Poll: Is treating women in Gentlemanly way Sexist?

[dyre]

Man, this thread has a lot of replies. For a gaming site, Escapist is sure into these sexism / gender issue threads.

I'll open a door for both sexes, but I'll probably only offer my coat to a female. Because it'd be weird otherwise.

Also, I'd only give up my seat on a bus for a handicapped person or an elderly person. Gender doesn't really matter on that one. edit: or maybe a pregnant woman. I guess gender does matter on that one.

 

[Lyri]

Personally I wouldn't make a fuss about it if I saw someone do that, but that doesn't change the fact that it's sexist. That being said I doubt anyone in this thread is planning on championing the cause of equal opportunity door holding.

That's just it though, who the fuck cares if a guy holds doors open for females only? How utterly harmless of him, he's holding doors open for women to be nice.
Honestly if someone is being sexist then I'm expecting them to go the whole nine yards with it, "get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich" as well. It's a sad state of affairs when one man chose to open doors for ladies to be nice and we lump him in such a category.
I think the critical miss comic sums it up pretty nicely.

Spoiler

Regardless of whether he's doing it to be nice to women, because he wants to hold back femininity or just to be a decent person the end result is always the same.

 

[conflictofinterests]

So, afew people on here have called me sexist. What for? For suggesting that men treat women in a gentlemanly manner. Now, I can see that too a certain extent, like the whole "The world is unsafe for women, So I will keep you away from the world" style of gentleman-re IS sexist. However, what I was refering too was holding the door open for a women, pulling out her chair for her, offering her your jacket if it is cold, things like that. THAT is what I fail to see as being sexist.

So escapist, does the fact I want to be a gentleman make me sexist?

To not be sexist, don't treat a woman in a way you wouldn't treat a man. You don't pull out chairs for men? Alright, there's your rule of thumb. You end up being the door man because you hold the door for everyone? Officially un-sexist.

Granted, even using these rules of thumb might get you called sexist, but you can rest soundly with the knowledge that you were, in fact, not sexist at all.

Other than that, while knowing the sexist reasoning behind "gentlemanly" behavior does grant you some protection from the dickery inherent in it, dickery is still inherent in it, in that you're still treating women differently than men simply because of a difference of gender (which is different than changing weight-carrying requirements for firefighters, which is related to a physical difference incidentally due to gender.)

 

[Catrixa]

Ok, I admit, I didn't read all 20 pages (I did read some of them, if that counts), so sorry if this has been said already.

What if you asked the a different question: Is it OK for women to hold the door open for men? It's not really possible for a single woman to tell if a man holding a door open for her is doing it for sexist reasons (she's weak, fragile, etc), unless he's holding the door open for many incoming people and letting it close only for men. But I've seen the situation where I'm holding the door open for a man, because I got there first, and he grabs the door and says "oh, no, ladies first." If I'm feeling particularly humble, my first reaction is "oh, it's ok, you go." But if he's feeling particularly chivalrous, he'll just stare at me like I'm doing it wrong. Eventually I give, because two people holding the door is really awkward and I have about as much confidence as a wet pancake. This I would say is the wrong thought process.

Really, I'd say yeah, it's technically sexist to hold doors open for just women, even if it's just a habit (as in, you don't actually think women are incapable of door operation). But if you're honestly worried about this being sexist, just hold the door open for men sometimes, too.

 

[Orekoya]

Personally I wouldn't make a fuss about it if I saw someone do that, but that doesn't change the fact that it's sexist. That being said I doubt anyone in this thread is planning on championing the cause of equal opportunity door holding.

That's just it though, who the fuck cares if a guy holds doors open for females only? How utterly harmless of him, he's holding doors open for women to be nice.
Honestly if someone is being sexist then I'm expecting them to go the whole nine yards with it, "get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich" as well. It's a sad state of affairs when one man chose to open doors for ladies to be nice and we lump him in such a category.
I think the critical miss comic sums it up pretty nicely.

Spoiler

Regardless of whether he's doing it to be nice to women, because he wants to hold back femininity or just to be a decent person the end result is always the same.

A gentleman is a civilized, educated, sensitive, or well-mannered man. It's not gender-specific; a man can be a gentleman to anyone. Sexism is the attitudes or behavior based on sex, there's no follow up to that definition that says "but if it happens to men, it's not sexism". The vice versa implied here he isn't a gentleman to other men. IE, he's a jerk to men because they are men. That means it's sexist.

