s/o feminism - gentlemen

[Ester Maria]

Just wondering.

 

If you consider yourself a feminist, are you in principle opposed to that nearly extinct species of gentlemen who treat women with a particular kind of regard that is not extended to other men (e.g. opening door to women, giving up their seat to women, pulling out women's chair for them before they are seated in restaurants, etc.)? Why or why not? I am talking exclusively about those special forms of politeness that are traditionally reserved for women because they are women (IOW, something feminists, in theory, "should" have a problem with).

[Harriet Vane]

I have no issues with recognizing the differences and even celebrating the differences, as long as my freedom and competence are also recognized. Manners make everything more pleasant for all.

[Ester Maria]

I have no issues with recognizing the differences and even celebrating the differences, as long as my freedom and competence are also recognized. Manners make everything more pleasant for all.

But we are talking about manners which are exclusively reserved for women. The examples that I have in mind are the ones that are not based on any actual differences (e.g. a woman is capable of pulling out her own chair, yet, they do it for her only because she is a woman). Is it okay, nice because it is old-fashioned? Or is it patronizing?

[Caitilin]

I have had those kind of gestures made for me by some men whose doing so made me want to go lift cars, just to prove I was not a shrinking violet, and by others whose doing so made me want to smile and thank him. The difference for me is that the first type of man does it because of his predisposition to think certain things about himself as a man and me as a woman with which I strongly disagree; the second does it because he is polite, and is thinking of extending a courtesy. IOW, attitude is everything, in this as in so many other areas. :001_smile:

[AimeeM]

I asked my ultra feminist sister who is here visiting.

 

She said that by allowing the traditional "privs" of gentlemen doing things for women, exclusively because they are women, doesn't harm women in any way; nor was it ever intended to insinuate that women couldn't DO something. The traditions weren't STARTED because women were less capable - it was more out of respect and... reverence?

[Ester Maria]

I asked my ultra feminist sister who is here visiting.

 

She said that by allowing the traditional "privs" of gentlemen doing things for women, exclusively because they are women, doesn't harm women in any way; nor was it ever intended to insinuate that women couldn't DO something. The traditions weren't STARTED because women were less capable - it was more out of respect and... reverence?

To play the devil's advocate though - are they harmful to men? Is something wrong in the "balance" in the society if there is a particular kind of courtesy that is extended only towards one sex? Does your sister have a problem with a particular kind of respect that only women are entitled to?

[AimeeM]

To play the devil's advocate though - are they harmful to men? Is something wrong in the "balance" in the society if there is a particular kind of courtesy that is extended only towards one sex? Does your sister have a problem with a particular kind of respect that only women are entitled to?

She said: "I've opened doors for men, so I don't see that there's no balance to it".

Not all traditional stereotypes are harmful. Stereotypes that do not infringe on the potential rights of others, or hold others back from their potential, aren't harmful. A woman (general, not specific) who is extended these privs, is more likely to feel nicely towards the gentleman extending the aforementioned privs; so I'm not sure how it would be harmful to men?

If it doesn't harm anybody, why be so adamantly against it?

 

 

*Aimee says: "She's a sociology grad student. Possibly not your stereotypical feminist, as she is interning at a batterers intervention program right now."

[StephanieZ]

Not at all.

 

My dh is a gentleman.

 

I hope we are raising my ds to be one as well.

 

I hope we are raising our girls to be ladies.

 

These are SOCIAL roles. NOT work roles.

 

They are voluntary, and if the parties all enjoy them, then wonderful.

 

A man gets the door and gets the check. A lady is gracious and appreciative and smiles a lot. Seems like a good deal to me, lol.

 

I would never expect a co-worker to open my door in a car we shared to lunch, but I do expect my dh to do so when we are on a date. I'd never expect a business associate to offer me his coat if we were stuck outside and cold (and there was only the one coat to go around), but I sure love it that my dh does so.

 

In social situations -- parties, dinners, etc -- I think it is lovely when a man acts like a gentleman or a woman like a lady, but I do not EXPECT men outside my dh and ds to get the door for me or whatever, and taking these roles in business situations is risky business, IMHO.

[Joker]

I don't have a problem with the courtesy extended to women but it's usually a courtesy I do for anyone, regardless of gender. I do get annoyed with the men who get upset if my dds try to hold open the door for them. Some really don't like it.

[LucyStoner]

Well, those things are not exclusively for women in my home. We help each other with our coats. I frequently open doors for people near me regardless of gender. I give up my seat on the bus to anyone who seems less able to stand than me regardless of gender.

 

I am not opposed to kindness and think kindness does not harm anyone.

 

FWIW, my husband and I are both "ultra feminists" and proud of it. Him opening the car door for me or me ironing his shirts or vice versa does not negate that we hold and act on feminist values.

[Ester Maria]

She said: "I've opened doors for men, so I don't see that there's no balance to it".

Not all traditional stereotypes are harmful. Stereotypes that do not infringe on the potential rights of others, or hold others back from their potential, aren't harmful. A woman (general, not specific) who is extended these privs, is more likely to feel nicely towards the gentleman extending the aforementioned privs; so I'm not sure how it would be harmful to men?

If it doesn't harm anybody, why be so adamantly against it?

I am not against it AT ALL :lol:, but then again, I am not sure I am a typical feminist either.

 

I was wondering if it was harmful to men because some men I know do profess, in secrecy, that it irks them that "women seem to be pro-women, not pro-equality" and that "it is inconsistent to be pro-equal rights if you still adhere to differentialized courtesy treatment".

 

Let us assume there is imbalance, that it is not a matter of COMMON courtesy (of everyone towards everyone), but specifically of men towards women. Pulling off a chair for a lady. Taking a lady's coat off. Anything that a man would not or does not do for a man, but specifically for a woman, only because she is a woman.

 

I know men who claim that "true feminists" should be completely opposed to that, because it means wanting equal rights AND being okay with not being equal as regards additional privileges, and they feel it is either equal rights and privileges for ALL (so, extending towards women only that courtesy they would extend towards men), either all kinds of preferential treament (courtesy, legal, etc.); they feel that equal rights with preferential treatment towards one sex in courtesy matters are in some kind of inner contradiction. That is why I ask. :lol:

[AimeeM]

Not at all.

 

My dh is a gentleman.

 

I hope we are raising my ds to be one as well.

 

I hope we are raising our girls to be ladies.

 

These are SOCIAL roles. NOT work roles.

 

They are voluntary, and if the parties all enjoy them, then wonderful.

 

A man gets the door and gets the check. A lady is gracious and appreciative and smiles a lot. Seems like a good deal to me, lol.

 

I would never expect a co-worker to open my door in a car we shared to lunch, but I do expect my dh to do so when we are on a date. I'd never expect a business associate to offer me his coat if we were stuck outside and cold (and there was only the one coat to go around), but I sure love it that my dh does so.

 

In social situations -- parties, dinners, etc -- I think it is lovely when a man acts like a gentleman or a woman like a lady, but I do not EXPECT men outside my dh and ds to get the door for me or whatever, and taking these roles in business situations is risky business, IMHO.

I couldn't agree more.

What's more - my feminist sissy agrees. I'm not feminist so this isn't my thread. Lols!

[Unicorn.]

I agree w/ Strider that manners make everything more pleasent for all. While I don't pull out chairs for anyone, and frankly, don't like having my chair pulled out for me, I do open doors for both genders, of all ages. I have also given up my seat for another female, and would do so for a man if I thought he needed it more than me. I consider that good manners, no matter who is doing it, and for whom they are doing it.

