Is Holding the Door Open for Women Considered Sexist?

[TheStatutoryApe]

I don't get that at all.

Men I date treat me as an equal human, not as a woman that needs to assert herself, or even as a woman that they respect for asserting herself. I don't think I could tolerate someone that treated me as anything other than an equal human in those respects. Of course physically, there are obvious differences in strength.

It is hard to treat a person as an equal human being when they do not want to be treated that way. So if Huck or I or any other male wishes to find a woman whom we can treat as an equal human being we need to specifically look for the ones that are ok with that. Depending on the individual it may also be necessary to let her know in some fashion that we appreciate it.

Are there not any desirable traits that you look for in a male that only some males possess? You never think "I would like a man with [insert desirable trait here] instead of all those macho jerks who [insert undesirable trait here]"? You treat them all as equal human beings?

 

[Char. Limit]

I would like a woman who is intelligent. Just as important, of course, is faithfulness. I won't sleep around, so why should she?

But that's beside the point. The point is... Do those videos have a YouTube equivalent? Cause they aren't working for me.

 

[rootX]

I would like a woman who is intelligent. Just as important, of course, is faithfulness. I won't sleep around, so why should she?

plus down to Earth for me.

Faithfulness involves bit more than not sleeping with anyone else I believe.

 

[Char. Limit]

Well, yes, but I used the most obvious example to avoid confusing faithfulness with faith.

 

[GeorginaS]

Real simple.

Being polite by holding doors open for people is a good thing.

Rude people suck.

Done.

 

[DanP]

It is hard to treat a person as an equal human being when they do not want to be treated that way. So if Huck or I or any other male wishes to find a woman whom we can treat as an equal human being we need to specifically look for the ones that are ok with that. Depending on the individual it may also be necessary to let her know in some fashion that we appreciate it.

Are there not any desirable traits that you look for in a male that only some males possess? You never think "I would like a man with [insert desirable trait here] instead of all those macho jerks who [insert undesirable trait here]"? You treat them all as equal human beings?

From a legal point of view, yes equality between sexes is very important.

From a practical point of view, it's pretty much useless to compare. We (mew / women) are as different as night and day, so why put an "=" between such different creatures. It's like comparing dogs to cats. I am pretty much sure that save for legal rights, a women (dykes excluded) doesn't want to be the "equal" of a man.

But yeah, pretty much women and man are quite awesome.

 

[DanP]

Of course physically, there are obvious differences in strength.

Ive met women who are pretty much stronger and more physically fit than many man. While
limit strength and endurance is higher for man, many man today are weaklings who can get their *** kicked by women :P

There are girls here in local mountain rescue who do a great job shoulder to shoulder with man in physical work.

Others prove their worth to the team differently, with good logistic support, and excellent paramedical skills.

Oh, and besides strength, men have to deal with snakes and alligators. No way am I touching either of those.

Most man would run away from alligators, too. Well, on discovery and animal planet I seen sometime nice films about girls enjoying dealing with beasts such as crocodiles and snakes.

 

[Huckleberry]

I don't get that at all.

Men I date treat me as an equal human, not as a woman that needs to assert herself, or even as a woman that they respect for asserting herself. I don't think I could tolerate someone that treated me as anything other than an equal human in those respects. Of course physically, there are obvious differences in strength.

I hold doors open for men and women alike and expect the same courtesy from both.

You are already assertive. Your intolerance of disrespect earns the respect of others. Nobody needs to encourage you to do something you are already inclined to do. You know how to speak for yourself. I feel sorry for the person that tries to silence you. Those are some very attractive qualities you have.

Not all women are so inclined to be assertive with their desires. Some will conform to aggression rather than confront it. This leaves them in positions that they would not choose for themselves. They stay with the jerk that abuses and degrades them, they get quietly passed over for raises and promotions they have earned, they allow men and society to define their self-image and sometimes even their will. Women with this trait are not uncommon. It is a disadvantage if they are going to participate equally in a society. These women need encouragement to exercise their freedom. Freedom not exercised is lost.

What I worry about is an impairment of humility resulting from the acquisition of newfound strength. The woman Char.Limit encountered in a doorway is an example. I come to the conclusion that apparent humility due to oppressive conditions has only apparent value. Equality of freedom of all humanity has real value, even when it is abused absurdly with a lack of good grace born from humility.