 

[proctorninja2]

Yes it is but its not a bad kind of sexism

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Personally I wouldn't make a fuss about it if I saw someone do that, but that doesn't change the fact that it's sexist. That being said I doubt anyone in this thread is planning on championing the cause of equal opportunity door holding.

That's just it though, who the fuck cares if a guy holds doors open for females only? How utterly harmless of him, he's holding doors open for women to be nice.
Honestly if someone is being sexist then I'm expecting them to go the whole nine yards with it, "get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich" as well. It's a sad state of affairs when one man chose to open doors for ladies to be nice and we lump him in such a category.
I think the critical miss comic sums it up pretty nicely.

Spoiler

Regardless of whether he's doing it to be nice to women, because he wants to hold back femininity or just to be a decent person the end result is always the same.

Which brings me back to the unquoted part of my last post. Whether or not it's harmful is not the question that's being asked.

If someone just did something as innocent as gender specific door holding (there needs to be an official term for this) I wouldn't call them sexist, but I would still consider the act sexist.

 

[coolman9899]

Assuming you will only do that for girls, sure.

Treating someone differently based on their gender like that is simply basic sexism. Thinking someone deserves to be treated differently like that really is an obvious case.

I agree with you to some extent, as it en-rages me to no end when there are other Men infront of me who don't hold the door open for you. Infact the problem is, is context, if your Girl Friend is cold and you are warm enough to offer her your coat... you should. It isn't sexism it is just simple manners, I could give less of a damn if I was a Girl who had been offered somebody elses coat.

Some things although are not common practice, such as pulling a Man's chair out, It would just be awkward-taco. Once again it really is about context, as I will not pull a girl-friend's (whose just a girl you are friends with). I will only do something like that with a partner. All in all some of the sexism debate it just fodder.

 

[coolman9899]

I feel like sexism and the biological imperative to treat potential mates in a way that encourages mating are not the same.

When animals show similar traits, are they sexist? No, they are simply applying basic instinct to try to win a mate.

Now have fun demonstrating that that is the actual reason for these behaviors. They seem quite a bit more constructed than that. They seem to go beyond that. Especially if it's all women whether you find them attractive or not.

Treating genders differently is appropriate since genders are different.

Do you apply that logic to races too?

Personally I think it's a BS excuse. Treating them differently might be appropriate in certain cases where the differences are actually relevant. Here? No apparent relevant differences. A door is not a daunting obstacle for a woman.

I get what you are saying but you still have to understand that it is more common place to hold a door for a woman and not a man, although it doesn't make much sense it is just that way.

 

[Orekoya]

Treating genders differently is appropriate since genders are different.

Do you apply that logic to races too?

Personally I think it's a BS excuse. Treating them differently might be appropriate in certain cases where the differences are actually relevant. Here? No apparent relevant differences. A door is not a daunting obstacle for a woman.

I get what you are saying but you still have to understand that it is more common place to hold a door for a woman and not a man, although it doesn't make much sense it is just that way.

What kind of bizzaro world is that in where it's common place to hold doors open for women but not men? When men see other men, whether elderly, handicapped or just with hands filled with packages coming to the door, do they hurriedly slam said door shut after they finished holding it open for a woman to keep other men from getting their nice treatment? Because I typically don't and have never observed this.

Just be a gentleman.

 

[Lyri]

A gentleman is a civilized, educated, sensitive, or well-mannered man. It's not gender-specific; a man can be a gentleman to anyone. Sexism is the attitudes or behavior based on sex, there's no follow up to that definition that says "but if it happens to men, it's not sexism". The vice versa implied here he isn't a gentleman to other men. IE, he's a jerk to men because they are men. That means it's sexist.

Thanks for the example, I really didn't get what you were trying to convey there for a second ಠ_ಠ.

There's nothing to imply that he's a jerk to a man that doesn't imply that he isn't, that distinction is definitely at your own discretion as to how you want to read the whole affair.

Which brings me back to the unquoted part of my last post. Whether or not it's harmful is not the question that's being asked.

If someone just did something as innocent as gender specific door holding (there needs to be an official term for this) I wouldn't call them sexist, but I would still consider the act sexist.

Of course it's not harmful, it's one person holding the door open for you regardless of his reason.
The only way this whole situation could be harmful is if people start getting the idea that a man holding a door open for a women or vice versa is somehow an affront to their gender. It's utterly insane.

 

[coolman9899]

Treating genders differently is appropriate since genders are different.

Do you apply that logic to races too?