[AimeeM]

Casey (sissy!) likes the way a pp put it: social roles vs work roles. Social roles that are voluntary, are nice for all involved; forced social roles are nice for NOBODY. She is ultra feminist; but firmly believes noone should be so against something that hurts NOONE (such as voluntary social roles). She would not, as a pp put it, expect someone of the male species to open any door for her - and she only expects THAT because it is a voluntary that both her and her s/o ENJOY.

I'm not going to pretend to understand much of it myself - as I'm not feminist in the least. Lols. I'm very personally conservative, so I'm trying very hard not to insert my own opinions here :D

I know men who claim that "true feminists" should be completely opposed to that, because it means wanting equal rights AND being okay with not being equal as regards additional privileges, and they feel it is either equal rights and privileges for ALL (so, extending towards women only that courtesy they would extend towards men), either all kinds of preferential treament (courtesy, legal, etc.); they feel that equal rights with preferential treatment towards one sex in courtesy matters are in some kind of inner contradiction. That is why I ask. :lol:

 

 

I am not against it AT ALL :lol:, but then again, I am not sure I am a typical feminist either.

 

I was wondering if it was harmful to men because some men I know do profess, in secrecy, that it irks them that "women seem to be pro-women, not pro-equality" and that "it is inconsistent to be pro-equal rights if you still adhere to differentialized courtesy treatment".

 

Let us assume there is imbalance, that it is not a matter of COMMON courtesy (of everyone towards everyone), but specifically of men towards women. Pulling off a chair for a lady. Taking a lady's coat off. Anything that a man would not or does not do for a man, but specifically for a woman, only because she is a woman.

 

I know men who claim that "true feminists" should be completely opposed to that, because it means wanting equal rights AND being okay with not being equal as regards additional privileges, and they feel it is either equal rights and privileges for ALL (so, extending towards women only that courtesy they would extend towards men), either all kinds of preferential treament (courtesy, legal, etc.); they feel that equal rights with preferential treatment towards one sex in courtesy matters are in some kind of inner contradiction. That is why I ask. :lol:

[katilac]

Just wondering.

 

If you consider yourself a feminist, are you in principle opposed to that nearly extinct species of gentlemen who treat women with a particular kind of regard that is not extended to other men (e.g. opening door to women, giving up their seat to women, pulling out women's chair for them before they are seated in restaurants, etc.)? Why or why not? I am talking exclusively about those special forms of politeness that are traditionally reserved for women because they are women (IOW, something feminists, in theory, "should" have a problem with).

 

Hmm, I haven't considered it at length, so these are my first thoughts. I think the first two courtesies mentioned should be offered to anyone who would benefit from them, not "men to women." The person who gets to the door first opens it, y'know? No rushing ahead of someone to open it, unless that person is clearly going to struggle with the door (door is heavy, person is visibly young or frail).

 

Likewise, I don't expect a man to give up his seat on the bus for me just because I'm female. And as a female, I will give up my seat to a male or female who appears to need it more than I do. This might be due to pregnancy or high heels, but age, frailty, and apparent exhaustion come into play for the men.

 

I find the whole pulling-out-my-chair thing freakish and awkward, and not helpful to anyone. You have to sit at whatever weird angle or distance they pulled the chair to, and then adjust it anyway. Everybody just sit already.

 

I do vote in favor of keeping the tradition of "girl wears cute, impractical clothing >> guys offers his jacket" on grounds of it being both adorable and a valuable flirting tool.

Edited January 5, 2012 by katilac
overuse of the word "cute"

[AK_Mom4]

I asked my ultra feminist sister who is here visiting.

 

She said that by allowing the traditional "privs" of gentlemen doing things for women, exclusively because they are women, doesn't harm women in any way; nor was it ever intended to insinuate that women couldn't DO something. The traditions weren't STARTED because women were less capable - it was more out of respect and... reverence?

:iagree:

 

Well Said!

[Audrey]

Just wondering.

 

If you consider yourself a feminist, are you in principle opposed to that nearly extinct species of gentlemen who treat women with a particular kind of regard that is not extended to other men (e.g. opening door to women, giving up their seat to women, pulling out women's chair for them before they are seated in restaurants, etc.)? Why or why not? I am talking exclusively about those special forms of politeness that are traditionally reserved for women because they are women (IOW, something feminists, in theory, "should" have a problem with).

 

 

I am not at all opposed to men doing those things if they choose. They are genuine attempts at politeness. Politeness should never be chastized.

[Ester Maria]

Casey (sissy!) likes the way a pp put it: social roles vs work roles. Social roles that are voluntary, are nice for all involved; forced social roles are nice for NOBODY. She is ultra feminist; but firmly believes noone should be so against something that hurts NOONE (such as voluntary social roles). She would not, as a pp put it, expect someone of the male species to open any door for her - and she only expects THAT because it is a voluntary that both her and her s/o ENJOY.

I agree with this, in theory, if we are talking about familiar and predictable settings - then we may label that as voluntary social roles, voluntary ceremony, almost a role play game of a kind.

 

But what about extending that treatment, as a man, to women outside of your family, whom you do not necessarily know? You have to assume certain things - either that they would appreciate it, or that they would not. Any kind of communication there is based on assumptions rather than voluntary (agreed upon in advance, even if tacitly) social roles. So, for a person of an egalitarian mindset, is there something *inherently* problematic in this kind of an assumption that a lady would appreciate her chair being pulled out for her / or anything really, that is not done to men, only to women in the group? Is such an assumption patronizing? Because it is not "common" politeness that is at stake here, nor a particular ceremony that happens in a known circle, but a specific type of discriminatory politeness extended to one sex only on the grounds of being that sex? I am not asking so much about women's personal expectations, but more about their reactions to other people's (this profile of men's) "automatic" behavior that may be rooted in some discrimatory politeness and whether they have an issue with the fact that it is discriminatory and, possibly, presumptious. :D

[Rosie_0801]

To play the devil's advocate though - are they harmful to men?

 

No. They are good for them. Very b***** good for them, in my experience. The few I know have very happy wives.

 

I remember the first and second times I came across such a gentleman. I'm afraid I clumsy idiot because I didn't know how to respond. I remember the third time too. I was just as surprised, but managed to behave less like a clumsy idiot.

 

If the man is rewarded with a smile and the knowledge he's done his good deed for the day, what's the harm? It's only taken two minutes of his time. If he is greeted with rudeness from an older woman, shame on her. If he's greeted with rudeness from a very young woman, shame on her father.

 

Anyone who thinks equality means treating everyone the same hasn't thought things through properly. You could only get that sort of equality functioning happily if this was a world of clones. Those sort of opinions suggest a lack of familiarity with feminist history. Rabid man-haters are not the only feminists, just the loudest and most obnoxious.

 

Rosie

[Ester Maria]

The person who gets to the door first opens it, y'know? No rushing ahead of someone to open it, unless that person is clearly going to struggle with the door (door is heavy, person is visibly young or frail).

If it is common courtesy, yes. :)

But there actually are people who are going to prevent the "natural" course of events happening (natural course being without overthinking it who gets first to open the door, and then proceed with common courtesy from then on), because they want or feel obliged to open the door if there are ladies present.

 

I do not *expect* any of that, I do not object to it when it is an expression of common courtesy, but I know people who do have an issue with it when it is reserved for one sex only, with no additional considerations (e.g. it is a different thing to give up a seat for a pregnant or elderly woman, and for a woman - any woman - just on the grounds of her being a woman). There actually still are men that are being raised this way (nearly an extinct species, though), so I was curious as to how people view that.

[Ester Maria]

Anyone who thinks equality means treating everyone the same hasn't thought things through properly. You could only get that sort of equality functioning happily if this was a world of clones. Those sort of opinions suggest a lack of familiarity with feminist history. Rabid man-haters are not the only feminists, just the loudest and most obnoxious.

