Fuck Sexism

[ZaichikArky]

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I find absolutely nothing wrong with benevolent sexism. Actually, if I found guy who wasn't a "benevolent sexist", I would not go out with him. Girls should be treated differently. They are ladies and deserve it. Call it sexist if you want, it's just the way that I think, and I'm feminist. *cues the OMG NO UR NOT* >_>;

[ZeaLitY]

The same people who are likely to treat women specially are also likely to do it out of sexist and outdated cultural attitudes, like stupid restaurateur fuckers who sell roses for "the lady", as if implicitly saying women are dainty creatures who need a ~rose~ and pampering every now and then and should be guarded by men and have a place in the home.

I hold the door open for women and men. Someone who only treats women specially should probably burn in hell forever.

[Lord J Esq]

It's clear from my writing here, but just to be explicit about it I am 100 percent against all sexism, including so-called positive sexism, because in my judgment the outcome is never truly positive. If you're holding that proverbial door open for someone because she has ovaries, and for no other reason, then I suggest your thinking is flawed. Positive sexism establishes the same reinforcement schemes for gender roles that negative sexism does; the only good thing that can be said about it is that, comparatively, it's better than its negative counterpart because it doesn't involve assault and rape.

I've argued on the Compendium many times against sexism on positive sexism grounds.

[Truthordeal]

I think benevolent sexism means you'll be polite and hold doors open for women but not men (or vice versa, depending on sexual preferences). There's nothing wrong with being polite, but it's pretty stupid to be polite only towards one gender.

That all makes sense enough to me. But as Lord J and Zeality said before me, is there a point when being polite or chivalrous can turn into a form of sexism that reinforces negative gender roles as well?

The same people who are likely to treat women specially are also likely to do it out of sexist and outdated cultural attitudes, like stupid restaurateur fuckers who sell roses for "the lady", as if implicitly saying women are dainty creatures who need a ~rose~ and pampering every now and then and should be guarded by men and have a place in the home.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that I think this particular ritual has more to do with making a few extra bucks, not to mention that women are more likely to accept the rose than men.

Whether that's good or bad is debatable. Lord J has gone on record of saying that he thinks it is bad, while I'm sure a few members here would disagree with him.

I hold the door open for women and men. Someone who only treats women specially should probably burn in hell forever.

I hope the irony's not lost on you.

[Lord J Esq]

There's nothing wrong with holding the door open. It's just that pesky little for women on the end. Any sex-specific treatment of other people that doesn't specifically relate to anatomy and physiology is highly susceptible to taking on a sexist dimension. Best to avoid it altogether. For what it's worth, I've held the door open before, and I've had it held open for me, and these were signs of affection or gestures of assistance, having nothing to do with the sex of me or my partner.

[ZaichikArky]

Hm I don't really know what you're talking about the rose thing. I have never experienced this, or even heard of it. If I did, I wouldn't mind, I'm sure it would be cute.

I'm not really old fashioned, but ladies deserve to be treated differently because they are ladies and they need to be shown that they are special. All of you may view that as inherently sexist, and I haven't ever thought of it that way, but even if I did, I don't mind if it is.

I try to hold the door back for all people, not women. I don't expect strangers to treat me differently because I'm a woman and maybe I have been, but I probably don't remember when/if I have. Any time a stranger treats me differently because I'm a woman is because they're hitting on me and want me and are propositioning me. All women deal with that, so I try not to be so annoyed by it anymore... it's just stupid and shooting down the guy does more damage than being propositioned unwillingly (to me anyway).

I am more interested in being treated differently in a relationship. My boyfriend is somewhat old fashioned and sexist. I mentioned this before, but the only thing that kind of annoys me is that he INSISTS on paying for everything because I'm a woman and women shouldn't pay for stuff XD; But I like being treated differently and even though i find it annoying, I would *possibly* not be in a relationship if the guy did not volunteer to pay for everything. I am Russian, and in Russian culture, the man is expected to pay for everything on dates because he is the man and he needs to show his "manliness" and generosity towards the woman by always paying for their dates. This has slightly changed in recent years, but my family has raised me with this mentality. I'm sure everyone here will call it wrong, but to me, it is wrong to discuss splitting the bill after every date. I do that with friends, but on a date, I expect the man to pay for it all, and then when i feel like paying for it (around ~40 percent of the time in my case, then I try to get my way and pay for it).

