General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis message was self-deleted by its author
This message was self-deleted by its author (Orrex) on Sun Mar 17, 2013, 09:28 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
boston bean
(36,929 posts)but when I'm 100 feet behind and some guys turns and looks down the parking lot and sees me coming and waits for me to finally reach the door holding it open all along, it pisses me off.
Why, because I felt I needed to rush so as not to inconvenience them any longer for holding the door for little ole me.
Happens more often than you would think.
Orrex
(67,083 posts)If it seems that he (or she, because it has happened to me) is forcing you to alter your behavior simply so that you can receive his (or her) "courtesy," then it's not courtesy at all.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)And it often is flat out annoying and rude.
And somebody can say, "ladies first" and not be showing "benevolent sexism." They may just be joking around if, for example, you arrived at the door in the same moment and then both froze to avoid an archie bunker/meathead moment with both getting stuck in the doorway.
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,847 posts)Maybe not a hundred feet but a good 20-25. There ought to be a rule of thumb for that, like maybe a 3-second interval: if it would take you longer than 3 seconds to reach the door at a normal pace, a stranger should not stand and hold the door for you.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)and wait for me to cross despite the fact that they don't control (and don't seem to bother looking at) the other lanes.
babylonsister
(172,744 posts)Who cares what you call it, and why all the brain power to define it? How about perhaps it's just about manners, or how someone was raised?
And I don't care if a stranger doesn't hold the door open either. I don't analyze people's intentions, or lack of.
Orrex
(67,083 posts)A very sensible response to this topic.
babylonsister
(172,744 posts)I guess you don't have me on 'ignore'. 
Ninga
(9,012 posts)
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)They must have some long list of ignors.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Of course she was raised in he Ukraine and has a different way of looking at things than most American do.
babylonsister
(172,744 posts)the next person, but I won't condemn anyone for not holding the door open for me. I just don't define people that way. And PS, I hold the door open for both sexes when in a position to do so. No big deal.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Don't see the need to over analyze everything all of the time. Just live and be happy
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)Yep me too. It just seems rude to let a door close in someone's face. I'll take the potential heat for it if someone gets irked because I know my intentions are pure.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And they are distracting us with the issue of manners.
So as to avoid the issue of benevolent sexism, which is about putting women on a pedestal to "sell" them on being limited in their lives.
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)I don't get this whole thing, either.
If I'm far enough away that I'd have to rush and it looks like they'll wait, I'll wave them off (with a smile, because they are trying to be nice). If I'm close enough, I'll say thank you. I anticipate the same when I hold a door and I'm not gender specific about it.
It's such a small thing to fret about.
The only part of door opening that annoys me are the people who walk through the door I just opened from the opposite direction, causing me to step aside. Especially the ones who are on their phones or have their nose buried in their text messages and don't even bother looking up. The temptation to stick a foot out in front of them is sometimes strong . . .
Geoff R. Casavant
(2,381 posts)On an already crowded bus, a woman gets on, and a man stands up and offers her the seat.
She is offended. "You don't have to offer me a seat just because I'm a lady!"
He replies, "I didn't offer the seat because you're a lady. I offered the seat because I am a gentleman."
mazzarro
(3,450 posts)
Hekate
(100,133 posts)Honestly, when a woman is that pregnant it is hard to keep one's feet on a swaying bumpy bus. The young men in front of me did not get it. The very old lady did, and she was so short she had to hold on to a seat back once she got up.
My whole adult life, the issue of things like holding doors or giving up a seat has been a matter of manners and compassion, not gender. I've done those things myself, many many times. For myself, I can choose to say "no" with a smile, if saying "no" seems appropriate. What is the point of taking offense? I have never understood that.
Hekate
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I'm certainly going to call that cluelessness, or an ignorant lack of manners.
Still, I tend to hold the door for people if they're nearby, male, female, young, old, middle aged. Anyone who wants to call that sexist can take their label and...
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)I was raised to be courteous to everyone too.
Generic Other
(29,080 posts)And if I am the one to reach the door first, I extend the courtesy.
Orrex
(67,083 posts)By acting like a human being and holding the door for another human being, he might have been trying to keep you in your place!
pintobean
(18,101 posts)The other side of the door?
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)in light of the enormous economic, climatic, etc. problems facing us. imho
Orrex
(67,083 posts)Thank you.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)malevolent sexism (or whatever they called it; I forget). But it was the kind of sexism that put women "in their place" when they don't play the expected role.
That includes everything from putting them in their economic place (fewer opportunities, lower pay) to violence. And that does become important, at least if you are a single woman trying to survive and maybe even have a life.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)it is so damn trivial. not to mention a totally fabricated strawman outrage being created by too many.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)feminist on this board.
a huge ass disrespect for everyone of your manufactured outrage over an outrage that is not happening.
pure bullshit.
you play your dishonest and contemptible game with the other boys. i do not find it cute. dishonest. yes. i have never been much into dishonesty. so many seem not to have an issue with it.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)as lie after lie after lie is created about me. dude.
not into lies. have never been into lies. the lies is growing, like a blob. you men are so victimized. all because of a lie you are creating.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)doesn't mean you're being persecuted.
put down the cross and come back to reality.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)You're onto something there.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)
You have a nice day.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that does not exist to create men as the ultimate in victimhood.
thanks for playing
as always
and so consistently.
truth does not have to be a part of your story.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Is that wrong?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Whew. I thought you might think it was sexist of me. Glad we cleared that up.
Have a nice day.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)It's everywhere! 
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Because they are everywhere.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)what a nutbar!
JI7
(93,561 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)
Well done.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And that does not mean the others aren't up for discussion.
If we were to argue over the JFK assassination it wouldn't matter to anything. But it would be interesting. People talk about more than their immediate problems. Or they'd be real bores if they did.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)
Whisp
(24,096 posts)
Not a great fan of the movie, but that's a terrific image
babylonsister
(172,744 posts)what are those guys doing? New exercise? I have no idea, but it's funny.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)This is a clip from one of my favourite comedies called The Big Lebowski. 
babylonsister
(172,744 posts)obviously don't get out much. 
tridim
(45,358 posts)Please see the movie, it's amazing. Top 5 all time, easily IMO.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts) Whisp
(24,096 posts)
tavernier
(14,433 posts)
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,847 posts)
BainsBane
(57,751 posts)It's true. Sometimes I've had the door held open for me in the awkward zone. I rush to try to get there, but I certainly didn't feel offended. Naturally one should always thank another person who holds the door open. It does bother me when people don't thank me when I hold the door open for them.
cali
(114,904 posts)Orrex
(67,083 posts) 
gollygee
(22,336 posts)You don't. If someone opens the door for me, I smile and say thank you. And I notice people act the same when I open the door.