To continue to play the devil's advocate (this is fun! :D):

 

 

 

So, you are okay with a:

• discriminatory courtesy (extended only to some people, not to all);
  
• that is decided on based on an arbitrary characteristic (one's sex - just like extending discrimatory courtesy towards people who are blue-eyed, or taller than 1.70 m, or what have you);
  
• for which there is no real need in a given situation (women are not inherently less capable of pulling out their own chairs, and even if they happen to be physically disabled, it is not their being-women that disables them and that is a ground for different treatment; here we do not discuss "need-based" courtesy, special favors for the disabled and alike, but doing something for a subset of people who are perfectly capable of doing it on their own);
  
• which operates with an assumption that it would be appreciated (these people do not ask women whether they want their chair pulled out, they simply pull them out);
  
• and which is an almost direct legacy of times when the social roles were more "formalized", with all the rigidity of it (and lack of choice, and lack of legal equality, etc.).
  

When you put it this way, how is it different than pulling the chairs for all the white people in a group? How is discriminatory courtesy towards one sex different than discrimatory courtesy towards one race (barring the historical context, of course), or any other arbitrary physical characteristic? Is it not, as such, inherently problematic when practiced by these old-fashioned individuals (barring the familiar settings of agreed upon ceremony, i.e. adopting it as a default way of treating women, all women)?

[StephanieZ]

I agree with PP about extending courtesy to all.

 

My dc are absolutely trained to give up a seat on a bus for anyone older or infirm. We all, self included, jump up from our seats on a crowded bus if there is anyone over 50 or so, or a pregnant woman, or anyone who looks like the really need the seat. In addition, my dc all crowd onto laps, etc if the bus is really crowded, even if the rest of the unseated folks are young and capable looking. IMHO, it's just not courteous to let little kids fill seats when others need them, since those little dc can sit on my lap, etc.

 

In typical situations, we all get the door for others when we get there first. And, if someone holds a door for me in a store, or whereever, I am always friendly and thankful. 9 times out of 10, it's a man over 40 who will hold a door for me, and I love to thank them, and smile. It makes the world more pleasant. I sure hope my ds learns to do that sooner than 40, and I remind him that a gentleman who brings a girl flowers, holds the door, etc, is much more likely to get and keep the girl he likes than a boy who doesn't do those things.

 

I agree that it's all about courtesy. Common and not-so-common.

 

And, I agree with PP who pointed out that we should all be gracious when anyone makes a genuine innocent attempt at courtesy. We live in a diverse world; when anyone makes an attempt at kindness, we should respond to that intention with grace.

 

When anyone says they will pray for me, I feel appreciation and I thank them, even if I would not agree with their religion, or even if I were athiest. When anyone attempts kindness, I do my best to respond to their intention.

[Ester Maria]

I agree with PP about extending courtesy to all.

 

My dc are absolutely trained to give up a seat on a bus for anyone older or infirm. We all, self included, jump up from our seats on a crowded bus if there is anyone over 50 or so, or a pregnant woman, or anyone who looks like the really need the seat. In addition, my dc all crowd onto laps, etc if the bus is really crowded, even if the rest of the unseated folks are young and capable looking. IMHO, it's just not courteous to let little kids fill seats when others need them, since those little dc can sit on my lap, etc.

 

In typical situations, we all get the door for others when we get there first. And, if someone holds a door for me in a store, or whereever, I am always friendly and thankful. 9 times out of 10, it's a man over 40 who will hold a door for me, and I love to thank them, and smile. It makes the world more pleasant. I sure hope my ds learns to do that sooner than 40, and I remind him that a gentleman who brings a girl flowers, holds the door, etc, is much more likely to get and keep the girl he likes than a boy who doesn't do those things.

 

I agree that it's all about courtesy. Common and not-so-common.

 

And, I agree with PP who pointed out that we should all be gracious when anyone makes a genuine innocent attempt at courtesy. We live in a diverse world; when anyone makes an attempt at kindness, we should respond to that intention with grace.

 

When anyone says they will pray for me, I feel appreciation and I thank them, even if I would not agree with their religion, or even if I were athiest. When anyone attempts kindness, I do my best to respond to their intention.

I agree with ALL of this, Stephanie! :001_smile: It is just that I am specifically trying to ask (maybe I am not expressing myself the best, though) about something else... something which is NOT a matter of common courtesy, but which is essentially a discriminatory practice which is not need-based.

 

There is a subset of men that was raised, or is currently being raised (but like I said, an almost extinct species, so it does not surprise me that people would find it incredulous) to treat women differently (even if favorably differently) exclusively on the grounds of them being women. Not based on need (the pregnant, the elderly, etc.), not based on merit (some form of an additional respect for people who are accomplished in something), based exclusively on a completely random characteristic that some people have and some do not. They were taught, or are being taught, to extent special favor in society in various behavioral forms to this group of individuals. This is NOT a question of common courtesy, it goes beyond that - and my question is more "philosophical", so to speak: do you have, in principle, a problem with it (even if it does not reflect your reality or your preferred reality - we are talking *values* here, principles)?

 

I started the thread because I know some people who do, as a principle, have a problem with it and find it inconsistent with the egalitarian philosophy.

[JennyD]

I think of door-holding, pulling out chairs, etc for women only as vestigial customs from an earlier, sexist era that are appropriately grandfathered in to an egalitarian age simply as charming, if dated, courtesies.

 

I do think that it is slightly awkward in a work situation -- I am thinking of older male law firm partners who hold the elevator door for female associates -- which is perfectly nice but also a little unexpected. And I have to admit that it would not occur to me to actively teach my three sons to hold doors, etc. specifically for women, as opposed to the more general lesson of not letting the door slam in ANYONE's face and helping people who are older or look like they need help.

 

In any event, I think that we can all agree that this is a pretty theoretical concern these days. I rode public transportation extensively through three pregnancies, and even when I once actually fell on someone I still couldn't get a seat.

[LucyStoner]

To continue to play the devil's advocate (this is fun! :D):

 

 

 

So, you are okay with a:

 

• discriminatory courtesy (extended only to some people, not to all);

• that is decided on based on an arbitrary characteristic (one's sex - just like extending discrimatory courtesy towards people who are blue-eyed, or taller than 1.70 m, or what have you);

• for which there is no real need in a given situation (women are not inherently less capable of pulling out their own chairs, and even if they happen to be physically disabled, it is not their being-women that disables them and that is a ground for different treatment; here we do not discuss "need-based" courtesy, special favors for the disabled and alike, but doing something for a subset of people who are perfectly capable of doing it on their own);

• which operates with an assumption that it would be appreciated (these people do not ask women whether they want their chair pulled out, they simply pull them out);

• and which is an almost direct legacy of times when the social roles were more "formalized", with all the rigidity of it (and lack of choice, and lack of legal equality, etc.).

When you put it this way, how is it different than pulling the chairs for all the white people in a group? How is discriminatory courtesy towards one sex different than discrimatory courtesy towards one race (barring the historical context, of course), or any other arbitrary physical characteristic? Is it not, as such, inherently problematic when practiced by these old-fashioned individuals (barring the familiar settings of agreed upon ceremony, i.e. adopting it as a default way of treating women, all women)?

 

Going back to what a PP said, it sounds like you really have not thought through what equality means. It just is not about who opens the door. Nor does the fact that someone male opens my door negate the need and reason for equality between the sexes and feminist thought/action.

[Ester Maria]

Going back to what a PP said, it sounds like you really have not thought through what equality means. It just is not about who opens the door. Nor does the fact that someone male opens my door negate the need and reason for equality between the sexes and feminist thought.

