Poll: Is treating women in Gentlemanly way Sexist?

[Danzavare]

For me it's less about being a gentleman toward certain people and more about just being a gentleman. I think manners and politeness are valuable in their own right. All gentlemanly acts can apply to both sexes without being weird or awkward. Really, it's common courtesy, which is not gender specific.

Personally, I know men that try to work their way into women's good books by behaving exceptionally nice to them under the guise of being a gentleman and to me, that's quite ungentlemanly. (Which is my understatement of the month, I've gotten in trouble for publicly calling out jerks like that before. >.>; )

Captcha: until tonight

 

[tensorproduct]

That said, if I offered to pay for dinner, it's based on the fact that I'm willing to do so because I enjoyed spending the time with you, and not because I feel you're legitimately incapable of paying for your share. I've done that on a number of dates, and after a number of dinners with friends; I'm more interested in demonstrating gratitude for agreeable company than in demonstrating that I'm a successful hunter/gatherer. I have allowed my date to offer the gratuity in most cases where I've paid for the dinner, though.

I wonder if you could look further into the idea of paying for dinner as a way of demonstrating gratitude for pleasing company? Is this really how you decide who pays for dinner, because it raises some secondary questions.

Was your company not enjoyable? If the lady was quiet and reserved, but the gentleman was charming and vivacious, should she then be paying for dinner in order to demonstrate gratitude for the entertaining company?


captcha: be mine

 

[Elate]

By very definition yes. Treating a person differently based on their gender.

 

[ablac]

its not negative sexism but it is sexism if you do so specifically because x person is female. Although its being treated kindly so its hard to complain about it.

 

[Emperor Nat]

Nope.

Because I act like a gentleman towards everyone.


I'm classy like that.

I say, this fellow seems to have summarised everything I was about to post in this thread. So, I now have no other option but to sit here and point out a few quaint examples of such acts.

In the first instance, I hold doors open for people regardless of their gender. It takes me no time and I enjoy the feeling of making someone's life slightly more convenient.

The fact that I extend traditional chivalric code to both genders in this way shows that I am a proper modern gentleman.

That said, I do admit a slightly higher threshold in the case of women. Quite aside from being a matter of gender bias or sexism, this is simply because part of being a gentleman is being a gentle MAN and like many men I can be manipulated by attractive members of the opposite sex. This is not because they are in any way weaker, but simply because I have a biological predisposition to endear myself to them.

 

[Gibboniser]

I open doors and stuff for everyone to be honest, its just polite. That said, I once opened a door for some girl, who, well her bmi was on the other side of 'daaaaymn', who had a go at a friend, accusing her of thinking she couldn't do it herself. That was interesting.

 

[Aerodyamic]

That said, if I offered to pay for dinner, it's based on the fact that I'm willing to do so because I enjoyed spending the time with you, and not because I feel you're legitimately incapable of paying for your share. I've done that on a number of dates, and after a number of dinners with friends; I'm more interested in demonstrating gratitude for agreeable company than in demonstrating that I'm a successful hunter/gatherer. I have allowed my date to offer the gratuity in most cases where I've paid for the dinner, though.

I wonder if you could look further into the idea of paying for dinner as a way of demonstrating gratitude for pleasing company? Is this really how you decide who pays for dinner, because it raises some secondary questions.

Was your company not enjoyable? If the lady was quiet and reserved, but the gentleman was charming and vivacious, should she then be paying for dinner in order to demonstrate gratitude for the entertaining company?


captcha: be mine

I think if the scenario was as described, I think it's fair the person that did the 'asking out' should have the option of choosing to pay for the enjoyable time, or only offering to split the cost. If I asked someone out on a proper date, and I had a good time in their company, I feel totally justified in offering to pay for the whole thing, and allowing them to cover the gratuity, unless they would prefer to share the cost.

I'd be a bit of an ass if I didn't graciously accept their offer to pay, although in a 'standard date situation', I'd feel more responsible for paying, as the asker, if you see what I mean?

I hope that didn't sound as awkward as it sounds re-reading it, but hopefully it's relatively cogent.

 

[Carnagath]

I open doors and stuff for everyone to be honest, its just polite.