I'm sure my boyfriend does other sexist things that I don't even notice (yeah, because I'm used to it and like it). The date thing is the only blatant one, but there are probably some other things.... Well I can't think of too many right now,actually, maybe they'll come to mind later.

Anyway, the point is... 90% of women or more most likely like benevolent sexism in their relationships. I am pretty certain of this, and while all the guys here talk about how stupid it is, do you think  the women in your relationships wouldn't like it? The next relationship you get into, try doing that some, especially at the beginning. I bet it's a real good way to solidify a relationship because women are real sticklers for that kind of thing. If you don't do it, perhaps the woman might not think you're gentlemanly enough and not want to go out with you.

Is that right or wrong? Maybe. I think it's right. I think that women expect to be treated differently by their boyfriends, and should be. I'm sure there are many relationships out there where the guy does not practice benevolent sexism and the girl doesn't mind... however, I'm not one of them, and neither are most women. Good luck in finding a girl who doesn't like benevolent sexism. There must be some out there.

[Romana]

I'm not really old fashioned, but ladies deserve to be treated differently because they are ladies and they need to be shown that they are special.

WHAT

And what about men?

[Zephira]

While it is flattering for a man to want to pick up the tab, I think it would speak better of his intelligence if we split the bill, or at least discussed who at the time has enough money to pay.
Would I like a man I go out with to be polite and courteous? Yes, yes I would. But if he only extends that generosity to me and other women, then he's an ass. If he were a gentleman or 'manly' at all, he would treat everyone with the same respect.
Preferential treatment should not be based on gender or race.

I'm not really old fashioned, but ladies deserve to be treated differently because they are ladies and they need to be shown that they are special. All of you may view that as inherently sexist, and I haven't ever thought of it that way, but even if I did, I don't mind if it is.

And what, exactly, makes them special? Is it the fact that they have ovaries, or did they do something to actually earn that respect?

[FaustWolf]

[L]adies deserve to be treated differently because they are ladies and they need to be shown that they are special.

All women should feel valued (just as valued as men, and for that matter, other genders that may exist), and I think that's the crux of the issue, and what we can all agree on here. I can definitely see where you're coming from, Zai, to this extent -- As long as femininity is basically being crapped upon in general, chivalry or "positive sexism" serves as kind of a counterbalancing emotional and psychological buffer. On a date, or at a traditional wedding, it's like, her occasion, the tiny corner of her world where she gets to feel valued and central in a way she may not feel on numerous other occasions.

However, on the basis of the logic presented in this post, positive sexism should become gradually outmoded alongside negative sexism.

[ZaichikArky]

WHAT

And what about men?

I know a lot of you will jump my gun on this, but men don't need to feel special because society already privileges them anyway. Also, a womans inherent nature will make men feel very special. I just know this from mine/my girlfriends experiences. A woman will usually try to make her boyfriend feel special by her inherent nurturing nature.

Believe it or not, but I am very masculine, and even so, I try to be nurturing to my boyfriend and make him feel special.

The way that men make their ladies feel special is by chivalrous deeds. At is, this is how it is in part. I wouldn't want a boyfriend who was not chivalrous. While Fergie said "Chivalry is dead, but you're still kinda cute", I always disagreed with her. Why was she disapproving of her romance being chivalrous? Isn't it saying something that a lot of women think chivalry is dead? it's not dead, it's just much more reserved these days. This is NOT a stepping stone against sexism. It is a stepping stone for selfishness and uncaring. Many men are not chivalrous because they know that modern society doesn't expect it, so why should they be trying to impress their lady if she isn't expecting it either? I know that I am someone who expects a little bit of chivalry and will not approve of a romance that isn't at least a little chivalrous.

Basically, the definition of chivalry has sadly taken a somewhat negative connotation these last few decades. Chivalry's core definition basically means "like a knight". What lady doesn't like her man to be a knight in shining armor? Hm... maybe the emo ones. Fuck emos.

