should be nice to girls" is "Why just girls?"

Again, if kindness is all you care about, then why are you so attached to the idea of conditional kindness? Why do you care if the subject of your kindness is male or female? Remember, you're the one making that distinction.

Honestly, these are all very basic rules of social communication; I would assume that most people already understand them. So I am quite frankly flabbergasted that so many people still fail to take note of them.

Nobody is saying that you shouldn't be polite to women, we're saying you should be polite to everybody, women included.