 

[sponsoredwalk]

Uh-oh, better quash the rumors.

I was looking outside at the time when I heard the word "sexist", looked, and she was talking about me holding the door open. I thought she was obviously single because people like that couldn't get married. Their prejudices would get in the way.

Great responses. I've actually abandoned the term "feminist", which no longer means "supporting equality". To be exact, "feminist" means "gynocentrist" now. I call myself an egalitarian. Nice and German, the language of my ancestors.

lol, well I was skeptical about the whole post and regarded it as trollery until your reply for which I'm thankful. So she gave off-handed comments to others about you after you opened the door for her?

Quite simply, you should of confronted her immediately and accused her of sexism in it's purest form. Unless assuming a seemingly courteous action harbours malicious purposes purely on the basis of sex is NOT sexism, why then she's totally in the right, right?

You should of made a scene and you should of set the record straight to her face. Remind her what common courtesy is. You should never let us down like that again okay, you make us all look bad when you do not confront phallo/gynocentric people :tongue2:

What is really interesting is that you say feminist means gynocentrist. This is a 100% clear cut case of what a "taboo" does to our language.
We must continually change the words we use because the "old" ones conjure up negative mental connotations. I personally think it's ridiculous, but c'est la vie.
I wish I could remember which book I read about this in but I'll just say find some Steven Pinker lectures online and he'll illuminate this idea further.
I don't believe feminism or the term "feminist" deserves any social stigma, however an experience like the one you've spoken of is exemplar of why feminist is a "naughty word".
That said, why slander a good word that originally was used to signify rebellion against a patriarchal & unfair society because there is no bold-face term to describe girls/women who use the word feminism interchangibly and confuse the concept of feminism for men who aim desperately to please and not offend?

You should of just stood up to the fool and shown her there is more to the world than small minded hate and constant attempts to put others down.

btw: I know married people who are just as prejudiced, if not moreso, than my single friends, generalizations are always worth the paper they are printed on...

 

[Char. Limit]

Actually, androcentrism is the opposite of gynocentrism. Phallocentrism is something different. Just sayin'.

Yes, perhaps I should have stood up to her, but I was too stunned at the time. I did not know that people like that existed in my hometown...

And on your statement about words becoming taboo, let me quote one Jules Feiffer's cartoon:

"As a matter of racial pride we want to be called 'blacks.' Which has replaced the term 'Afro-American'-Which replaced 'Negroes'-Which replaced 'colored people'-Which replaced 'darkies'-Which replaced 'blacks.'"

So feminism as a term might come back. In the meantime, I avoid the negative connotations and call myself an egalitarian. I don't want people thinking I'm part of the auxiliary wing of S.C.U.M.

Also, does that mean that this generalization is worth $.99/month?

 

[Hurkyl]

I've heard phrase for the sexists who claim to be feminists, so I'll do my part to popularize it: they are "straw feminists".

 

[Char. Limit]

Straw Feminist indeed.

 

[sponsoredwalk]

Straw Feminist indeed.

Great article. We'll leave it @ straw feminazi's or anything of that ilk :tongue2:

Yeah, androcentrism would fit better, I had been awake for 25 consecutive hours when I wrote the reply so ... :zzz:


http://fathersforlife.org/pizzey/anti_fem.htm

I think this is a nice moment for Erin Pizzey, a feminist who was chasticized and had her dog killed by feminists because she simply stated that there are women who are just as bad as men. People are just capable of going overboard on anything if it has a hint of ideology in it, myself not excluded :tongue2:
This is a good exercise to recognise that it's just bad people who take a seemingly noble cause and disgrace it with stupidity.

 

[GeorginaS]

One rude person really struck the core of your being, Char. Limit? To the point that this has to be all about feminism and how women should or shouldn't behave and whatnot? Honest to Pete.

Someone was rude. Shrug your shoulders and get on with your life.

 

[Char. Limit]

Wait, what? I'm not here deciding how women should behave. I have no idea where you got that. I'm just putting in my opinions to the discussion now. I'm hardly shaken to the core of my being.

 

[DanP]

One rude person really struck the core of your being, Char. Limit? To the point that this has to be all about feminism and how women should or shouldn't behave and whatnot? Honest to Pete.

Someone was rude. Shrug your shoulders and get on with your life.