But this issue isn't about individual acts of door opening. It's about looking at society as a whole and seeing how women are treated differently. I think many people these days open the door for everyone, but the societal standard has been has been that men open the door for the elderly, the infirm, children, and women. Women don't belong in the group of people who need assistance opening doors. So it's about that underlying feeling. It isn't about the door, and I doubt anyone is getting upset when anyone opens any door.
Orrex
(67,083 posts)I've known men who hold the anachronistic "ladies first" view, and they refuse to see it as sexist or retrograde, and their overall personalities tend to follow that same mode of thinking. It is problematic to take issue with the behavior without clearly distinguishing which behaviors in this context are deemed sexist and which are acceptable.
At some point we'll be standing around looking at the closed door and unable to take the initiative to open it for fear of possible unintended subtext.
MattBaggins
(7,948 posts)The feminists who write about the issue already know all this but thank god they had you to come along and benevolently explain this to them.
But way to completely and utterly miss the point and still try to make the reducto argument of some fantasy world where people won't open the door for others. You almost understand the problem of what it means if you treat women special because of some archaic values system but then never draw that connection. It boggles the mind.
I apologize. Carry on with the high school team debate of opening doors.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Are you feeling a little bit patronised?
Orrex
(67,083 posts)That would be very helpful. I wouldn't want to risk patronizing anybody by replying to a post in a thread that I started. What the fuck was I thinking?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)No one cares who opens the doors. No one is concerned about this. The concept of benevolent sexism is about examining motives behind things, not about getting upset when someone opens the door, or worrying about why someone is opening the door on an individual level.
Someone asked what it was, someone answered, and now people are acting like door opening is a big feminist issue. No.
Orrex
(67,083 posts)Someone did indeed ask what it was, and someone answered "benevolent sexism would be holding the door open, pulling out a chair, ect... "
It should hardly be surprising that some people have interpreted that answer as, you know, an answer.
Tien1985
(923 posts)I saw where the whole door opening obsession started yesterday (with a definition, that was ASKED for) and every time I have checked in since in the last 24 hours, there has been at least one thread bemoaning the permissabilty of opening doors.
Continue opening doors. Be aware of a wider social problem that sometimes is shown by it (but not always). Or don't be aware of it. No big deal.
It's like being upset if someone said "people who are arrogant sometimes drive a Prius" and all Prius drivers freaking out.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)thank you so fuckin' much.
this fabricated and manufactured fake bullshit outrage men have created thread after thread is a hell of a lot more telling.
Do women really want to be treated the same as men, though?
I don't. If the guys are sitting around shooting the shit, backslapping and calling each other names, acting like guys do when they get together, do women want to be treated like one of them?
If a man is in a rush to get on a bus or train, it's OK to push a woman out of the way and get on first as long as he would also do it to another man?
Or not give his seat up to a woman who is standing?
Or not stop to help a woman change a flat tire even though he might not do the same for another man?
There are probably other situations where woman might not want to be treated the same way as men are, as well.
If that's the case, then doesn't it look a little hypocritical to say that women shouldn't be treated any differently, then turn around and say, "Oh...except for here, here and here".
I dunno. I tend not to look a gift horse in the mouth. I don't care if I get "special" treatment because I'm a woman. I just figure a man who stops to help me, for whatever reason...or a man who respects me by not treating me like one of his buddies...is doing it because he was brought up to respect women.
I, personally, am more concerned with "benevolent sexism" when it applies to, for example, an employer who tells a woman that she doesn't need to make the same wages as a male coworker because she's married and has a man to take care of her.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)The example of an employer paying less because he doesn't think a woman needs to make as much isn't benevolent sexism. That is just plain old regular sexism.
The others are, although I think no one should be pushing anyone out of the way on a bus or train, so I think the answer there would be polite to everyone, not to only be polite to women.
Whether you personal mind it isn't the point either. Some people don't mind it. Some women don't mind it. I don't really care who minds it or who does it. I am just interested in the underlying assumptions behind benevolent sexism. We can discuss this kind of thing without being upset about it.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)At least where I live, the old, the infirm, and anybody loaded up with stuff, like groceries or work related stuff. The you might have to put this down to open a door, or worst might lose balance and fall.
Oh this includes men, women and children.
But now I get some of this, cause quite frankly...I was scratching my head. Seriously scratching my head.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)and I can see how it would cause you to scratch your head.
Yes, I think the door opening example is an example more from the past than the present anyway. People seem to hold the door open for anyone who might need it or is nearby these days.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)People going on furlough and meals on wheels defunded, among many larger issues...this looks rather petty.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)I disagree that we aren't able to discuss a variety of issues.
I think it's petty to set up strawmen and try to pretend that the feminists at DU are concerned about people opening doors, but I would feel that way regardless of what larger issues were going on.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)But people need to be careful of frames used, regardless of whether imposed. (I saw this from who opens doors on) or adopted.
Racism and sexism are institutionalized in the culture...both are part of pay structures, educational and job opportunities. And both are partly to protect "lesser beings." By a dominant society. Well, discuss that. And if somebody imposes on you distracting frames at times it's best to ignore it. Why? Nowhere have I seen in this discussion anything about sexism, just doors.
Hey, I got late to the party.
fishwax
(29,346 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)it would be like you shoved aside and another man stepping in to lift the gurney, cause you are a "lady" and should not be expected to pull your weight.
pissed?
the men are creating a false issue to present themselves as a victim by those mean old feminists picking on them. feel sorry for them. they do not know what to do. just being nice guys.
the issue came forward in a thread, about women with big boobs. a thread for men to cackle about womens boobs. in the OP the word benevolent sexism was in the article.
a poster asked, what is benevolent sexism.
i gave a definition.
no more... not a discussion. knowing full well what would happen in GD having an actual discussion about benevolent sexism. i only gave the person who asked a definition.
and the men took off, in OP after OP crying about not being able to hold a damn door open.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Because I was the officer in charge and anybody in the crew not pulling their weight got a talk from me.
What strikes me as odd is that you are having a problem comprehending how a trivial, quite frankly non issue...cause quite frankly the vast majority of us simply don't see this as an issue. Forgive me, it's really a non issue...is not helping you advance a real problem, but hey...I will continue to scratch my head, and continue to open the door for others, men, gasp women, and children..-and will continue to thank others when they do same. We call it common courtesy, and in my town it is quite gender neutral, thank you very much.