Same here in everyday life. On the quite rare occasion that I'm on a date however, I tend to avoid it. It's hard to explain why, I'm 29 and it makes me feel 50 for some reason.

 

[tensorproduct]

That said, if I offered to pay for dinner, it's based on the fact that I'm willing to do so because I enjoyed spending the time with you, and not because I feel you're legitimately incapable of paying for your share. I've done that on a number of dates, and after a number of dinners with friends; I'm more interested in demonstrating gratitude for agreeable company than in demonstrating that I'm a successful hunter/gatherer. I have allowed my date to offer the gratuity in most cases where I've paid for the dinner, though.

I wonder if you could look further into the idea of paying for dinner as a way of demonstrating gratitude for pleasing company? Is this really how you decide who pays for dinner, because it raises some secondary questions.

Was your company not enjoyable? If the lady was quiet and reserved, but the gentleman was charming and vivacious, should she then be paying for dinner in order to demonstrate gratitude for the entertaining company?


captcha: be mine

I think if the scenario was as described, I think it's fair the person that did the 'asking out' should have the option of choosing to pay for the enjoyable time, or only offering to split the cost. If I asked someone out on a proper date, and I had a good time in their company, I feel totally justified in offering to pay for the whole thing, and allowing them to cover the gratuity, unless they would prefer to share the cost.

I'd be a bit of an ass if I didn't graciously accept their offer to pay, although in a 'standard date situation', I'd feel more responsible for paying, as the asker, if you see what I mean?

I hope that didn't sound as awkward as it sounds re-reading it, but hopefully it's relatively cogent.

I wouldn't have thought to look at it like that. Interesting.

So, this method of splitting a bill only really makes sense if romantic intentions are involved, I think. If a platonic female friend suggested that you have dinner together (because that's the sort of thing that friends do) would you then not offer to pay? What if you have asked a male friend to dinner, would you still feel obliged to pay? How about group scenarios?

I bring this up because I think that only extending this sort of politeness to women in whom you have romantic interest strongly undercuts any notion of gentlemanly behaviour. Particularly if you consider "gentlemanliness" to be polite behaviour extended to all parties (apologies if you have not in fact made that argument).

 

[Ed Classified]

Giving your coat to women when it's cold can be considered sexist.
On the other hand it would be kinda weird to be with a bunch of guys and suddenly say
"Dave you look chilly, here take my coat."
Although treating someone differently based on gender is the definition of sexist,
I don't see any harm done in this case.
Assuming you don't have any malevolent intentions I'd say don't worry about it.

 

[Soods]

Is it sexist? Yes
Is it rude behaviour? No

 

[SuperNova221]

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.

Just quoting this because it's exactly what I was going to say. Don't have much else to say, you expressed it very succinctly.

 

[Naeo]

If you only act that way toward women on the basis of "they're women," then technically, yes, that is sexism. But only because "-ism" words are very broadly defined as providing different treatment based on whatever factor/word the "-ism" is attached to. So "black people are awesome runners," while a positive statement, is still racist.

That being said: there is absolutely nothing wrong with treating women in a gentlemanly fashion, and people who want to get their panties in a bunch are just looking for something stupid and pointless to be upset about. Yes, one can be a "gentleman" in a very patronizing manner, and that is absolute dickery in and of itself. But in general, holding the door for someone or offering someone your jacket/coat or generally being courteous to other human beings is not a case of negative sexism. It's not a way of saying "oh you poor thing, you need help doing X". It's "I am a nice person, and it would not be going too far out of my way to give you a hand with what you're doing right now, so I shall."

 

[BrassButtons]

But in general, holding the door for someone or offering someone your jacket/coat or generally being courteous to other human beings is not a case of negative sexism. It's not a way of saying "oh you poor thing, you need help doing X". It's "I am a nice person, and it would not be going too far out of my way to give you a hand with what you're doing right now, so I shall."

If you do those things for anyone, then yeah, it's just a nice gesture. But if you only do those things for women, because they are women, then it's hard to argue that it's not about women being less capable than men.

 

[t3h br0th3r]

the real question here is: what is gentlemanly?

does it differ from person to person or region to region?

and do you expect to get laid simply by opening the door, or do you hope that opening the door will open you a door to get to talking with her so she may open her door for your own entry at a later date?

