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.Azure23 said: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.
I love how you preload this statement with insult in it. Classy.Azure23 said: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.
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.Azure23 said: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.
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.Azure23 said: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.
Yes you are overthinking it. And no you're probably not the only person in the world that has the opinion.Azure23 said: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?
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.Azure23 said: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.
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.Azure23 said: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.
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.Azure23 said: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 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.Azure23 said:Sorry if this comes off strong, but I liked the show quite a bit.
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.Happyninja42 said: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.
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.chikusho said: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.Happyninja42 said: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.
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.
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."Crimsom Storm said: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.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. A male villain can't be redeemed? Have you even seen a movie?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.
Apologies in advance for the clumsy quoting, but im on a tablet and precise quoting is rather difficult.Happyninja42 said: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.Azure23 said: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.
I love how you preload this statement with insult in it. Classy.Azure23 said: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.
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.Azure23 said: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.
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.Azure23 said: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.
Yes you are overthinking it. And no you're probably not the only person in the world that has the opinion.Azure23 said: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?
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.Azure23 said: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.
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.Azure23 said: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.
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.Azure23 said: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 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.Azure23 said:Sorry if this comes off strong, but I liked the show quite a bit.
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.The Lunatic said: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.
I'm sorry....but did the grand comitee of Femenazi's refer to YOU personially?RJ 17 said:Sorry ladies, but I give up...because apparently no matter what I try to do, I'm being sexist
Making a thread about this was completely redundant considering that news article itself is written by a female who is openly mocking the study.RJ 17 said: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!
If that's all you got out of my post, you missed my point by a long shot.Phasmal said:I do understand that.Ramzal said: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.
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.
Please understand, that dude was not helping me. He was annoying me. He just thought he was helping, that doesn't make it true.Ramzal said: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.
Yeah, it sucks that your date went sour. < That might sound sarcastic but I'm being sincere.Ramzal said: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.
Uhhhhh... from the sounds of it you two weren't well matched so it's probably for the best.Ramzal said: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 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`.Ramzal said: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."
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.Akjosch said: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?