He just had a personal experience which he wanted to discuss. Nothing bad in it.

It might not have much with feminism or how women should behave or not, but then again,
neither was the case of Tiger Woods. Yet some seems to believe that this guys should apologize to all women :

But the commentary from female viewers was far less fawning and much more cynical. Even before the speech aired, the women-focused blog Double X declared, "Women will never forgive Tiger."

http://tv.yahoo.com/blog/reactions-to-tigers-speech-divided-along-gender-lines--1004

Like "women" have anything to forgive to Tiger. The only woman he owe an apology is his wife , and that in private.

 

[Pinu7]

She can open the fridge door by herself.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Like "women" have anything to forgive to Tiger. The only woman he owe an apology is his wife , and that in private.

Not only that, but it's funny how a few women think they can speak for all women. If Tiger Woods got a divorce, do they honestly think women wouldn't be lining up to marry him?

 

[GeorginaS]

Like "women" have anything to forgive to Tiger. The only woman he owe an apology is his wife , and that in private.

How on Earth does that have anything at all to do with Char.Limit encountering a rude person who he held a door open?

 

[GeorginaS]

I had a women's studies class at ASU about a decade ago. If there were any women in that class who hated men they chose not to express it. I don't think they would do that for my benefit. The female professor and the other women in the class were enough to silence any misandrist opinions, if they existed at all. It was kind of cool watching women learn that it is okay to be a powerful woman like many of the women in history. This was a concept that was unfamiliar to some of them, and it was a new perspective for me to witness.

True feminism is about demanding justice and equality of the sexes. Misandry is about vengeance and a new epoch where women shame and degrade men. Sometimes misandrists disguise themselves as feminists. They aren't. They're party crashers.

I'm no feminist, but I like me a strong woman. I might try to push her around, but it's no fun if they don't push back, just doing whatever it is they think they are supposed to do. I encourage an aggressive individuality in women, and pray that the feminine sensitivity remains intact. I like women who like to be women. It's an entirely sexual interest, and not feminist at all, except maybe by coincidence.

Uh-oh, better quash the rumors.

I was looking outside at the time when I heard the word "sexist", looked, and she was talking about me holding the door open. I thought she was obviously single because people like that couldn't get married. Their prejudices would get in the way.

Great responses. I've actually abandoned the term "feminist", which no longer means "supporting equality". To be exact, "feminist" means "gynocentrist" now. I call myself an egalitarian. Nice and German, the language of my ancestors.

Wait, what? I'm not here deciding how women should behave. I have no idea where you got that. I'm just putting in my opinions to the discussion now. I'm hardly shaken to the core of my being.

Really? One rude person and y'all are now parsing the word "feminism" and the acceptability of the term. Huckleberry is treating us to "liking [him] a strong woman" (sic) and "liking women to be women" [whatever, pray tell, that's supposed to mean] but demanding equal treatment in the eyes of the law somehow precludes that because something means that a rude person isn't a "true feminist".

You, Char.Limit decided that the woman must be single because "people like that couldn't get married". Given all this blather about "feminism" tell me how those two ideas connect, would you?

So this turns into a debate about the nature of feminism, politics, and overall women's behaviour because someone -- one person -- was rude to you when you held open a door for them, Char.Limit? I think you're taking yourself a wee bit seriously.

 

[Huckleberry]

Really? One rude person and y'all are now parsing the word "feminism" and the acceptability of the term. Huckleberry is treating us to "liking [him] a strong woman" (sic) and "liking women to be women" [whatever, pray tell, that's supposed to mean] but demanding equal treatment in the eyes of the law somehow precludes that because something means that a rude person isn't a "true feminist".

It's not just any kind of rudeness. Her rudeness was sexist. Feminism is interested in equality of the sexes. Hence, the sexist woman is not a true feminist. She is a misandrist that probably calls herself a feminist. She wasn't demanding equal treatment under any law. She was intentionally belittling the OP for being polite to her.

Liking women to be women means that I admire a woman, or anyone really, who is content with themselves, however they choose to define that. I don't want to assign an archetypical woman and say this is what all women should be. I enjoy variety and individuality. It takes strength to be an individual. I also enjoy that there is a difference between the sexes. What I want is equality of freedom for everyone, not uniformity.