I am not discussing equality as such. Rather, I am attempting at a discussion with a narrow focus: exclusively on these customary (nowadays much less, though) practices and whether they are, in isolation from any legal issues, "okay" if we adhere to the philosophy according to which there are no essential differences between and women which would in some way justify this treatment - it is merely a convention, that is fading nowadays. But if we take that convention in isolation from the legal matters (equal pay for equal work, equal business opportunities, what have you), should somebody who professes feminism and is presumably of an egalitarian mindset be "okay" with these practices, since it is selective courtesy that is happening here?

[Rosie_0801]

So, you are okay with a:

• discriminatory courtesy (extended only to some people, not to all);
  

Sure, why not? We're not all clones.

 

 

 

 

 

• that is decided on based on an arbitrary characteristic (one's sex - just like extending discrimatory courtesy towards people who are blue-eyed, or taller than 1.70 m, or what have you);
  

Sure, why not? Different groups of people have different needs. Different groups of people want to serve others in different ways. Why shouldn't someone driving stop and let my kids and I cross before turning? If someone without kids gets their knickers in a twist, they are being petty. If men want a men's bar that excludes women, why shouldn't they have it? It doesn't hurt women for men to have some male space. If women are suddenly banned from most or all bars, that is a different story.

 

 

 

• for which there is no real need in a given situation (women are not inherently less capable of pulling out their own chairs, and even if they happen to be physically disabled, it is not their being-women that disables them and that is a ground for different treatment; here we do not discuss "need-based" courtesy, special favors for the disabled and alike, but doing something for a subset of people who are perfectly capable of doing it on their own);
  

Sure, why not? There's no law that mandates all men must pull out chairs for all women, under all circumstances. That'd be a pain. If a waiter pulls out a woman's chair at a restaurant and the woman hates it, she will choose not to go back again. If a man does it because he's feeling polite, who is hurt? If the man does it grudgingly because he thinks he has to, that's his problem not hers. If he keeps doing that after she's thanked him nicely and politely asked him not to, either he needs to remember it's not all about him and he should think of the specific lady he is trying to please rather than the schema in his head or she needs to learn to relax and accept his good intention. If they matter to each other, they'll work it out.

 

 

 

 

• which operates with an assumption that it would be appreciated (these people do not ask women whether they want their chair pulled out, they simply pull them out);
  

Sure, why not? It won't kill the woman to accept graciously and assume the man is doing his best to be polite. Does she want to spend time with men who don't trouble themselves to be polite? If she thinks he's doing it because he's a sleaze, she could be glad to have such an early clue!

 

 

 

 

 

• and which is an almost direct legacy of times when the social roles were more "formalized", with all the rigidity of it (and lack of choice, and lack of legal equality, etc.).
  

Pulling someone's chair out or opening a door never means "Let me help you get comfortable because you are an inferior specimen and when I get into parliament I'm going to lobby for the reinforcement of glass ceilings!" Don't go all second wave feminist on me and over think things. :tongue_smilie:

 

 

 

When you put it this way, how is it different than pulling the chairs for all the white people in a group? How is discriminatory courtesy towards one sex different than discrimatory courtesy towards one race (barring the historical context, of course), or any other arbitrary physical characteristic?

Dunno. It just is. :tongue_smilie: A matter of numbers, perhaps? Each gender is roughly half of the population, there's no majority in number. A matter of law? There is no legal obligation to pull out a person's chair or avoid pulling out a person's chair. Intention? Do people really open doors for other people as a deliberate insult? Even someone who is automatically insulted would have to (I imagine) agree later on that they don't really think that person performed that actions for the pure purpose of being a spiteful jerk.

 

Is it not, as such, inherently problematic when practiced by these old-fashioned individuals (barring the familiar settings of agreed upon ceremony, i.e. adopting it as a default way of treating women, all women)?

Inherently problematic? I'm not sure what you mean. It's problematic whenever two people have different expectations about something. Most of the time, we sort it out. I don't see how pulling chairs out for women hurts them or hurts men. I've never heard a man having a whinge because another man didn't pull his chair out for him. (I hate having chairs pulled out for me. I like to know for CERTAIN where I'm putting my bottom!) Hmm. That's another option to consider. Some of these behaviours oblige the woman to trust the man. One does have to trust that the chap isn't going to pull the chair away so you fall on your tail! It's not a good sign if a woman doesn't feel comfortable trusting a man not to do that, is it?

 

should somebody who professes feminism and is presumably of an egalitarian mindset be "okay" with these practices, since it is selective courtesy that is happening here?

 

Exactly who is qualified to tell me I shouldn't be? :P

 

Rosie

Edited January 5, 2012 by Rosie_0801

[LucyStoner]

I am not discussing equality as such. Rather, I am attempting at a discussion with a narrow focus: exclusively on these customary (nowadays much less, though) practices and whether they are, in isolation from any legal issues, "okay" if we adhere to the philosophy according to which there are no essential differences between and women which would in some way justify this treatment - it is merely a convention, that is fading nowadays. But if we take that convention in isolation from the legal matters (equal pay for equal work, equal business opportunities, what have you), should somebody who professes feminism and is presumably of an egalitarian mindset be "okay" with these practices, since it is selective courtesy that is happening here?

 

Behavior that both parties find ok is...wait for it... ok. And it has nothing to do with being a feminist or not. You don't get to critique someone's feminism if they are ok with their husband opening the door anymore than you get to if they wear high heels or choose to be homemakers. There is not an inconsistency here except to those, like you, who want to say "see YOU LIKE being treated differently (read better) when it suits you so your feminism is a sham. Ha! I GOTcha!". Maybe that is not your literal message but it is a common counter argument I hear often to feminism and one that I consider misguided and rather silly.

[katilac]

Ester Maria said: If it is common courtesy, yes. :)

But there actually are people who are going to prevent the "natural" course of events happening (natural course being without overthinking it who gets first to open the door, and then proceed with common courtesy from then on), because they want or feel obliged to open the door if there are ladies present.

 

It is this preventing of the natural course of events that I find rather strange and off-putting, so yes, I dislike that type of chivalry in general terms. I'm not going to give any thought to trying to make sure the guy reaches the door first. I'm not going to pause or suddenly reach down to tie my shoelaces if I reach the door first, so that he can open it. I'm definitely not going to thank him if he nearly runs me over in order to open the door :D

 

So, I dislike it in terms of the public or general strangers, and I dislike it where dh is concerned on a day-to-day basis. In other words, it would be weird and frankly annoying to wait for him to open my car door on a routine basis, but it's something we might do in a conscious, flirty manner when we go out on a date. Then again, I'd be just as likely to do that or other atypical things like hand him his jacket, open the door and give him a lingering glance as he goes through, so that puts me right back where I started from.

 

Daily courtesies that help others of either gender, yes. Special occasion courtesies that don't really help anyone, yes, but again not gender-based.

 

Confessions of a Failed Southern Lady, by Florence King, is a very funny book that also has some perceptive observations on gender-based respect. Her formative experiences were in 1950s America, and she makes a comment to the effect that girls who kept up certain appearances could get away with an awful lot before being branded 'fast' - men would bend over backwards to give females sexual respect, because they didn't want them to have the other kinds of respect (as thinking individuals, talented workers, and so on).

 

It's not a book for those offended by language or frank talk, but it's a favorite of mine. I read it at a young age, and I credit her with showing me that many gender and sex 'rules' or attitudes are in place to shame people into behaving in specific, expected ways that benefit other people. I was 30 years behind her, but much of what she talks about was still in play (and still is now).

 

//end digression

[Ester Maria]

Different groups of people have different needs. Different groups of people want to serve others in different ways.