It is really nowhere close to we give a shit, for most of us I think, category. Not with things like violence against women, that is a real issue, unequal pay, very real issue, educational opportunities, talk of real issue...if we were worrying about doors and hidden messages, those larger issues would be like solved.
I guess I am not pure as a feminist...I mean not at all...just led the way in a service where women were mostly unknown and became one of the boys....now that my dear is institutional sexism. Opening or closing doors, not so much.
So yes, forgive me why I do a healthy
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)you reduce me to.
k
gotcha.
wow.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Not sexism.
Sorry.
Opening doors =/= non issue.
Sexism is...
So sorry, perhaps you should not have included doors in your definition, which is where I take it this is coming from.
Perhaps you should have included things like being one of the boys, having to fight for us lesser beings to be able to do an overnight shift ( it was a very real issue back in the day) or the fact that boot makers, to this day, do not make enough boot models for women engaged in construction or emergency services (yup, I ended up, again, getting a male boot for fire season)
Perhaps if your definition included things like "women's work" which is paid less, or women who make less in the same job as men, cause they are well women. Now none of these is trivial, though the boot issue I would avoid...it's still quite trivial compared to pay, which is part of what you are trying to define.
The boot issue it is as trivial for most, as the slave auction set from Ral Parthe way in the past, talk about objectification. Or opening doors.
So perhaps your example is part of the problem here. Nothing personal.
But I guess I am nowhere close to a feminist...
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i explained how it happened. you ignored.
that is all.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I am just telling you what the rest of us are seeing
I can lead a horse to water, but can't force that horse...
This really reminds me of my feminism class back in the eighties.
Instructor was clear, on what these days we call framing...it is the greatest enemy...it remains so.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)feminist outraged about doors.
yet, because that is what you are seeing being said, you tell me it becomes a fact. though, NO feminist is actually outraged about the damn doors.
thank you so much for your support.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Have a good life.
I guess I am not a feminist for not seeing what is *really* going on.
This reminds me of the other line as we finished the course...but will keep it to myself. This non issue is textbook of that.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Again, I will save that comment from my prof...suffice it to say...it's textbook.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Why? There is not one single original post that asserts this. NOT ONE.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Read what I said about framing.
Back in the 80s it was not called that way. Perhaps the original definition should have staid away from it and be more clear.
But at this point, regardless of the intent, it's become about doors. Again, framing.
I won't tell you how to. I spent my youth kicking those doors open, not talking about it.
So I find this double ironic
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)that feminists are talking about opening doors.
The entire lies are built on someone asking in the boob thread what benevolent feminism is, seabeyond responded with this (and a big pile of lying steaming shit was created):
no matter how many people keep pretending it is.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111004121314.htm
Benevolent sexism motivates chivalrous acts that many women may welcome, such as a man's offer to lift heavy boxes or install the new computer. While the path to benevolent sexism may be paved with good intentions, it reinforces the assumption that men possess greater competence than women, whom benevolent sexists view as wonderful, but weak and fragile.
Cross-national comparisons show that hostile and benevolent sexism go hand-in-hand (that is, nations that endorse hostile sexism also endorse benevolent sexism). The beliefs work together because benevolent sexism "rewards" women when they fulfill traditional roles whereas hostile sexism punishes women who do not toe the line, thereby working together to maintain traditional relations. In other words, act sweet and they'll pat you on the head; assert yourself and they'll put you in your place.
Numerous studies by various researchers document benevolent sexism's insidious effects. For example, when led to expect benevolently sexist help in a masculine workplace, women became unsure of themselves, got distracted, and consequently performed poorly.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)At this point *it is* about doors.
Again, framing...
Have a good day.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)and FEMINISTS ARE BATTLING AND REJECTING THAT FRAMING.
You are blaming those who are being lied about.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)But that is issue three my old prof mentioned...I guess I am not a feminist after all...she got accused of that too.
Double
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)
monmouth3
(3,871 posts)
Arkansas Granny
(32,265 posts)by this practice, so, in my ignorant state, I shall continue to thank those who hold a door for me and I'll continue to hold doors for others, regardless their age or gender, and consider it good manners.
treestar
(82,383 posts)But some people took the idea of benevolent sexism and are trying very hard to reduce it to this one thing. Note they picked the thing people now do for each other regardless of sex anyway.
Arkansas Granny
(32,265 posts)I had missed something.
CrispyQ
(40,937 posts)those who are exiting or those who are entering? I was taught that those who exit have the right of way, so as to make room for those who enter. Alas, this is no longer default behavior.
boston bean
(36,929 posts)unless of course, someone is in such a rush that they pass the others in front of them by going out the one people are going in.
make sense??
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)But there are people who don't get the concept.
Fla Dem
(27,613 posts)To me it's just manners. Two people converging on a door at approximately the same time, the first should just naturally hold the door for the second. It would be rude to do otherwise.
boston bean
(36,929 posts)by holding the door open with one hand while continuing on walking.
Unless, it is an elderly person or one with a handicap.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)I say there are bigger issues upon which to focus. This ain't one of 'em. Some of my fellow feminista sistas (I love you one and all) can sometimes spend a great deal of time on things that aren't as important as other issues, like VAW.
People hold the door open for me, I hold the door open for people. It's called courtesy. The end.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)suggested anyone holding the door open should feel a persons outrage. this is ALL fabricated by those that are looking for feminist to be outraged, and they cannot find anyone.
and yet.... still, we are being vilified.
this is literally a created attack on feminist when they start a boob thread to makes cracks about boobs. had benevolent sexism in the OP. one person asked what it is. i gave a definition. that was all.
if feminist cannot even give a definition when asked, without this abusrd assault and a creation of manifested outrage, then something is really wrong.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)have followed all of the threads on this whole Euripides play that is sometimes DU. 
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)When presenting their dishonest, manufactured outrage.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)you're one of my favorite DUers. Keep fighting the Good Fight, my friend. 
Orrex
(67,083 posts)
kdmorris
(5,649 posts)I think it started here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022512182 and continued here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022517432
The definitions included carrying heavy boxes for women, opening doors just for women and other forms of benevolent sexism that "many women appreciate".
That being said - this has turned GD into meta and made DU suck. It would have been better for her to leave benevolent sexism as just what you did - a definition of what it was. Two more threads were not needed to discuss it, right?
And I stand by what I said on the other two threads - I do not give a rat's ass about benevolent sexism right now when there is so much malevolent sexism out there. When we get to the point as a society that all we have left to worry about in gender equality is benevolent sexism, then we've truly made great strides... to me, it comes after sexual abuse and reproductive rights and equal pay for equal jobs.