Personally I think it's a BS excuse. Treating them differently might be appropriate in certain cases where the differences are actually relevant. Here? No apparent relevant differences. A door is not a daunting obstacle for a woman.

I get what you are saying but you still have to understand that it is more common place to hold a door for a woman and not a man, although it doesn't make much sense it is just that way.

What kind of bizzaro world do you live in where it's common place to hold doors open for women but not men? When you see elderly or handicapped men, or just everyday men with their hands filled with packages coming to the door, do you hurriedly slam said door shut after you finished holding it open for a woman to keep them from getting your nice treatment? Because I typically don't.

Just be a gentleman.

Don't give me shit about stuff I never even talked about. I hold the door for everybody, you completely missed my point. More Men hold the door open for Women than Men. I never mentioned what I do, your inferring what I do.

 

[Orekoya]

A gentleman is a civilized, educated, sensitive, or well-mannered man. It's not gender-specific; a man can be a gentleman to anyone. Sexism is the attitudes or behavior based on sex, there's no follow up to that definition that says "but if it happens to men, it's not sexism". The vice versa implied here he isn't a gentleman to other men. IE, he's a jerk to men because they are men. That means it's sexist.

Thanks for the example, I really didn't get what you were trying to convey there for a second ಠ_ಠ.

There's nothing to imply that he's a jerk to a man that doesn't imply that he isn't, that distinction is definitely at your own discretion as to how you want to read the whole affair.

The implication is in how he phrased the poll question. Oddly enough he asks his question differently in the OP:

So escapist, does the fact I want to be a gentleman make me sexist?

As stated, you can be a gentleman to anyone, there's no gender requirement. So the answer to that question is no. But the poll question has a different context. It's asking "Is treating women in a gentlemanly way sexist?" which broken down comes off as "Is my preferential treatment that I base on sex sexist?" He should reword the poll question to match what he has in the op.

Don't give me shit about stuff I never even talked about. I hold the door for everybody, you completely missed my point. More Men hold the door open for Women than Men. I never mentioned what I do, your inferring what I do.

Sorry but I have lived in several places and I have never seen this in practice. I have most often seen the "next person" practice whereby if someone opens the door and is aware of someone else coming to the door they hold it open and let it go for them to hold it open for the next person coming to the door regardless of the gender of the parties involved. As for your inferring I will edit it appropriately now that I have the context of your point.

 

[Snowblindblitz]

I feel like sexism and the biological imperative to treat potential mates in a way that encourages mating are not the same.

When animals show similar traits, are they sexist? No, they are simply applying basic instinct to try to win a mate.

Now have fun demonstrating that that is the actual reason for these behaviors. They seem quite a bit more constructed than that. They seem to go beyond that. Especially if it's all women whether you find them attractive or not.

Treating genders differently is appropriate since genders are different.

Do you apply that logic to races too?

Personally I think it's a BS excuse. Treating them differently might be appropriate in certain cases where the differences are actually relevant. Here? No apparent relevant differences. A door is not a daunting obstacle for a woman.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/11/329

A link to an article talking about gift giving spiders, a common act of courtesy. Why bring up the race card? Immediately that is where you go? Outside of skin pigment and some minor medical differences, race has no bearing on anything.

Would you share a bed with your sister, as you would your brother? Because your argument claims that you would, despite how improper that is. If you had a friend sleep over and share your room with you, would it be ok for a female (or male, depending on your orientation)? Equality is not the same as diminishing genders to the point of them not mattering. I consider my sexuality and gender to be a part of who I am. All these things are components of what makes us an individual.

 

[coolman9899]

A gentleman is a civilized, educated, sensitive, or well-mannered man. It's not gender-specific; a man can be a gentleman to anyone. Sexism is the attitudes or behavior based on sex, there's no follow up to that definition that says "but if it happens to men, it's not sexism". The vice versa implied here he isn't a gentleman to other men. IE, he's a jerk to men because they are men. That means it's sexist.

Thanks for the example, I really didn't get what you were trying to convey there for a second ಠ_ಠ.

There's nothing to imply that he's a jerk to a man that doesn't imply that he isn't, that distinction is definitely at your own discretion as to how you want to read the whole affair.

The implication is in how he phrased the poll question. Oddly enough he asks his question differently in the OP:

So escapist, does the fact I want to be a gentleman make me sexist?

As stated, you can be a gentleman to anyone, there's no gender requirement. So the answer to that question is no. But the poll question has a different context. It's asking "Is treating women in a gentlemanly way sexist?" which broken down comes off as "Is my preferential treatment that I base on sex sexist?" He should reword the poll question to match what he has in the op.