So why is it not okay it has racial connotations? If I decide, for example, to honor the Asian people, and them alone, by showing particular little signs of courtesy to them? So, I will never stop or drive carefully if non-Asians are around - but if there are Asians, now those are the people that deserve a bit of my extra attention, though they do not really "deserve" it by any means, but I was simply raised to respect Asians in manners different than other races? :D

 

I think we need to separate the *appearance* from... hm, I do not know even how I would word it. :lol:

An individual act of courtesy will always look like such from the outside; but are you okay with the "mental reality" that prompts it - an automatic differentialized treatment of a group of people for no reason whatsoever (no potential security issues like with kids, no disability accomodations, no nothing - I am just extra kind to Asians, period?)?

If men want a men's bar that excludes women, why shouldn't they have it? It doesn't hurt women for men to have some male space. If women are suddenly banned from most or all bars, that is a different story.

I was trying to stay out of legal issues, because I think that complicates it. :tongue_smilie:

 

Some would be okay even if the women were banned from most of all bars as a result of an independent choice of the owners of the bar (not legislative coercion, i.e. institutional, legally mandated discrimination) - but then that brings all those questions of "where do you draw the line" and why is it okay to segregate a setting sex-wise, but not race-wise, etc.

Does she want to spend time with men who don't trouble themselves to be polite?

But does she want to spend time with men who have a personal dedication to treat women differently, even if favorably differently? A "positive" discrimination is still a discrimination - and if one adopts it as one's personal maxime by which one operates, I can see why for some women it would be problematic.

 

(Of course, we are discussing mostly theoretical issues, as what would be visible in a daily life would be simply an individual instance of grace, rather than a whole mental set-up behind it. But I am bored and insomniac. :lol:)

A matter of numbers, perhaps? Each gender is roughly half of the population, there's no majority in number. A matter of law? There is no legal obligation to pull out a person's chair or avoid pulling out a person's chair. Intention? Do people really open doors for other people as a deliberate insult? Even someone who is automatically insulted would have to (I imagine) agree later on that they don't really think that person performed that actions for the pure purpose of being a spiteful jerk.

But these considerations need not be relevant - a situation may be such that there may be a 50/50 racially divided group, where it is also not a legal obligation, and not an intent at insult but merely a personal maxime that one has inherited in one's upbringing... So why sex-wise yes, but racially, no?

[Ester Maria]

Behavior that both parties find ok is...wait for it... ok.

But you do not KNOW it. We are talking not only familiar / agreed upon, but also stranger interactions. Whenever you operate with stranger interactions, you are dealing with assumptions, and you do not *know* that a person will be okay with it.

There is not an inconsistency here except to those, like you, who want to say "see YOU LIKE being treated differently (read better) when it suits you so your feminism is a sham. Ha! I GOTcha!". Maybe that is not your literal message but it is a common counter argument I hear often to feminism and one that I consider misguided and rather silly.

No, it is not my literal message, you seem not to be "reading" what I am asking. I am personally okay with people operating with some additional courtesy principles they wish to adopt, but I know a heck lot of people who claim there is a moral problem with a differential courtesy treatment of various groups of people (whether the line of difference be drawn on sex, race, color of one's eyes or whatever), thus I ask. I DO think there is a line beyond which it is not okay, but it is hard for me to formulate it "logically". Classical gentlemen actions I am mostly fine with, but I know people who are not fine - at all - with such a personal mentality or upbringing.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Ester Maria

[PhotoGal]

I used to have a problem with it. I remember in during one summer of college I was staying in a house with a few other students. There was a young man from the south who insisted that I go up the stairs before him. I insisted that he go up the stairs before me. We both stood at the bottom of the stairs stubbornly for a long time. :D I think I eventually gave in because I didn't have time to be standing around all day. ;)

 

Now I don't think it would bother me, but I don't prefer it. Honestly it feels too formal and awkward to me. I feel silly standing there while a waitor pulls out my chair (for example). But then I'm not really a formal person. Anyway, I wouldn't be insulted but I don't prefer that kind of treatment. I would just think the person is being really formal and/or old-fashioned. I could see how some women might really enjoy it, though.

[katilac]

There is no legal obligation to pull out a person's chair or avoid pulling out a person's chair. Intention? Do people really open doors for other people as a deliberate insult? Even someone who is automatically insulted would have to (I imagine) agree later on that they don't really think that person performed that actions for the pure purpose of being a spiteful jerk. Rosie

 

Sadly, yes, they do. When I talked about not being thankful that a guy nearly knocks me over to reach the door first, I was not kidding. I'm in the deep south, and when I first entered the professional working world in 1988, there were definitely (older) men who would do stuff like this in order to show you that you might have gotten the job, but you were first and foremost a female in their minds. And I did qualify some of them as spiteful jerks, because they loved to make the most of the awkwardness that ensues when a female trips and nearly falls when they break into a jog and snake their arm in front of her to open the door. The rolling eyes, knowing glances, and tolerant chuckles at the young lady who dared to open a door were convincing evidence that they didn't have pleasant intentions, even when they didn't make pointed remarks (which they sometimes did).

 

Behavior that both parties find ok is...wait for it... ok.

 

I could be wrong, but I thought that EM was talking about more general situations, where you may not know the other person well or at all, rather than two people who know each other and are in agreement. Maybe she can clarify. Either way, it seems that she is putting forth various possible viewpoints as devil's advocate, not her own firmly held beliefs.

[katilac]

Rosie: Sure, why not? It won't kill the woman to accept graciously and assume the man is doing his best to be polite. Does she want to spend time with men who don't trouble themselves to be polite? If she thinks he's doing it because he's a sleaze, she could be glad to have such an early clue!

 

Men can trouble themselves to be extremely polite without extending gender-based courtesies.

 

Also, it won't kill the woman to accept graciously, but it also won't kill the man if she politely demurs, "That's okay, I've got it, thanks." You've actually brought up a very interesting point, because I think your comment expresses the default reaction - the woman should accept graciously.

 

Rarely is it expressed that the woman should accept OR decline graciously. No, one pulled chair does not oppression make, but I do think this comment is indicative of the subtle but constant pressure females are under to accept things graciously. The constant dripping of water wears away stone.

[Ester Maria]

Sadly, yes, they do. When I talked about not being thankful that a guy nearly knocks me over to reach the door first, I was not kidding. I'm in the deep south, and when I first entered the professional working world in 1988, there were definitely (older) men who would do stuff like this in order to show you that you might have gotten the job, but you were first and foremost a female in their minds. And I did qualify some of them as spiteful jerks, because they loved to make the most of the awkwardness that ensues when a female trips and nearly falls when they break into a jog and snake their arm in front of her to open the door. The rolling eyes, knowing glances, and tolerant chuckles at the young lady who dared to open a door were convincing evidence that they didn't have pleasant intentions, even when they didn't make pointed remarks (which they sometimes did).

This is horrible! Such patronizing vested in fake courtesy... I would hate it.

I could be wrong, but I thought that EM was talking about more general situations, where you may not know the other person well or at all, rather than two people who know each other and are in agreement. Maybe she can clarify. Either way, it seems that she is putting forth various possible viewpoints as devil's advocate, not her own firmly held beliefs.

The question is principally is it "okay" (NOT in legal terms - I am trying to stay out of the legal aspect, but speak exclusively in terms of vague "morality" and thus subjective morality of each of us) to select a particular group of people for a different courtesy treatment, not need-based. A lot of men were or are still being raised to treat women differently, ONLY because they are women, *even* if that is (supposedly) "favorably differently". The question, up to which extent can you favor without it being discriminatory and "wrong" (again, moral terms here, value-based terms, not factual or legal ones)? And if it is okay to do it sex-wise, why is it not okay to do it race-wise?