This whole discussion about benevolent sexism and opening doors is a derailed train wreck and takes away from discussing serious issues (did you know that the judge is handing down his verdict in the Stuebenville case today? That thread sank like a ROCK while everyone was discussing holding doors and how men are hostile to women on DU). It's just another Meta subject now...
MattBaggins
(7,948 posts)isn't that important either and shouldn't be talked about or addressed either?
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)equals "institutionalized racsm?" Sorry, not seeing the equivalency here.
MattBaggins
(7,948 posts)you never will
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Seabeyond mentioned the concept in a passing way, someone asked what it was, she answered, and now people are acting like everyone is concerned about people opening the door, and that we are outraged or focused on it. No. It's just a concept someone asked about, and someone answered.
The only people who seem to be spending a great deal of time are those who are holding up this strawman of what they think feminists are outraged about, and bashing it down.
MattBaggins
(7,948 posts)The best people can do is take a complex issue and turn it into a high school debate team level example and then run around like chicken little.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)about men, the true little ole victims that they are.
all you people, jump on a thread crying out against those mean old feminist picking on the little boys that are such victims, just trying to be those "nice" guys.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)mock lifelong feminists. The topic that is being ridiculed is benevolent sexism. Opening or holding a door open is the distraction to avoid talking about that subject.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)nailed it right there
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Since then, I have never failed to hold the door. Sorry if that's sexist, but I plan to keep doing it. Lessons my parents (and grandparents) taught me seem to stand the test of time.
MattBaggins
(7,948 posts)And the sexist traditions our grandparents taught us might be better off left behind. Men who patronize women are often the same ones who promote their male employees over the female employees and never realize it. That is the issue.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Thanks kindly.
aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)Why cant we refrain from attributing bad behavior such as only promoting men unless that actually happens? I often hold doors open for men and women but I also find myself doing it only for women on occasion. I reject the notion it's patronizing women and when I was an employer I always tried my best to be fair. Gentlemanly behavior doesn't automatically translate into unfair behavior.
CherokeeDem
(3,736 posts)I look at holding a door open, and other gestures like this, to be common courtesy, and a sign of good manners. Part of this for me is a matter of physical needs; I'm 5'1" and have been faced with extremely heavy doors that have been difficult to open...I was grateful for the assistance.
I hold doors open for men, for women, for mothers with strollers, for UPS drivers...it's a courtesy...and to interpret that action as sexist is, in my opinion, an attempt to objectify both men and women. I've been guilty of holding the door too soon... but I always have this horror of letting a door close in someone's face. I've told people don't hurry...and if someone does that for me, I might pick the pace a bit, but usually I try to walk at a normal pace.
Even the 'ladies first' doesn't bother me... what would upset me is if someone held a door for me, then made a objectionable comment to me... the question is what's objectionable...'You look nice today' or 'Can I f*** you?" No one can make that determination but the individual.
There are many things political correctness needed to address... but not every situation and not every individual trying to be nice is guilty of 'benevolent sexism. The question is who commits benevolent sexism? Is it men vs women, women vs men, men vs men, women vs women? I believe in equality..., then wouldn't a woman holding the door open for me be guilty of benevolent sexism if she is assuming I am the 'weaker of her sex?'
I've fought for women's equality all my life...and I know sometimes we fight along the wrong paths. My feeling is if we address the core issues...a lot of other situations will be solved.
Orrex
(67,083 posts) 
unionthug777
(740 posts)my parents taught me to hold a door open for a lady. sometimes i even get a thank you, but if not, oh well.
MineralMan
(151,188 posts)It's probably also an unnecessary one, too. People will open doors for other people, whatever their motives. The best response is probably not to make any judgments about this at all, say "thanks" and walk on.
Making assumptions as to people's motives is a waste of time in most cases.
WolverineDG
(22,298 posts)a show of respect. I tend to view men (& women) who let doors close, or elbow me out of the way as impolite rubes & treat them accordingly.
I open doors or hold them open, so anyone closely following me can also get in. Much more nice than letting the door slam in their faces. But I guess that's what some here on DU would prefer.
AngryOldDem
(14,180 posts)I'm an equal opportunity door-holder.
I just wish I had the time and the energy to worry about such inconsequential stuff as this.
Not everything has to be turned into more ammo in the war of the sexes. But if it makes some people feel better to cuss someone else out for having good manners, go for it, I guess. 
WolverineDG
(22,298 posts)I'm sick & tired of being told I'm a victim by people who need to "save" me.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I appreciate when someone holds the door open for me and don't feel in the least bit threatened, nor a need to analyze why they did it. I have seen people go through doors and let them shut on the person coming after them. Mostly selfish, boorish people. So give me the door opener any day.
And somehow I've managed to survive as a woman who has never felt inferior to anyone or the need to over think every single act or word uttered by people when there are so many other important issues to focus on.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)the issue over and over and over. to vilify feminist. that did not start the discussion on benevolent sexism, nor give a shit about opening door. but in you walk, to let all of us know, that it really is not an issue.
bully for you and you ability to observe and access a situation.
or simple a willingness to once again, side with the men whose sole purpose is to diss the feminist on this board.
oh, i get it. it is your unique style of feminism, that is your own. and go at it hoss. even in the strawman created for the outrage and hair on fire being exhibited.
Orrex
(67,083 posts)And one of those threads had more than 250 replies. Apparently there are people who want to discuss this iteration of "benevolent sexism" even as others want to dismiss it as a strawman. To each her own.
Regardless of your intent in giving door-opening as one example of benevolent sexism, your choice to cite it has resonated with quite a few here on DU, and some of them aren't even "those men."
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)bothered with who opens doors, yet you and many other men continue to saying we feminist are outrage. that would be a lie, you know, dishonest. painting a picture that is not happening and using it as a weapon to attack feminists on the board.
so tell me, in all your insight and balance, how is that not offensive?
redqueen
(115,186 posts)Really, really cute.
Orrex
(67,083 posts)Some might foolishly interpret that as your assertion that benevolent sexism would be holding the door open, pulling out a chair, etc.
The fact that you or redqueen or anyone else hold open a door isn't the point; you cited "holding the door open" as emblematic of benevolent sexism, and people are responding to that.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)are outraged that men open doors is a manufactured argument. again, i ask, how that lie stands in all your good conscience.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Were those not your words?