Don't give me shit about stuff I never even talked about. I hold the door for everybody, you completely missed my point. More Men hold the door open for Women than Men. I never mentioned what I do, your inferring what I do.

Sorry but I have lived in several places and I have never seen this in practice. I have most often seen the "next person" practice whereby if someone opens the door and is aware of someone else coming to the door they hold it open and let it go for them to hold it open for the next person coming to the door regardless of the gender of the parties involved. As for your inferring I will edit it appropriately now that I have the context of your point.

Thank you, for seeing my point. Also we probably just live in very different places.

 

[Michael826]

I don't call it sexism, I call it being polite. I'm happy to hold the door open for whoever, be they male or female. Likewise, I'm happy to offer my jacket to someone if they're cold, regardless of gender.

 

[Typhoonis88]

Nope.

Because I act like a gentleman towards everyone.


I'm classy like that.

Likewise, Ill open the door, ask someone if they need a hand, let someone more needing take the seat.

But i voted it is not sexist, in that i think its polite and not really what the term "sexist" is usually referencing, but i would consider it a positive sexist thing if they only did it for woman.

 

[captaincabbage]

Considering 21 pages of this thread already, it's probably already been said, but damnit to hell I'll say it anyway.

It's only sexist depending on the person. I don't personally see it as sexist, I see it as courteous. Not because I believe I should help women, but because I believe I should help people. Whether you're a man or woman doesn't really factor into it for me. I just treat people the way I'd want to be treated.

 

[Electrogecko]

"It isn't realistic to call any behavioral change one due to sexual attraction."
This may be the dumbest thing I've ever read. No, I did not alter this quote. This came straight from your keyboard Mr. Mortai, and I am quite literally dumbfounded.

It's clear to me now why I've had such difficulty getting through to you. I would reach out to others around me for backup, but I see you're already taking on the entire forum.

Because I missed the word 'given' when I was tired? You can't say it about JUST any change. Not all changes can be reasonably connected to it.

I keep thinking after I post, "I'm sure this guy is a nice person and I'm sure our views on the subject are much closer than this debate would suggest."
Then I read your rebuttal and am overcome by a mixture of frustration and pity.

The topic of this thread is "Is treating women in a Gentlemanly way Sexist," and I'm pretty sure you can reasonably link any "gentlemanly" behavior to flirtation. Beyond this, my original point remains, which was that it's impossible to refute anybody who claims to have behaved a certain way out of sexual attraction.

"It isn't basic things. It's your sexist assumption that women are smarter."
Another bit of brilliance.....I'm sexist because I'm "assuming" (even if it was an assumption) that women are smarter. So I guess you think men are smarter then? Oh wait, that would make you a sexist! I guess you can't have an opinion on this matter without being sexist, as per your unique logic. That's two self-contradictory statements in one post! I think I'm done trying to refute you. You do it well enough on your own.

False dichotomy. I don't need to say that one is smarter than the other. Do you just lack the backbone to take on my arguments with integrity and not make things up, or is it just fun for you?

False dichotomy? Oh that's right! I forgot the third option- that the average IQ of both genders across all the people of the world is an exact tie! Down to the trillionth decimal place! Here I was going through my entire life thinking that every individual is unique, and thus, every section of the population on Earth is unique! How silly of me!

In all seriousness, it may be a point of contention which sections of the brain are larger in the male vs female brain (to say one gender is smarter than the other is obviously an oversimplification) or which ones are used more frequently/efficiently/whatever, but there is nobody debating that the two are the same in any respect.

You keep trying to make my arguments out to be scientific or even sexist, but all I'm saying is that men and women are different and you seem to be disagreeing. I don't need a scientific source to claim that different sections of the population (let alone the genders) have a different average value for any given attribute.

I'm left wondering how the hell this debate came to be and what your opinion on the matter actually is.....I'm still not clear.

You apparently never are.

The wit. I'm rolling on the floor laughing as I'm typing this. If you just presented your argument concisely, I'd have quit replying by now, but you keep taking personal stabs and giving bullshit one-liners.

We both agree on the basic idea that gender is not a defining characteristic of any person, and by itself should never be used as a reason to treat or be treated differently, but where we differ is in the amount of qualifiers and exceptions there are to that basic rule.

Because you fail to demonstrate the validity of your myriad bullshit claims.