:tophat:

 

[Naeo]

But in general, holding the door for someone or offering someone your jacket/coat or generally being courteous to other human beings is not a case of negative sexism. It's not a way of saying "oh you poor thing, you need help doing X". It's "I am a nice person, and it would not be going too far out of my way to give you a hand with what you're doing right now, so I shall."

If you do those things for anyone, then yeah, it's just a nice gesture. But if you only do those things for women, because they are women, then it's hard to argue that it's not about women being less capable than men.

I suppose, then, that buying beer before guy friends come over implies that guys are all alcoholics, that letting someone get over a lane in traffic implies they're an incapable driver who can't get over to save their life, that spotting someone a few dollars means you think they're a poor sob, etc. It has nothing to do with women being less capable than men, or being less capable than anything. It's entirely about the golden rule: treat others how you want to be treated.

For funsies, let's try a thought experiment. Imagine a society in which the women are always being gentlemanly (ignore the oddness of the gendered term there for now) towards men, and men are not expected to necessarily return that. Cries of "sexism" are bound to occur, since it's forcing the women to do everything for the men. Yet in our society today, we have a similar (though granted, fading with the upcoming generation) structure of men being expected to be gentlemanly and courteous towards women, but women not necessarily being expected to return the favor. And somehow that's still sexism against women because "they're incapable". Maybe it's sexism against men, since they're willingly submitting to another person on the basis of them being female, and society is okay with that.

And a quibble time. The differences, for all intents and purposes, in how most people will treat men versus women in their day-to-day life is inconsequential. It might consist of holding the door a bit longer, being a little more likely to offer to help lift something heavy, etc etc. Ultimately, it's of little difference for most people. So trying to cry "sexism" and "it implies women are less capable than men" is, simply, crap. When I take a minute to explain a math concept to someone who's struggling with it, it doesn't mean I think they're incapable of doing math. When I regularly try to give a quick hand to people having trouble with their homework, it doesn't mean I think they're stupid. similarly, holding the door for a woman or offering to help them get a heavy suitcase into the overhead compartment on the airplane doesn't mean I think they're less capable. So please, don't throw that accusation around, because it's absolute crap.

 

[BrassButtons]

snip

You seem to be confusing "helping people because they could use a hand" and "helping women because they are women."

If you hold the door for someone because they have their hands full, or because otherwise the door would slam in their face, or simply to help them out, then you are being a polite person. If you only hold the door open for women, simply because they are women, then you are being sexist.

 

[Abedeus]

Well, I try to act as gentlemanly as I can, but... only if a woman deserves it. Random strangers? Sure, I don't judge them, treat them well. Girls I like? Same, treat them well. Annoying bitches that have superiority complex or think they're in the center of the word? Hell no.

You can expect to be treated like a woman when you act like a woman.

 

[Cyfu]

I have a question. and I have NOT thought this through at all.

Is it bad being sexist if it doesn't hurt anyone?
Is being nicer to women really that bad?
I wouldn't mind if people were nicer to me because I am a man.

(does me thinking like this make me a sexist? because that would suck)

 

[Naeo]

snip

You seem to be confusing "helping people because they could use a hand" and "helping women because they are women."

If you hold the door for someone because they have their hands full, or because otherwise the door would slam in their face, or simply to help them out, then you are being a polite person. If you only hold the door open for women, simply because they are women, then you are being sexist.

I grant this; however, as I might have not clearly stated in my other post (looking back, it's a bit of a mess), I meant primarily to rebut the "it's about women being less capable than men" part, and the general notion (which I may have been reacting to more broadly in the topic rather than your post) that everything that is defined as sexism is inherently bad and evil. Since sexism is, in its most basic form, different treatment based on sex, it does not necessarily encompass better or worse treatment. I do treat women slightly differently, but that may be a product of my upbringing; yes it is technically sexism, but I reject the general knee-jerk reaction to that term (in the topic, not necessarily in your post specifically); I find it odd that in the same topic, people are trying to be very careful in defining "sexism" as "any sort of different treatment based on sex" while (often different) people are trying to shoot down anything that gets the label "sexist" as being a bad thing. Further, I reject that my slightly different treatment says anything about the capability of women; rather, I am convinced it is just a result of my relatives always telling me to respect women.