Orrex
(67,083 posts)However, since you did offer "holding open doors" as an example, it seems reasonable to me that people will respond to that example. If that example shouldn't be part of the discussion, then perhaps another example might have been chosen. Or perhaps that example could have followed rather than proceeded the cited article?
I don't see any male outrage here, and to be honest the accusation seems calculated to trivialize an opppsing perspective. Also, comments about "po boys" and "those men" seem likewise intended to trivialize. How would you respond to someone who referred derisively to "those women" or "po girls?"
gollygee
(22,336 posts)And that example is a bit old fashioned even because most people just open doors for everyone in 2013. But there was a societal rule that men should open doors for women, and the rule existed for a long time, and societal rules including that are an example. That doesn't mean that every time one person opens a door for another person, it's an example of benevolent sexism. Just that societal rules about men taking care of women are examples of it, and even then the discussion is really on an academic level rather than about specific people or specific acts. Do you honestly not understand this?
Orrex
(67,083 posts)Think of all the threads and posts that could have been avoided.
People are generally more likely to reply to what someone posts, rather than to an excerpt of a longer article or to some after-the-fact exegesis of what the poster really meant to post in the first place. That's unfortunate, but I suspect that we've all seen it. We're seeing it right now, for example.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)outraged about a man opening the door.
not hard to find post after post, OP after OP of men insisting the will continue to open doors regardless of the opposition of a none existence of a feminist force.
from the start, to the end, this has all been a lie.
Orrex
(67,083 posts)Also, a male posting something disagreeable to you is *not* male outrage. Calling it outrage is an attempt at preemption.
Now, perhaps you could articulate why you feel such terms as "po boys" and "those men" serve to advance the discussion?
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)about feminist demanding men do not open doors or they will be OUTRAGED.
polly7
(20,582 posts)19. benevolent sexism would be holding the door open, pulling out a chair, ect...
Last edited Fri Mar 15, 2013, 09:39 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
Glick and Fiske have shown the negative consequences of attitudes that idealize women as pure, moral, pedestal-worthy objects of men's adoration, protection, and provision. People who endorse benevolent sexism feel positively toward women, but only when women conform to highly traditional ideals about "how women should be."
Benevolent sexism motivates chivalrous acts that many women may welcome, such as a man's offer to lift heavy boxes or install the new computer. While the path to benevolent sexism may be paved with good intentions, it reinforces the assumption that men possess greater competence than women, whom benevolent sexists view as wonderful, but weak and fragile.
Cross-national comparisons show that hostile and benevolent sexism go hand-in-hand (that is, nations that endorse hostile sexism also endorse benevolent sexism). The beliefs work together because benevolent sexism "rewards" women when they fulfill traditional roles whereas hostile sexism punishes women who do not toe the line, thereby working together to maintain traditional relations. In other words, act sweet and they'll pat you on the head; assert yourself and they'll put you in your place.
Numerous studies by various researchers document benevolent sexism's insidious effects. For example, when led to expect benevolently sexist help in a masculine workplace, women became unsure of themselves, got distracted, and consequently performed poorly.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111004121314.htm
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)for.
that is wtf it is.
now, point out where i am OUTRAGED in that post that men open doors....
polly7
(20,582 posts)the idea of holding open a door for a woman as any form of sexism, period. You got called on it.
You spend day after day, year after year loudly proclaiming your right to 'educate' the rest of us ........ how, by saying stupid shit like this? Don't like it?, don't say such stupid shit and whine about the response you get for it.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)because i provided a poster the definition?
makes sense. totally logical.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Bullshit.
You're not very good at this, but I'm enjoying watching you try.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)but you're the one who brought it up. If someone else mentions it, you go on the attack. What gives?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)No one is threatened when anyone opens the door. No one analyzes what anyone does it on an individual level. No one is having trouble surviving. No one is feeling inferior, or over thinking every single act or word uttered. No one is focused on this except the people holding up the strawman.
Benevolent sexism is looking at something on a societal level - not an individual level - and wondering about the motives behind it. It is not about individual acts of door opening. Someone mentioned the concept of benevolent sexism in passing, someone asked what it is, someone answered, and this strawman was constructed.
polly7
(20,582 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Orrex
(67,083 posts)And, I would venture to say, the appropriate one.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)Isn't that an oxymoron, like "jumbo shrimp"?
Sexism is a tremendous wound to us all, one beyond which I hope our species will evolve (sooner rather than later).
Recursion
(56,582 posts)"Ambivalent" in the literal sense of "two faces": there is a sexism based on "women are bad", and a sexism based on "women are good and pure and holy and must be protected". The latter is called "benevolent", though the authors make clear they don't mean it's harmless.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)I was going for a little humor, but I reckon I've been gonged.
As a social scientist, I've watched (bemusedly, at times) our species morph our evolving understanding of ourselves into some definitive system, as though the Central Limit Theorem can give us an accurate measure of human behavior.
The most important point I was trying to make is that sexism is damaging to our entire species. Many male sexists cannot comprehend that rendering females "less than" by definition renders them less worthy of respect.
If you haven't already done so, I encourage you to read Dorothy Dinnerstein's "The Mermaid and the Minotaur." (Not withstanding her pedantic style ...) She strives to identify the evolution of our species' sexism du jour.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Some authors I can't sit through; I fear she's one of them. Might be worth a shot again.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)I had to flip back and forth between her notes and footnotes, her boxes and her chapter notes...what an ordeal!
Ultimately, though, her work richly informed and influenced my own theoretical perspective (although, I am determined to write in a populist style, so that us common folk are not deterred from reading and discussing my scholarship).
Dorian Gray
(13,850 posts)I hold the door open for anyone who is walking in behind me. I assume that's what people do who are holding the door open for me. I make no other assumptions about gallantry or benevolent sexism.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)I do the same. It's just common courtesy.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It really will out itself, no need to worry so much about it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Benevolent sexism is not something to get all upset about. It was that back in time, let's say the Victorian era, there was the "positive" side of sexism. Else how to sell it to women? If men just beat women into submission, rebellion would have been faster.
It was the pedestal - saying the the limited role women had was the most important thing of all. Flattering the women into submission.
Has nothing to do with holding doors.
It is about a culture saying women are superior and selling that idea that limiting their freedom is best for them and pretending what they do is the most important thing so they will have fewer problems with it. That it is in our nature to be protected, to be gentle, kind and loving (while men have to be different in order to succeed in the world).
life long demo
(1,113 posts)I look at it as a courtesy. I hold the door for a man, do you think he would look at it as sexism? BTW, I'm 70, maybe I could say it's ageism? Nah! What's wrong with just being nice to my fellow humans.
s-cubed
(1,385 posts)I say thank you. If I am in a position to hold a door for anyone I hold the door. It's simple courtesy. I am a woman, 67 years, and I believe in courtesy for all
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)And if he says yes, kick him in the balls.