I haven't failed. You've just misunderstood. I'll try again.

It may be sexist to use gender as the sole reason for a given action, but I don't think it's sexist to make certain assumptions about a person based off their sex. This goes back to my point about men being asked by women to lift heavy things. (and no, giving a hypothetical scenario doesn't make me a liar) I don't think it's sexist for a woman to ask a random man to lift something that they've had trouble with under the assumption that he's a bit stronger. Do you?

If you said yes, you have the wrong idea of what sexism is. This is an act of efficient and accepting societal cooperation. In a society that's secure with itself (this is why I brought up insecurity before) we acknowledge the differences amongst ourselves and use them to our mutual benefit. Kind of like how some insects accept the role of soldier/worker, we should accept certain differences about our people.

If you said no, then you've made an exception for the case of physical strength and acknowledged that there is a difference in that particular attribute amongst men and women. The thing is, the difference in strength is no different than the difference in any other attribute except for the fact that it's easily noticed and widely accepted. For every single attribute you can name, the two sexes are different regardless of whether they can be called better or worse. Some differences may be so acute that they're impossible to notice with human perception, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

THE FOLLOWING IS AN ACTUAL EXCHANGE, WITH THE QUOTED PHRASES BELONGING TO MORTAI
"Treating someone differently based on their gender like that is simply basic sexism."

I don't ask men out for dinner and I don't talk dirty (at least as much) in the presence of women. I don't think that makes me sexist.

Because the difference there is sexual attraction, not just gender. Easy.

But when is a difference in gender not a difference in sexual attraction? Unless your bi/asexual, a difference in gender means a difference in sexual attraction. That was the point that I made about 3 posts ago.

Sexual attraction isn't black and white. It's different for everybody, but for everybody, there is a range of attractiveness, which would mean, given your own logic and my own, that there is a range of different behaviors depending on this attraction.

Some people may be sexually attracted to every single female they lay eyes on, and thus, treat every female differently than every male.

"But what warrants it here is your own sexual preference. At least he first one. The second one not so much. That is kind of sexist. It's whether there is some kind of justification for it beyond simply gender. Sexual preference is something you can't control and it is a reason for some different behaviors."

Well, then I can use sexual preference to justify any difference in behavior that I have, (around women) and I'd love to hear how you would refute it.

You're a liar. Easily done.

Amazing. I'm a liar even though I didn't make any claims. This is the second time you've called me a liar for making this point, and it's the second time it makes no sense at all. You can say I WOULD be a liar if I did what is entailed in my point, but even that is irrelevant.

Every time you answer a thought out phrase with a little quip like that you lose more and more credibility.

"You're probably a liar since you just made it up right now?"
END

That's right folks, Mr. Mortai's response to my point is......*drum roll....calling me a liar! Brilliant. Just like all my other points, you don't bother refuting with anything but personal jabs and pathetic quips, even though you yourself keep asking for scientific sources.

Well your point was utterly unprovable. You're making it up. It's easy to see how ad hoc it is.

I can see that you needed to break that exchange up twice so you could call me a liar twice....brilliant. The point that your supposed to be refuting here, just to clarify, is that it's impossible to judge whether or not a certain action was taken due to sexual attraction.

On top of that, your second quote in that exchange directly contradicts the one from way on top of this post....the one that I said is the dumbest thing I've ever read.

You don't read what you write? What a surprise.

More garbage....the amount of substance in your rebuttal is staggering.

All in all, you've replied to me about 5 times now, have called me a liar and a sexist multiple times, demanded scientific sources while providing none of your own, and given me absolutely no idea of what your opinion on the topic is. You've given a childish ideal. A patheticly black and white painting of the situation that looks like it was done by a 5 year old.

Let me explain something basic to you.
You make claims about science. You need to provide sources.
All I do is question your claims and don't make my own about science. I don't have anything to prove.

Condescending as all hell....moving on.

Claims about science? Your claims are much more absurd than mine. I'm suggesting that the sexes are different in every conceivable way, no matter how small and unnoticeable the difference may be. It doesn't matter whether I think that men or women are smarter. What you're arguing is that neither is, which is impossible.

You should be a politician.

Well at least I'm suitable for something.

More personal attacking.....and somehow, your trying to make me out to be the bad guy. If you want to honestly try to refute anything that I've said, be my guest, but please don't respond with nothing but shitty one-liners and personal jabs. Don't take anything that I've said out of context. Take an entire thought process of mine, and reply to it with an entire thought process of yours.

Thank you.