 

Picture this. A business setting, a man receives a group of four delegates, two are men and two are women. He cheerfully salutes them all (i.e. he is kind and polite to all), pulls out two chairs for the women, "If you will please, may [his workers] take your coats as well", big smile, and so forth. He is meanwhile not being UNKIND to men, but he does treat women differently. He expects the men to seat themselves and largely ignores them in these few seconds, by extending extra grace to women, and then he handles the business as usual. Is it okay?

 

Now picture this. Same setting, but in a group of four delegates, all of which are the same sex, two are Caucasian and two are African-American. He cheerfully salutes them all (kind and polite to all), pulls out to chairs for the Caucasian people smiling directly to them, "If you will please, may [his workers] take your coats as well", big smile... NOT unkind to the African-Americans! Perfectly fine with them! But, treating Caucasians differently. The African Americans are expected to seat themselves and do not get that extra bit of an attention.

 

IF we accept, as a general attitude, that one has a moral right to discriminate people, as his personal principle, based on an arbitrary quality, with some extra grace extended to some people - why is the situation with two sexes different than the situation with two races? Why favors based on one arbitrary characteristic are fine, and on the other arbitrary charactertic are not? Remember, there are no additional factors - nobody is disabled, nobody is a child, nobody requires for whatever reason that extra favor. Yet he extends it to some. Not to others. As a result of his personal conviction or operating principle. Is it "okay"?

 

ETA: And yes, I am mostly interested mostly in looking at the idea from several angles :), I personally tend to be okay with some of those old-fashioned formalities, and of course, in everyday life I typically do not overthink courtesy principles. I do know people who are dead set against it and claim that one cannot be a true egalitarian if one condones such personal principles (even if they do not hold them), so IOW, they think that there is nothing charming or nice about classical gentleman manners that are specifically targeted to women.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Ester Maria

[Rosie_0801]

There is not an inconsistency here except to those, like you, who want to say "see YOU LIKE being treated differently (read better) when it suits you so your feminism is a sham. Ha! I GOTcha!". Maybe that is not your literal message but it is a common counter argument I hear often to feminism and one that I consider misguided and rather silly.

 

You realise Ester Maria is playing Devil's Advocate here.

 

So why is it not okay it has racial connotations? If I decide, for example, to honor the Asian people, and them alone, by showing particular little signs of courtesy to them? So, I will never stop or drive carefully if non-Asians are around - but if there are Asians, now those are the people that deserve a bit of my extra attention, though they do not really "deserve" it by any means, but I was simply raised to respect Asians in manners different than other races? :D

 

So what if you do? You are only one person. If you are nicer to Asians and rude to everyone else, you will find yourself only with Asian friends! If you drive like a maniac, you will eventually get pulled over by the police.

 

I am more likely to smile at hijabis than other women. Other women are not harmed by that and the hijabis can't make any money out of it. :tongue_smilie: I know they cop flack, so I smile to make up for others inhospitable behaviour. *shrug*

 

but are you okay with the "mental reality" that prompts it - an automatic differentialized treatment of a group of people for no reason whatsoever (no potential security issues like with kids, no disability accomodations, no nothing - I am just extra kind to Asians, period?)?

 

Yeah. We are all entitled to our quirks. If I don't like yours, I shan't play at your house. ;) An individual's social contract with others isn't my business unless you are doing me harm. If you want to tip Asian waitresses more, do that. Nobody is entitled to a tip anyway. (I'm not American, remember.) If I knew you tipped Asians more, I'd swap tables with my Asian colleague. If you are the boss and you pay Asians more, that is legal discrimination and I will have a problem. If those Asians you are over paying are your daughter's husbands, I won't care because most people pay their relatives more than their other employees. As long as you are not paying the rest of us less than our legal entitlement, I shan't care.

 

Some would be okay even if the women were banned from most of all bars as a result of an independent choice of the owners of the bar (not legislative coercion, i.e. institutional, legally mandated discrimination) - but then that brings all those questions of "where do you draw the line" and why is it okay to segregate a setting sex-wise, but not race-wise, etc.

 

I don't care if the Jews want to have a Jewish bar. I'm quite comfortable with not belonging everywhere. If a Jew wants to bring his/her non-Jewish spouse to the bar, that is an internal matter and nothing to do with me, providing, as you say, they are not breaking laws. If they are running the only bar in town, they are making a poor business decision. :tongue_smilie:

 

But does she want to spend time with men who have a personal dedication to treat women differently, even if favorably differently? A "positive" discrimination is still a discrimination - and if one adopts it as one's personal maxime by which one operates, I can see why for some women it would be problematic.

 

I can also see why some women would find it problematic, but that is their business and not mine. Most of us are able to choose friends as we please.

 

(Of course, we are discussing mostly theoretical issues, as what would be visible in a daily life would be simply an individual instance of grace, rather than a whole mental set-up behind it. But I am bored and insomniac. :lol:)

 

And I am horribly sleep deprived, waiting for water on the stove to boil. I'm delighted to have something to natter about. :D

 

But these considerations need not be relevant - a situation may be such that there may be a 50/50 racially divided group, where it is also not a legal obligation, and not an intent at insult but merely a personal maxime that one has inherited in one's upbringing... So why sex-wise yes, but racially, no?

 

You are talking to an Australian, remember. We don't have the same cultural baggage surrounding race as Americans do. Baggage we definitely have, but it is emphatically not the same as the US. (Some twerps seem to be trying to make it so, but we're not here to talk about them.)

As I said, I personally don't care if the GLBT types want their own bar and the Muslim women want a women's only swimming morning. Many people do and I think they are uptight.

 

Perhaps the difference you are talking about depends on how many minority groups are being excluded? Small courtesies for women that men don't particularly care to have is hurting nobody. Small courtesies for your Asians aren't hurting anyone, they just make you look a little rude to everyone else. Small courtesies to white people carry a lot of baggage with them so they will hurt. Small courtesies to everyone except one small minority will definitely make it obvious they aren't part of the club. That's rude coming from one person, and crosses over to discrimination when it is coming from large groups of people and in some legal and business situations.

 

Rosie

[LucyStoner]

But you do not KNOW it. We are talking not only familiar / agreed upon, but also stranger interactions. Whenever you operate with stranger interactions, you are dealing with assumptions, and you do not *know* that a person will be okay with it.

 

True. I get that you are running the scenarios. However, I don't find the arguments to really change the fact that this sort of stuff is irrelevant to equality. Women who find it offensive that a man opens a door for her are frankly IMO borrowing trouble and losing sight of the core issues.

 

Honestly, the strangest thing that has ever happened to me with regards to this topic is that a man I did not know, overly eager to open the door for me, nearly tackled me in order to do so. That was counter to the spirit of what he was trying to do. ;)

[annandatje]

Just wondering.

 

If you consider yourself a feminist, are you in principle opposed to that nearly extinct species of gentlemen who treat women with a particular kind of regard that is not extended to other men (e.g. opening door to women, giving up their seat to women, pulling out women's chair for them before they are seated in restaurants, etc.)? Why or why not? I am talking exclusively about those special forms of politeness that are traditionally reserved for women because they are women (IOW, something feminists, in theory, "should" have a problem with).

 

I am indifferent to it as long as it merely politeness and how he was brought up to behave. In other words, if he were a generally nice person, I would not insist that he change his way. If the man in question were a sexist, I would have a different take on it.

 

My husband typically does not practice those gestures, and I am comfortable with that. However, all of us open doors or give up public seating for the frail, wheelchair bound, elderly, folks carrying babes or big packages, etc.

[Ester Maria]

I don't care if the Jews want to have a Jewish bar. I'm quite comfortable with not belonging everywhere. If a Jew wants to bring his/her non-Jewish spouse to the bar, that is an internal matter and nothing to do with me, providing, as you say, they are not breaking laws.