We need to end this stuff. Now.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Are you mansplaining this to women, now?
sibelian
(7,804 posts)I'm calling the cops. M'kay?
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)sex·ism
/ˈsekˌsizəm/Noun
Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
be·nev·o·lent
/bəˈnevələnt/Adjective
1.Well meaning and kindly.
2.(of an organization) Serving a charitable rather than a profit-making purpose.
Synonyms
charitable - kind - benign - benignant - kindly
NYC Liberal
(20,453 posts)Even if someone did only hold the door for women, I don't think you could call that sexism unless their thought process was something like, "Women are too weak to open and hold doors; they need to save their strength." There is no real way to know that unless they tell you (or you hear it from someone else who knows them).
I have a female friend who doesn't like me holding doors for her. She told me this, so when I'm with her I respect that and I don't do it because for whatever reason it makes her uncomfortable.
peace13
(11,076 posts)I figure he's up to no good!!!
Thanks for starting this piece of crap! This place has gone nuts!
Whisp
(24,096 posts)to always carry a door with them.
It could work sort of like garlic and vampires?
Might be worth a try, but I'll let someone else test it out first.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Good grief. I hold a door open for anyone who is approaching the door, coming or going.
i don't really care why someone else holds a door open for me.
CosmicDustBunny
(80 posts)Mostly because I have to use a cane.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)my general rule is if you are within 15 feet of me when I open a door I will hold it for you.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,096 posts)The motive for holding open a door does not matter.
It is the actions that matter.
Cat calls when I walk by; asking if it is cold outside or are you just happy to see me (really, he said that); paying women less for the same job; rape; etc. etc.
Discrimination is minimized when we reduce it to acts of common courtesy.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)I won't proceed through the doorway until he has answered my question.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)... and SB used the example of "holding the door open for women".
And now all manner of feigned confusion has erupted, as if the issue were an attack on politeness.
If the guy in the office is the one always sent up the ladder, or down into the sewer, or out into the weather, or acting as informal body guard, this may seem like a nice privilege to his co-workers... until he's the one who gets the well-deserved promotion.
Benevolent sexism, as manifested here at DU is; "I always place my coat into the mudpuddles so that lady fair might not soil her shoes, therefore I'm a feminist."
By all means, continue holding the door open for people. There's no need to specify what kind of people for whom you're doing it.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)hours is beyond fuckin' stupid. says a hell of a lot when we cannot even give a definition when asked.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Good grief these OPs are getting old.
Kahuna
(27,366 posts)a motive to a kind gesture.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)WTF does it have to do with sexism? And WTF is "benevolent" sexism? Talking about being ludicrous.
Whoever came up with this absolutely idiotic notion definitely needs to find something to do. Go hug a tree, pet a dog or do something nice just for a stranger just because. And stop seeing sexism behind every corner. It's just people who have manners and are behaving politely, really.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts) idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Opressed by Partiarchy Perpetual Victimhood (tm) (R) mentality. You want to play those silly games, great. Go play them in the safety of whatever DU feminism group is currently engaged in it. No one is going to question you there. Definitely not me because I find this BS boring and highly annoying.
But when it spills I to the GD, it's a fair game for all.
So, here is my reaction to it - stop friggin obsessing why someone opened a door for you or offered to carry your bloody heavy bag. Likely than not they are simply polite or just want to help, without trying to "opress" you in a process.
/me shakes her head and wonders off to finish building her new robot
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)no matter how many people keep pretending it is.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111004121314.htm
Benevolent sexism motivates chivalrous acts that many women may welcome, such as a man's offer to lift heavy boxes or install the new computer. While the path to benevolent sexism may be paved with good intentions, it reinforces the assumption that men possess greater competence than women, whom benevolent sexists view as wonderful, but weak and fragile.
Cross-national comparisons show that hostile and benevolent sexism go hand-in-hand (that is, nations that endorse hostile sexism also endorse benevolent sexism). The beliefs work together because benevolent sexism "rewards" women when they fulfill traditional roles whereas hostile sexism punishes women who do not toe the line, thereby working together to maintain traditional relations. In other words, act sweet and they'll pat you on the head; assert yourself and they'll put you in your place.
Numerous studies by various researchers document benevolent sexism's insidious effects. For example, when led to expect benevolently sexist help in a masculine workplace, women became unsure of themselves, got distracted, and consequently performed poorly.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Supporting evidence only. Someone else has to prove if that evidence is highly biased, for example.
So, why the fuck would a woman in a "masculine" workplace expect "benevolently sexist" help?
Actually why the fuck would she get confused if it doesn't materialise? What the hell is she doing there in the first place if she can't perform without help. Never mind. This conversation is not going to go anywhere because I am not interest in whatever Glick and Fiske have to offer.
Have a good day.
redqueen
(115,186 posts)It's really not that complicated.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)It's about the need to be really, really, outraged about something all the time.
redqueen
(115,186 posts)of benevolent sexism seriously.
That's why they keep starting thread after thread trying to pretend it's about doors.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Doors are bad.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)hysterical.
you men are the ones starting thread after thread about being picked on by the mean old feminists. you men are setting yourself up as the victim.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)These threads have gotten so ridiculous that it would be almost sinful to not have some fun with them.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)it is not a pretty picture.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Even I have never used the words swooning, po, and yawl in the same sentence.
Actually, I think it's ya'll.
polly7
(20,582 posts)BuddhaGirl
(3,706 posts)Sounds like projection IMO 
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)We most certainly get it...
no matter how many people keep pretending it is.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111004121314.htm
Benevolent sexism motivates chivalrous acts that many women may welcome, such as a man's offer to lift heavy boxes or install the new computer. While the path to benevolent sexism may be paved with good intentions, it reinforces the assumption that men possess greater competence than women, whom benevolent sexists view as wonderful, but weak and fragile.
Cross-national comparisons show that hostile and benevolent sexism go hand-in-hand (that is, nations that endorse hostile sexism also endorse benevolent sexism). The beliefs work together because benevolent sexism "rewards" women when they fulfill traditional roles whereas hostile sexism punishes women who do not toe the line, thereby working together to maintain traditional relations. In other words, act sweet and they'll pat you on the head; assert yourself and they'll put you in your place.