Anyway, most women like their men to be brave, generous, and COURTEOUS. How are these negative qualities to have? These are the ideal qualities for a man to have. I am somewhat chivalrous, because i am independant and masculine. I expect my boyfriend to be too, and while I am much braver than my current boyfriend, bravery can be developed... generosity and being courteous are more ingrained... My boyfriend is much more generous than I am. Because my selfishness is engrained. His actions encourage me to be less selfish. This is the ideal kind of relationship to have... when someone's good qualities encourage the other to make themselves better.

If my boyfriend wasn't benevolently sexist, how would that encourage me to be more generous or keep my mouth shut and not bitch at people needlessly(I do take after my mom a little, though I'm no where near as bad as she is)?

[Romana]

I know a lot of you will jump my gun on this, but men don't need to feel special because society already privileges them anyway.

This COMPLETELY goes against what fighting for gender equality is about. The goal is for both genders to be able to stand on equal ground, not raise one gender to a higher privilege than the other.

You have every right to express how you like the way your relationship is, but you can't say it as if it's how every relationship should be.

[FaustWolf]

The whole chivalry thing is just as confusing to men as it is to women sometimes (or as far as I can tell from a male perspective). A lot of guys who either start out as chivalrous and receive negative responses or else observe negative responses or non-responses to other chivalrous men may adopt an immature attitude: "Well, jeez, I'll just let the door slam in her face and see how she likes that!" This may have at least some bearing on women from older generations opining on the "death" of chivalry; they might not be opining the death of chivalry as much as the death of common courtesy.

But the point, is, simply, that doors should be open for others in close proximity always, without regard to age, gender, creed, race or appearance. If a guy lets a door slam in a woman's face -- or anyone's face -- he's
being in asshole in that instance, period.

But as far as why chivalrous men may receive negative responses in the first place, a lot of women are probably frustrated that a guy would seem to be expressing a belief that she's so helpless that she can't even open a door for herself. The "she's special" being replaced with "she needs a dude to help her" from such a woman's perspective. She has muscles too, and should feel free to exert them. At least that's my theory. Note that the door opening example obviously does not encapsulate all that is chivalry, but I imagine similar analogies to other aspects of chivalry could be made.

[ZaichikArky]

I know a lot of you will jump my gun on this, but men don't need to feel special because society already privileges them anyway.

This COMPLETELY goes against what fighting for gender equality is about. The goal is for both genders to be able to stand on equal ground, not raise one gender to a higher privilege than the other.

I knew you were going to say exactly that. I don't care if it's anti gender equality. There will *never* ever be such a thing as gender equality. From a sociological viewpoint or a physiological one, there will never be. Doesn't mean we can't aim for it, I just think that the term "gender equality" is just pointless to use. Men and women will never be equal so there needs to be a better term.

You have every right to express how you like the way your relationship is, but you can't say it as if it's how every relationship should be.

I never did. Not sure why you think I am. Anyone can lead their relationship in any way they want. I understand that most of you have never been in a relationship, let alone a long-term one. So I think that none of you even have any experiences about what relationships are like. I'm not saying that to trash talk, I'm just saying that unless you have actually been in a relationship, you really just know the theory behind how you/other people will act and I am putting it into practical terms from what I have/ other women I know have experienced.

[FaustWolf]

I understand that most of you have never been in a relationship, let alone a long-term one.

Whoa, that's really fascinating. Judging from the fact that most of us are in our late teens or early twenties, I'd estimate that virtually 100% of us have been in and out of relationships. What's giving you this impression? I'm not arguing, just really fascinated -- wondering if I need to reshape my expectations of the culture in which I live, and whether I'm out of touch with what teens are doing nowadays.

Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing a dumbing down in the relationship numbers, because I feel some portion of those are being formed haphazardly just because Western culture makes people feel worthless if they're not in a relationship. Lord, I've made some poor moves in my day due to that feeling.

[Truthordeal]

FW, I'm giving Zaichi the BotD here and assuming that she meant an actual adult relationship, rather than the typical high school crush and bust.
While we'd like to think that all of our dating is a "relationship," its probably not as they don't usually have all of the same pressures and such.