Poll: Is treating women in Gentlemanly way Sexist?

[cdstephens]

Technically, if you're treating someone based on their sex it is sexism, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily bad or harmful, unless you have a sense of entitlement about it (i.e. "I gave you my coat therefore you need to do something for me").

Really, asking whether or not it's sexist is the wrong question. If you behave this way specifically towards women, then it's sexist. A better question would be whether it's harmful or not. I personally don't think it is, although I can understand why some women wouldn't feel comfortable being treated so nicely, and the same for women treating men this way (in this case it would simply be because it's not "traditional"). All in all though, it's hard to argue that being polite is a bad thing inherently.

 

[Robert Ewing]

Technically it is. But there is a very apt phrase I'd like to quote.

Chivalry when they like it, Sexism when they don't. Simple as.

You must leave chivalry to be judged by the female you are being chivalrous to. So by that logic, it's safe to just not be chivalrous for fear of getting the bad end of the deal.

 

[Thomiroth]

I just treat everyone the way I want to be treated. I find it generally works. Nobody's ever complained when I held the door open for them and said 'After you.' Often I'll let a couple of people go on through, because I'm rarely in a rush.

The same goes for giving up my seat to an old person on the bus. I don't care about gender, I merely offer. If they accept it or not, the ball is firmly in their court. I was just brought up to do things like that and I can understand why, since people like me being mannerly as much as I enjoy seeing them smile when they find out that chivalry isn't dead after all.

Hells, even a cheery hello to random passers by in the park can improve somebody's day.

 

[TheRundownRabbit]

No, its not sexist. And I'm tired of trying to act gentlemanly towards women when all I get is "Oh, so you think I can't do it cause I'm a women?" this irks to the core mostly because I do it out of common-courtesy and not out of what is expected of a gentleman. I swear, I went to the airport and saw this women with 3 heavy-looking bags, I picked 2 up and said "Let me help you these." She responded with a rolling of eyes, an irritated grunt, and the phrase "Fucking sexist." I just said "Ok", dropped the bags in front of her and finished my sentence with "Have fun."

 

[Jynthor]

Of course it's sexist, everything is sexist these days.

 

[Electrogecko]

This argument implies that women would be better at... almost everything. Or at least at almost everything that would require the assistance of a secretary. Communication, empathy and organizational skills are the most important parts of any commercial endeavour. So, do you think that it would be sexist for businesses to simply cease hiring men?

Some people might think it's sexist of me to say, but there's also the fact that most men would prefer to be greeted by a woman for the reason of physical attractiveness. On the flip side though, I have no problem with an office that deals with a demographic of mostly women employing an attractive male as a secretary.

Given how many more women there would be in business under this plan, I think that hot guys had better start working on their typing skills!

Well.....yeah kind of. There may be some aspect of being an ambitious and agressive businessman (or woman) that makes men more suited for it....even if it is just the competitive nature....the abilitiy to be emotionally detached, selfish,....a dick. But for the most part, yeah, I think women are better at just about everything mental. There may have been a time when being physically capable gave a person a major advantage in life, but humans have evolved into an intellectual and intellectually dependant species and now, unless you're a pro athelete, being physically adept isn't going to make you rich or famous.

The thing is, it would be dumb for a company to, as you suggest, stop hiring males altogether, because while the difference in physicality between the genders is substancial, the difference in mental ability is not so much. I'm sure there are more than a few strong women out there who make a living moving heavy supplies.

I have to stress that none of the things I've said here were researched and all of the differences between genders are based on an average and may not be substantial at all....obviously there are guys who are smarter than 99% of women and women who are stronger than 99% of guys.

But lots of people like living in an imaginary world where all the sexes (and races too, for that matter) are the same, and anybody with basic logic can tell you that that's not possible. Someone always has to come out on top, and while it's not a competition or something that's worth debate, it's stupid to deny it.

 

[Kuroneko97]

Of course not. But don't limit it to just women, since that mean you're singling them out. Just try to be an overall nice guy, and if somebody messes with you too much, invite them to a bareknuckle boxing match.