Numerous studies by various researchers document benevolent sexism's insidious effects. For example, when led to expect benevolently sexist help in a masculine workplace, women became unsure of themselves, got distracted, and consequently performed poorly.
redqueen
(115,186 posts)
Apophis
(1,407 posts)Not this shit again.
Trash thread.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)I've held the door for men too. Simple manners.
Change the scenario to helping someone on the side of the road change a tire. If man would stop and help a woman change a tire but not a man, or more frequently than help a man is that benevolent sexism?
I can't see it as always being benevolent sexism. I was talking to my husband and son last night and the first thing they said was a woman is more likely to become a victim in a situation like that. They ALSO said that women are more prepared and likely to defend themselves today but it can still happen. What if they have kids in the car?
I can see their point it's not a sexism thing, to me it's more like common sense. I know how to defend myself, but if there were more than one person I could be shit out of luck. Add to the mix children in the car and...
So I think there are times when a man can do something for a woman that he might not do for a man and it is not sexism in any form.
That's my .02
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)doors. Even if the man says "Ladies first", who cares. I have had men open the door and say ladies first and I turn and say thank you. He goes his way and I go mine. Maybe it's just the way the man was raised. You as a woman know when you are being done wrong and you should speak up. My goodness if this is all women have to worry about I would count my blessings.
jumptheshadow
(3,315 posts)It's a civil thing to do.
appleannie1
(5,454 posts)I hold the door for those behind me. Gender does not play a part. It is simple courtesy, something we need more of today.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)Cheers~
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Because I tend to walk fast and usually get to the door first and open it for them.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)That sexism comes in spades with pay, attitudes on rape, generalized violence, educational and job opportunities. It is less obvious in things like a lesser variety of work and duty clothes for women, things like that.
Sexism, like racism is real, very real. Some might feel that this is a symptom, just as men offering to lift a heavy lad for women. (Thank you guys, regardless of the intent I blew my back in a call, so you want to carry that for me..)
Now doors...it could be, if it was not as gender neutral as it has become locally.
So mostly it is a non issue...but attitudes, which I think that is the point some have tried, badly, to make here...are also part of the problem.
Hope that helps.
Orrex
(67,083 posts) 
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)richmwill
(1,326 posts)I have a walking disability, and 90% of the time the person entering a door ahead of me will hold the door open for me due to seeing my disability. Am I supposed to take this as an insult now and sneer at them for their "disability bias"?
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)You'll be roasted for it, but it's still a great point.
Orrex
(67,083 posts)And a much-needed dose of perspective. Well done!
Owl
(3,767 posts)dballance
(5,756 posts)When I'm exiting a store and someone else is entering the store I hold the door open for them. It has nothing to do with gender. I was taught to be polite and I try to be polite. Perhaps it's a Southern thing. One of the more appreciative Southern things I hope outweighs the racism of being Southern.
dionysus
(26,467 posts) 
Exultant Democracy
(6,597 posts)is a classic and some here seem intent on doing our enemies work for them. I find the basis of their fundamental theory also flawed, most of women have far more in common with the guy next door then they do to Hillary Clinton. Our rulers are the problem not your fellow peasants.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)I am a woman who has always held the door open for both sexes.
bullimiami
(14,075 posts)kdmorris
(5,649 posts)before we start taking everyone to task for benevolent sexism.
I hold the door for my husband, he holds it for me, both of us hold it for people directly behind us - it depends on who gets to the door first.
This entire argument reduces feminism to the ridiculous when we are still paid less than men, etc.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)you know. a thread for a bunch of men to act like adolscents and discuss the pros and cons of different sizes of a womans boob.
in that OP the word benevolent sexism. one poster actually had a curiosity what benevolent sexism was. instead of discussing the size and shape of womens boobs.
i gave a definition. that is all. no more or less. not judgment, agreement, lecture. purely a definition.
and the threads that took off about opening a damn door. men being picked on by the mean feminists.
so the very least, i would think, would be the honesty that feminist on du really had not a bit of interest to discuss this with du as a whole. the only reason we have tried to put breaks on this is because of the blatant lies that feminists are outraged men are holding doors open.
why so many people are battling us to continually promoting a lie, i do not get.
you will not find one feminist on du that has not said....
open the door for everyone. say thank you when someone does it for me.
the only conclusion is we are suppose to accept being told we are outraged adn that we are insisting men stop opening doors.
i do not accept lies.
alarimer
(17,146 posts)I don't need anyone's help. In doors, or changing a flat. It is pretty fucking presumptuous of some guy to think I want them to hold the door open.
Orrex
(67,083 posts)Ok.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)So much for the posters who are saying this isn't about doors.
BainsBane
(57,751 posts)and it never pisses me off. I think these nice Midwestern men are raised well. No one ever held the door open for me in Florida, except perhaps on a date when someone went around to open a car door, when it strikes me as least appropriate. I never became angry in those cases, but I considered it a bit silly. I appreciate when someone holds the door open when I'm coming behind them rather than slamming it in my face. I do the same for others. Now that I think of it, I suppose men do it more often than women, but courtesy doesn't bother me. And I certainly appreciate it when my arms are full of groceries and a nice young man offers me his seat on the bus, just as I do for my elders.
Orrex
(67,083 posts)A very sensible answer.
BuddhaGirl
(3,706 posts)Christ on a crutch, there are much bigger things in life to worry about!
Island Blue
(6,287 posts)I'm a woman and I extend the courtesy to other people, regardless of their gender. It would be rude to do other wise.
TheManInTheMac
(985 posts)It's the only way to be sure.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)
pa28
(6,145 posts)If they are about three steps behind, male or female, I hold the door.
If somebody doesn't like it . . . too bad.
Dash87
(3,220 posts)I'm not sure how the idea came about that it's sexist.
JonLP24
(29,916 posts)Don't become the "chirp chirp girl"
referring to car alarm shut down sounds).
I'll hold doors to anyone behind me, recently a man choose to go in the other door while I was holding it open. I wasn't sure what to make it of it except maybe in his mind, men don't open doors for men?
Car doors are different. I don't open them for anyone.
BellaLuna
(291 posts)So.. I never think it's sexist to act like a human being with some manners.
Hekate
(100,133 posts)In my lifetime I have had many impediments to opening a door easily: Babies, packages, strollers, armloads of laundry, calcifying tendinitis in my shoulder joints (mercy, that hurt like an s.o.b.)...
I'm talking about heavy doors that have to be shoved open. Some of those could practically bring tears to your eyes. Not every day. Not always all the time. But enough to make me grateful for a courtesy now and then.
When I was a younger woman, I would open doors for other people, male or female, without giving it a thought.