And if the WASPs want their own bar? ;) Is it okay for everyone to exclude based on ethnicity / race, or only for some? (Hmm, morally or legally? Legally it is problematic if they operate a business, rather than have a closed private club. But morally? Why not?)

And I am horribly sleep deprived, waiting for water on the stove to boil. I'm delighted to have something to natter about. :D

:D

Perhaps the difference you are talking about depends on how many minority groups are being excluded? Small courtesies for women that men don't particularly care to have is hurting nobody. Small courtesies for your Asians aren't hurting anyone, they just make you look a little rude to everyone else. Small courtesies to white people carry a lot of baggage with them so they will hurt.

I think it may have something to do with the baggage, yes.

But let me ask you this - is it inherently rude (as in, the act itself is rude according to your personal moral judgment), or it only "may appear rude" if I do small courtesies for Asians? :D Do you say "it is legal, but it is not okay [morally]" as those people are saying for sex-based courtesies, i.e. do you judge it negatively, or do you say "it is legal, it is okay, you may only sometimes appear rude - but it is neither a legal nor an ethical issue for me"?

 

What if I systematically teach my children to show the same respect for Asians? :D

[SonshineLearner]

Funny, we were talking about manners at Christmas. As a child, we knew to hop up if an adult didn't have a seat... we used proper names for referring to most adults... we were taught to be "Southern Polite". My father is the most polite gentleman I know. He opens the door for all females and for my brother, too. He always asks if anyone would like to have any food that is almost gone, before he serves himself. (Last soda... he'll call out "Anyone want this? Anyone want to split it with me?) When he goes into the kitchen, and we're in the other room watching tv he'll ask "Anyone need anything in here?" He'd give his very life for my mother in a heartbeat, and would probably instinctively die for any woman... perhaps anyone. He's just a gentle soul. :)

[Ester Maria]

Honestly, the strangest thing that has ever happened to me with regards to this topic is that a man I did not know, overly eager to open the door for me, nearly tackled me in order to do so. That was counter to the spirit of what he was trying to do. ;)

I had a few such situations too. :lol: Also, the climbing the stairs thing that HipGap brought up totally rang a bell for me. I think most of those situations end up being funny / awkward rather than rude, though - although there are definitely still those who coat their disrespect by fake courtesy.

 

ETA: Thanks everyone for your responses. :)

Edited January 5, 2012 by Ester Maria

[Rosie_0801]

Sadly, yes, they do. When I talked about not being thankful that a guy nearly knocks me over to reach the door first, I was not kidding. I'm in the deep south, and when I first entered the professional working world in 1988, there were definitely (older) men who would do stuff like this in order to show you that you might have gotten the job, but you were first and foremost a female in their minds. And I did qualify some of them as spiteful jerks, because they loved to make the most of the awkwardness that ensues when a female trips and nearly falls when they break into a jog and snake their arm in front of her to open the door. The rolling eyes, knowing glances, and tolerant chuckles at the young lady who dared to open a door were convincing evidence that they didn't have pleasant intentions, even when they didn't make pointed remarks (which they sometimes did).

 

:001_huh: I hope some lady smiled pleasantly and said "Thank you! Oops so sorry!" as she ground her spiky heel into his foot.

 

Also, it won't kill the woman to accept graciously, but it also won't kill the man if she politely demurs, "That's okay, I've got it, thanks." You've actually brought up a very interesting point, because I think your comment expresses the default reaction - the woman should accept graciously.

 

Rarely is it expressed that the woman should accept OR decline graciously. No, one pulled chair does not oppression make, but I do think this comment is indicative of the subtle but constant pressure females are under to accept things graciously. The constant dripping of water wears away stone.

 

I have no problems with politely deferring. I worded things the way I did as an argument against the hypothetical rabid man hating feminists because I find it frustrating when that is the only type of feminism people are aware of. I also know many woman and was one myself, who have been trained to be so independent that their mouth will say "no thank you" and a second later when their brain catches up, wish to shout "Um. I really meant yes! Please come back!!!"

 

In light of Katilac's post, I think we are bumping into cultural differences. There is no subtle but constant pressure here for women to accept these things. A little more pressure might do some good here. For a man to open a door for a woman and receive a dirty look, I'd argue it is her without manners, not him.

 

Rosie

[annandatje]

If a man, feminist or not, has issue with acts of politeness reserved for female gender, then he can solve his problem by not engaging in such acts can't he? He could extend those courtesies on a need-based approach. Resentful people are unattractive regardness of any acts of gender-based or need-based politeness.

[Rosie_0801]

Picture this. A business setting, a man receives a group of four delegates, two are men and two are women. He cheerfully salutes them all (i.e. he is kind and polite to all), pulls out two chairs for the women, "If you will please, may [his workers] take your coats as well", big smile, and so forth. He is meanwhile not being UNKIND to men, but he does treat women differently. He expects the men to seat themselves and largely ignores them in these few seconds, by extending extra grace to women, and then he handles the business as usual. Is it okay?

 

I think it should be ok, but I think the women would be very uncomfortable and would feel they are being treated as inferiors. I think they would treat the host as though he thinks they are inferiors even if he presented absolutely no further reason to confirm this. I think the men could feel as though the host favours women, and could treat him as such even if he gave no further reason for them to think so.

 

I think it should be more or less ignored as old fashioned manners, but I doubt it would be by most.

 

Now picture this. Same setting, but in a group of four delegates, all of which are the same sex, two are Caucasian and two are African-American. He cheerfully salutes them all (kind and polite to all), pulls out to chairs for the Caucasian people smiling directly to them, "If you will please, may [his workers] take your coats as well", big smile... NOT unkind to the African-Americans! Perfectly fine with them! But, treating Caucasians differently. The African Americans are expected to seat themselves and do not get that extra bit of an attention.

This would be very bad because of the different precedent. In the former scenario, the different treatment was a generally respectful difference. (Katilac's rude git aquaintences excepted!) In this scenario, the precedent was very negative. The immediately obvious meaning in the former example is "I have old fashioned manners." The immediately obvious here is "I am racist."

 

 

I do know people who are dead set against it and claim that one cannot be a true egalitarian if one condones such personal principles (even if they do not hold them), so IOW, they think that there is nothing charming or nice about classical gentleman manners that are specifically targeted to women.

I don't mind that when they are people who are generally courteous to everyone. I do mind it when it becomes "I can scratch my bum and talk dirty with my mates, so I'm going to do the same when you are here" and I'm the rude one for objecting! I had one bloke sit in my lounge room talking about things I couldn't even bring myself to say here. That is not ok.

 

Rosie

[katilac]

Rosie, you mentioned cultural differences in respect to race. Are there cultural difference in respect to the way business is conducted as well? In America, lots of business is conducted on the golf course or at the country club. Excluding Jews, for example, can seriously impair their ability to compete and make money.

 

For an actual golf example, there were no black players in the Masters until 1975. In 1990, Shoal Creek hosted the PGA championship, and founder Hall Thompson blithely explained their admission policy to a reporter, noting that they didn't discriminate in any way "except for the blacks." Thankfully, there was a storm of protest, and Tiger Woods played (and won) the Jerry Pate Invitational there in 1994. When the Baltimore Country Club admitted its first black couple in 1995, it made the news. The president of the club, which has about 3,000 members in a large and diverse city, felt it worth noting that the club now had a few Jewish members as well.

 

I know you used the example of bars, not clubs, but I don't know if country clubs are prevalent in your area. They are in America, pretty much anywhere that has at least one sizable business, and they are where a lot of business gets done. Even 'simpler' situations, such as a bar or a store, can be problematic for minorities in a small town. Okay, you don't need to drink a beer with your buddies (although it's pretty crummy not to be able to), but you do need to buy groceries. Blacks would often be banned from the 'white' stores in town, and the 'black' store would feature poorer quality at higher prices. That's valid economic hardship - and obvious, to us. The country club and golf courses are less obvious, as they don't sell necessities such as groceries, but the economic impact is just as valid.