Spoiler: If you...

,you're doing it right.

 

[tensorproduct]

Well.....yeah kind of. There may be some aspect of being an ambitious and agressive businessman (or woman) that makes men more suited for it....even if it is just the competitive nature....the abilitiy to be emotionally detached, selfish,....a dick. But for the most part, yeah, I think women are better at just about everything mental. There may have been a time when being physically capable gave a person a major advantage in life, but humans have evolved into an intellectual and intellectually dependant species and now, unless you're a pro athelete, being physically adept isn't going to make you rich or famous.

The thing is, it would be dumb for a company to, as you suggest, stop hiring males altogether, because while the difference in physicality between the genders is substancial, the difference in mental ability is not so much. I'm sure there are more than a few strong women out there who make a living moving heavy supplies.

I have to stress that none of the things I've said here were researched and all of the differences between genders are based on an average and may not be substantial at all....obviously there are guys who are smarter than 99% of women and women who are stronger than 99% of guys.

But lots of people like living in an imaginary world where all the sexes (and races too, for that matter) are the same, and anybody with basic logic can tell you that that's not possible. Someone always has to come out on top, and while it's not a competition or something that's worth debate, it's stupid to deny it.

And other people live in a fantasy world where gender and race are the most important differences between people.

 

[Leemaster777]

Nope.

Because I act like a gentleman towards everyone.


I'm classy like that.

Well said, good sir. Care for a cup of tea?

OT: As others have said, it really comes down to one thing: If you're acting that way ONLY to women, then yes, it is. If that's just how you act to everyone, then you're just being polite.

 

[Electrogecko]

*Snipped entirely because even if this post was formatted correctly (it wasn't) it would still be a complete wall of text full of references to statements that were made about 10 pages ago.*

"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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

"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 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.

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.

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.

You should be a politician.

 

[texanarob]

The simplest answer to your question would be yes, being a gentleman is technically sexist.

The problem is than most people associate bias towards someone based on gender, race or other physical factors to be somehow wrong, due to rare extreme incidents.

For example, turning an entire ethnicity into slaves is racist. It is also wrong.
Hiring a person of same ethnicity to act in a movie is also racist, as it involves making a decision based solely on race. This, however, is not considered wrong.

Example 2: Refusing to allow one gender basic rights, such as voting, is sexist, and wrong.
On the other hand, making generally accurate assumptions, such as that a woman is more likely to feel the cold, or less likely to want to compete in contact sports, is also sexist. However, it is based on life experience, and exceptions would be tolerated. This is therefore not wrong.

Thinking about this, I reckon there are several basic rules of thumb:
1) If there is sufficient evidence to suggest one group may be more prone to a characteristic, assumptions may be made.
2) Assumptions from 1) must not become opinionated rulings. If a member of the group shows they do not follow the trend, this must be accepted and embraced, rather than met with anger, refusal or denial.

As far as acts towards someone you are trying to start a relationship with go, would it not be a decision based on gender to choose one gender over another for said relationship? This is sexism at it's most basic, and most of us accept it (again, there are exceptions where people may be bisexual.)

Lose the political correctness fears and just do what seems reasonable. If you offer your coat and she rejects it, that's fine. If you don't offer your coat to a guy who obviously needs it, that's a judgement call.

 

[texanarob]

I must accept no such thing. Statistics is a good deal more complicated than that. Elementary school maths is simply not equipped to cover this sort of thing, just as it's not sufficient to deal with serious problems in engineering, physics, or chemistry. Why do you think that people can spend there whole lives studying these fields, if it was possible to infer everything from some basic arithmetic?

If you refuse to consider that the maths required is more difficult and subtle than you have been taught, then so be it. I can't make you learn, and I abhor such willful ignorance (which is certainly not gentlemanly).

Having studied engineering, i can appreciate the anguish of realising that, unless very accurate data is required, basic mathematical estimations are adequate for most situations. The fact that a subject may be studied for a lifetime does not mean the basic starting blocks are useless in real situations.