I'm sorry folks, but the "door" issue has always struck me as a no-brainer.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)
Maybe you just go in anyway.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)old fashioned stuff for my GF, Car Door, Chair, Coat, etc and she ABSOLUTELY loves it so I guess it just depends on the person.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)I reciprocate in other ways that may seem sexist to some like straightening his tie, or refilling his coffee, things like that.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)active feminist would be boring in the sense of the topic of this thread. I don't know. It's fun making her happy.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)I don't think it's sexist for men to have a protective instinct with women. It's how we are wired. It only becomes sexist if women are forbidden to go through doors without a man letting her through or essentially giving her permission to either enter or leave.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)I'll kick him in the balls.
Because I am an FemiNAZI.
And all of us feminazis love to give you dirty looks, or yell at you when you open a door for us. And then all us feminazis get together and cackle about how we reduced you to jello with our scathing looks and our strident indignation.
And then we burn our bras.
GaYellowDawg
(5,101 posts)That reply afforded the original post all the dignity it deserved.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)I hold the door for other people and others have held the door for me. Men, women, it doesn't matter. But then again, I live in a small city where people tend to be pretty polite. Meet a stranger's eye on the street and exchange good mornings. Bump into each other in the grocery store, usually both parties apologize. And I wish I had a dollar for every time I have seen total strangers stop and help get a car unstuck from deep snow. I am unaware of them first checking to see if they were helping a woman or a man (often can't tell if person is inside of their stuck car).
The only time I really feel I was treated special for being female was when I was very pregnant and people were often very helpful. I was grateful, not insulted.
I see nothing wrong with being courteous to each other. Hell it might even help make the world a better place.
Julie
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)Here's the thing, and my opinion on the matter, as a woman and a self-identified feminist.
It's all about context and, frankly, generational. I think men of a certain age probably hold the door open because of benevolent sexism. It was how they were raised to think and act. I think most people these days, male or female, hold doors open out of common courtesy. If I was walking through a door and someone was close behind, it would be rude to just let go of the door. So, I take a few extra seconds from my day and hold the door so they can grab onto it. Men and women do the same for me and when they do, I say thanks.
Anyway, attitudes change with generations and men are less-likely to do something out of sexist regard than their forefathers--like holding doors open (een if they were taught that it was the polite thing to do for women by watching their fathers' actions).
If we question the motive of all common courtesy and create straw man arguments from them without looking at context and generational attitudes, then it becomes a barely concealed shit-stirring thread and no real discussion can be had on the subject, which happens to be benevolent sexism.
What I find amazing is the amount of defensive responses in these threads. It would make anyone appear guilty of sexism, whether they are or aren't, because suddenly some men on DU feel as though THEY are somehow being victimized by the feminists of DU for wanting to have a discussion or possibly educate those that are interested.
And to answer your question Orrex, most people won't know if it's benevolent sexism but men reading these threads and opening doors solely for women because they're women, THEY will now know that their actions are sexist and that's all that really matters, isn't it, self-awareness?
ismnotwasm
(42,674 posts)My husband will open the door for me, not because I'm a woman, but because he tries to find the even smallest of ways to show he loves me. He'll open doors for the elderly, for people with packages, people in wheelchairs. He doesn't do it for women specifically--it would never occur to him it was needed. The original example evolved from times when men were expected to do that; it was an example. I can't believe how much attention this is generating. I would have thought men would 'get' this.
For the men and women who don't, there are groups like these;
1. Chastity ~ Ethereal Virgin
Chastity is an essential aspect of the TWRA. We feel that when a woman has premarital sex she is being used by the man she is with. By not expecting commitment (marriage) from a man before a woman has sex with him. She is in turn devaluing herself and her whole being. As a result, women begin feeling worthless and used. The TWRA woman on the other hand recognizes her power as a feminine woman. Feminine women are powerful. Only by reaffirming our feminine natures do we instill the possible path toward perfection, virtue and self-improvement: to do this, women must follow the path of the ethereal virgin.
An ethereal virgin is a woman who is a virgin in a spiritual and physical sense. She stays committed to her purity and chastity until marriage. After marriage, although in the physical sense she is no longer clean as a virgin. The ethereal virgin is still clean in a spiritual sense. Because of her pure and chaste spirit, she remains the ethereal virgin after having intercourse. The ethereal virgin has sex for the right reasons: love, the bonding of souls, pleasure and reproductive purposes. As a result, she cannot be considered a ‘slut’ as she is morally superior to all others. The ethereal virgin remains faithful to her Guardian all her life and instills important virtues of the ethereal virgin to her daughters. This is so that her daughters may undertake the beautiful path of divine feminine power and a path of self-development. If a woman cheats, she is no longer an ethereal virgin. In the eyes of her husband, the ethereal virgin will always be seen as his pure innocent girl. That is the best gift a real man can receive.
2. Submission
Submission is yet another essential aspect. This is important because submission to our men and the feminine mystique go hand in hand. Women are naturally attracted to aggressive dominant men. However, a real alpha male has both qualities of an aggressive dominant man. An alpha male also has the qualities that urge him to protect his woman. Alpha male recognizes that in order for him to form a mutually beneficial relationship with a woman he must undertake responsibilities. These responsibilities include being the breadwinner, leader and protector of his ethereal virgin. It is her virginity and moral purity that is the ultimate gift to the alpha male. In order, to gain the protection and leadership of an alpha male a woman must submit. She first does this by submitting her body to him: by keeping pure for marriage. She then submits to him in areas where the man is superior such as conducting business outside of the home, deciding whom his woman will socialize with and so forth.
Ultimately, the male then is responsible for fostering the active energy outside of the home and mediating the woman’s contacts with the outside world. The woman is responsible for the internal sphere of the home. She is responsible for the man’s well-being and the well-being of herself in order to fulfill her duty as his wife. She must submit to his decisions in regards to the outside world for her own protection. Once the woman is protected by the active masculine energies. She is free to express her passive feminine nature furthering the well-being of the family unit. Thus, both man and woman have a separate but equal responsibility. They both have separate but equal rewards
http://femininemystiquetwra.wordpress.com/twra-commandments/
Have fun all you old fashioned ethereal virgins and alpha males. No feminists allowed in that group.
Personally, Common courtesy is my rule of thumb.
BTW If some is leering at you and holds the door open for you to get a good look at your ass, -- NOT benevolent
Orrex
(67,083 posts)Assuming that he doesn't say something quaint like "ladies first," and otherwise lacking a longitudinal survey of the man's behavior, how would you identify this one event as sexism instead of basic courtesy?