 

If you allow people to discriminate based on color or gender for social reasons, they will pointedly move their business concerns to the social arena. Can laws or society stop it completely? No, of course not. But laws can make it more difficult, and society can make it less acceptable.

[Rosie_0801]

And if the WASPs want their own bar? ;) Is it okay for everyone to exclude based on ethnicity / race, or only for some? (Hmm, morally or legally? Legally it is problematic if they operate a business, rather than have a closed private club. But morally? Why not?)

 

Legally it would obviously be a problem. Morally? I don't think I can see it as a moral issue but I understand how others could. I guess I'd think they were probably on the rude side, but people can be rude if they want to and they can enjoy the consequences. A local WASP bar doesn't mean they are opening a Melbourne chapter of the KKK, does it?

 

I think it may have something to do with the baggage, yes.

But let me ask you this - is it inherently rude (as in, the act itself is rude according to your personal moral judgment), or it only "may appear rude" if I do small courtesies for Asians? :D Do you say "it is legal, but it is not okay [morally]" as those people are saying for sex-based courtesies, i.e. do you judge it negatively, or do you say "it is legal, it is okay, you may only sometimes appear rude - but it is neither a legal nor an ethical issue for me"?

 

It is neither a legal nor an ethical issue to me since you are not breaking laws or being particularly rude to anyone else. Maybe you've been to Asia, everyone you met was wonderful to you so you've determined to be wonderful to all Asians in return for their hospitality.

 

What if I systematically teach my children to show the same respect for Asians?

 

Whatever floats your boat. I've known weirder people.

 

Glad you're having such fun here. :tongue_smilie:

 

Rosie, you mentioned cultural differences in respect to race. Are there cultural difference in respect to the way business is conducted as well? In America, lots of business is conducted on the golf course or at the country club. Excluding Jews, for example, can seriously impair their ability to compete and make money.

 

I don't know much about how business is conducted. I've never been part of the corporate world. I don't know whether country clubs are allowed to discriminate against Jews or any other racial/religious group, but I imagine that would be illegal and it would certainly be illegal for a golf course to discriminate. Legally the situation you describe couldn't happen and it'd hit the fan if anyone tried. In theory people running a business could accept such patrons officially and be so rude they don't come back, but that is rare.

 

If you allow people to discriminate based on color or gender for social reasons, they will pointedly move their business concerns to the social arena. Can laws or society stop it completely? No, of course not. But laws can make it more difficult, and society can make it less acceptable.

 

I don't really understand. If someone doesn't want to do a business deal with someone, it is easy enough to avoid. If it is a situation where not doing so would be legal discrimination, such as serving them in a restaurant, they would just provide poor service so the patrons wouldn't want to come back.

 

Rosie

[katilac]

I don't really understand. If someone doesn't want to do a business deal with someone, it is easy enough to avoid. If it is a situation where not doing so would be legal discrimination, such as serving them in a restaurant, they would just provide poor service so the patrons wouldn't want to come back. Rosie

 

It is more a matter of access and acceptability rather than a true reluctance to do business with a certain person. Think of posters on a message board, who will often reply to others with more rudeness than they would venture if the real, live person were sitting in front of them. Country club exclusions work on the same principle. Most members don't have a rabid hatred for all Jews or blacks, but rather a moderate preference for "their own kind" and an ingrained acceptance of excluding others. It's always been that way and it's so much a part of their lives that they don't even think about it. They aren't refusing to do business with others, but it's just so easy and comfortable to work out handshake deals at the club, you know how it is, right? It's much easier to turn someone down or refuse to hear them out in a strictly business setting, and besides, that deal was worked out before any of the outsiders even got wind of it.

 

Picture this same guy after his clubs admits some black people. Remember, he's never hated blacks, it's just that he's never dealt with them and never much wanted to. But it's much harder to refuse to hear someone out when they are sitting in the lounge with you, not a voice on the phone or a letter of inquiry, but an actual, you know, PERSON. So he agrees to listen to the guy, it's so hard to be rude face to face, and what's the harm in listening?

 

Eventually, he does a deal with them, maybe just b/c he's uncomfortable saying no over and over again. So there's probably a business lunch at some point, and maybe discussing the details while playing a round of golf, he sometimes forgets to remember that Joe is black, he does all these things he has NEVER done before, and . . . the world keeps turning, the deal works out well or not, but life is pretty much unchanged. Huh.

 

Most club members (and people in general) are this guy, not the rabid hate-mongers. A nudge from society keeps them from saying certain words in public, and eventually they quit saying them in private. A nudge from the law puts living, breathing people in their enclave, and they react accordingly. In five or ten years, they won't quite be able to pinpoint what the big deal was in the first place.

[kiana]

Hmm.

 

SO once got kicked in the nads by someone who was upset that he opened a door for her. Apparently she found his manner of doing so rather patronizing.

 

It sorta turned him off opening doors for women, even if they DO look like they could use it.

 

Y'know, I understand if someone would prefer not to have the door opened. I don't see the harm in it, myself. As others said, it's a voluntary social interaction.

[Impish]

I know men who claim that "true feminists" should be completely opposed to that, because it means wanting equal rights AND being okay with not being equal as regards additional privileges, and they feel it is either equal rights and privileges for ALL (so, extending towards women only that courtesy they would extend towards men), either all kinds of preferential treament (courtesy, legal, etc.); they feel that equal rights with preferential treatment towards one sex in courtesy matters are in some kind of inner contradiction. That is why I ask. :lol:

I've known ppl that have the same perspective.

 

I've also been known to needle certain family members about this topic...rabid, foaming at the mouth types, who come across as man haters, but then throw a hissy if someone DOESN'T offer to open a door.

 

Take your pick, you can't have it both ways.

 

I'm feminist in the dictionary term...I believe in equal rights and responsibilities regardless of gender. Equal pay for equal work, etc.

 

BUT...I like it when Wolf extends me courtesies that are in recognition of being a woman. Opening doors, etc.

 

If nothing else, it reminds me that I'm not 'just a Mom', and that's a nice feeling! :lol:

 

(He's never been kicked in the 'nads, but he has had women freak out and read him the riot act b/c he dared to open a door for them)

[Rivka]

Just wondering.

 

If you consider yourself a feminist, are you in principle opposed to that nearly extinct species of gentlemen who treat women with a particular kind of regard that is not extended to other men (e.g. opening door to women, giving up their seat to women, pulling out women's chair for them before they are seated in restaurants, etc.)? Why or why not? I am talking exclusively about those special forms of politeness that are traditionally reserved for women because they are women (IOW, something feminists, in theory, "should" have a problem with).

 

My husband was raised to have these manners. I think it is usually fine in social settings, with a couple of caveats:

 

- I have seen men do this in a grandstanding way, to try to drag people's attention to them or to initiate interaction with a woman in public. I find this really annoying. My husband just happens to be unobtrusively beside me holding out my coat when we're getting ready to leave a restaurant. He doesn't do it with a smirk and a flourish so that everyone notices what a gentleman he is.

 

- I have seen women met with astonishing vitriol for declining this kind of courtesy, which leads me to think that for some people it's very much about putting women in their place.

 

Here's a bigger caveat: I don't think it has any place at all in professional settings. I don't want male colleagues pulling out my chair in the conference room or rushing ahead of me to open the door when I don't have my arms full. That's inappropriately bringing male/female social stuff into the work realm. The same would apply at something like a public meeting or a customer service environment. If I'm trying to buy a used car, convince people that I'm right about something, or do my job, I don't want to be signaled that men are putting me in a special "lady" category. I just want to be a person.