I admit not reading the ~90 pages of discussion, so I cannot claim to understand the entire argument made on both sides. I merely wanted to point out that high school maths, alongside common sense, is enough for most situations.

 

[tensorproduct]

Having studied engineering, i can appreciate the anguish of realising that, unless very accurate data is required, basic mathematical estimations are adequate for most situations. The fact that a subject may be studied for a lifetime does not mean the basic starting blocks are useless in real situations.

I admit not reading the ~90 pages of discussion, so I cannot claim to understand the entire argument made on both sides. I merely wanted to point out that high school maths, alongside common sense, is enough for most situations.

High school level maths and below, along with a smattering of common sense absolutely is useful in a whole bunch of situations. However, this is not always the case. Probability and statistics are fairly counter-intuitive, and if the more advanced and correct maths disagrees with the simpler stuff, then it's best to play it safe.

I'm more annoyed by how quickly the point went from "Well I used statistics to prove I'm right" to "Elementary school math supports my argument, why would I use anything else?". It's lazy, dishonest and anti-intellectual.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

*snippity*

I have to respect your tenacity for responding on this topic for 19 pages. I haven't read all of the pages, but from what I've seen I agree with most of what you've been saying.

Although, I do have a question. Let's say that a man opened the door for a woman not intending to be respectful, but just so he would seem like a nice guy, improving the chance that she'd want to sleep with him. Would that be sexist?

Bear in mind I was just using that scenario as an example, I in no way think that most guys open doors with the intention of getting sex out of it. Nor do I think that it's all that effective of a method to do so. Giving them your coat however...

OT: I would say it's sexist (not the prior example, the OP), provided that you wouldn't treat a guy in the exact same way. For the record, I don't feel any different if I open the door for a man or woman, or if a man or woman opens a door for me. There's no reason one gender should deserve more respect that the other.

It's certainly not the worst thing in the world, and anyone freaking out at you for opening the door for them is being at least as prejudiced as you would be for only opening it for a woman.

I'm seeing a lot of statements trying to put men and women into separate, clearly defined groups, and I completely disagree with that. I don't like to fight or watch people fight, I don't drink, fart jokes have no appeal to me, I don't like sports and I feel just as, if not more, comfortable hanging out with some of my female friends than with the majority of my male friends. Not because they're female, but because I happen to like those specific people better. I do not fit the typical male stereotype, and I'm positive that I'm not alone in this respect. Making blanket statements about one gender (such as women are smarter and more capable in the workplace) or the other is bound to leave many exceptions. Many women will like chivalry, but there's bound to be those who won't. No one likes to be stereotyped. Being on a gaming website, a hobby whose fanbase is widely considered to be out of shape, antisocial, and completely lacking in hygiene I'd hope that this would be the first place to avoid feeding into stereotypes (and thankfully most people aren't).

People are not a sum of their labels, and they should not be treated as such.

 

[cobra_ky]

*snippity*

I have to respect your tenacity for responding on this topic for 19 pages. I haven't read all of the pages, but from what I've seen I agree with most of what you've been saying.

Although, I do have a question. Let's say that a man opened the door for a woman not intending to be respectful, but just so he would seem like a nice guy, improving the chance that she'd want to sleep with him. Would that be sexist?

Bear in mind I was just using that scenario as an example, I in no way think that most guys open doors with the intention of getting sex out of it. Nor do I think that it's all that effective of a method to do so. Giving them your coat however...

Nope. It would seem just like another form of flirting. The basis of it is not that the person thinks genders should be treated differently, it's that the person in question is attracted to the other and acting on that. Think I mentioned that before some pages ago. Didn't to that other dude because he's just being ridiculous by saying *any* differences as that's very unlikely to be the case, especially in regards to all women. Seemed like an ad hoc excuse.

Though after 19 pages I'm starting to cringe whenever I see a new bit of mail in my inbox. -__-

i'm not sure, trying to emotionally manipulate women into having sex with you feels pretty sexist to me.

 

[dslatch]

Its the good kind of sexism