I have trouble believing that someone who feels the need to belittle and dominate others is strong or content. That would be psychopathic.

 

[elect_eng]

Like "women" have anything to forgive to Tiger. The only woman he owe an apology is his wife , and that in private.

And, his Mother too.

 

[DanP]

How on Earth does that have anything at all to do with Char.Limit encountering a rude person who he held a door open?

Very simple Georgina.

You said, Char should get over it. Half of the internet should get over what Tiger did.

Yet nobody will get over it. For the simple reason that neither man and women can get over sexism.

 

[GeorginaS]

Very simple Georgina.

You said, Char should get over it. Half of the internet should get over what Tiger did.

Yet nobody will get over it. For the simple reason that neither man and women can get over sexism.

Point taken.

 

[DanP]

And, his Mother too.

Why would he apologize to his mother ? I don't think he wronged her in any way by cheating on his wife.

 

[GeorginaS]

It's not just any kind of rudeness. Her rudeness was sexist. Feminism is interested in equality of the sexes. Hence, the sexist woman is not a true feminist. She is a misandrist that probably calls herself a feminist.

Bold mine.

Really? You know the mind and intentions of and self-labelling of complete stranger, whose comment you weren't even there to witness. Wow. You're good. That takes some super psychic ability to know what someone else is thinking from that distance.

She wasn't demanding equal treatment under any law. She was intentionally belittling the OP for being polite to her.

And she might have been a complete twit who was having a bad day, had heard the word flung about as an insult before, had no other context for it, and wasn't making a political statement at all but simply throwing out something that she felt was an insult. Maybe Char.Limit resembles her boyfriend who she had a massive text-message argument with that morning and so Char.Limit got the brunt of it.

My point is, you don't know. Unless you sat down and had a discussion with the woman about why she chose that specific word to fling about, you have no more clue than I do. I'm not going to assert anything about her other than what I know. And what I know is she was rude. That's all I know. You appear to be convinced that you know much more than you do. You don't.

Liking women to be women means that I admire a woman, or anyone really, who is content with themselves, however they choose to define that. I don't want to assign an archetypical woman and say this is what all women should be. I enjoy variety and individuality. It takes strength to be an individual. I also enjoy that there is a difference between the sexes. What I want is equality of freedom for everyone, not uniformity.

Good for you.

 

[DanP]

I have trouble believing that someone who feels the need to belittle and dominate others is strong or content. That would be psychopathic.

Actually, this is on what this world is built upon, at least partially. Dominate others. Seduce others to see what you want. Lead them.

Take politicians in any country. Take economic concurrency. Banks, credit card systems. Take academic environments. Little quarrels between company employees. Wars. Peace negotiations. Professional sport. Olympic sports. You name it.

It's all about being better, and the strong will of humans (irrespective of sex) to dominate others.

 

[Huckleberry]

Actually, this is on what this world is built upon, at least partially. Dominate others. Seduce others to see what you want. Lead them.

Take politicians in any country. Take economic concurrency. Banks, credit card systems. Take academic environments. Little quarrels between company employees. Wars. Peace negotiations. Professional sport. Olympic sports. You name it.

It's all about being better, and the strong will of humans (irrespective of sex) to dominate others.

Sure, avarice and violence are rampant. That doesn't mean that competition of any kind is based on those things. A leader can be effective without being a tyrant. An athlete can be talented without being a poor sport. People can trade and negotiate without trying to fleece each other. I suppose we could try another few thousand years of oppression, but I would prefer not to. The last few thousand years should have shown us that what we thought was "better", isn't. (That type of better only brings contentment to the oppressor if they have no empathy for humanity. It's psychopathic.)

 

[Borek]

I also enjoy that there is a difference between the sexes.

Vive la petite difference!

 

[edpell]

If you hold the door for all. Some will say nothing. Some will say thank you (or some sort of positive remark). Some will say something negative. This is a projective test. It tells you something about what is going on in the mind of the speaker. An interesting tidbit of information but no reason to take offense.

 

[DanP]

Sure, avarice and violence are rampant. That doesn't mean that competition of any kind is based on those things. A leader can be effective without being a tyrant. An athlete can be talented without being a poor sport. People can trade and negotiate without trying to fleece each other. I suppose we could try another few thousand years of oppression, but I would prefer not to. The last few thousand years should have shown us that what we thought was "better", isn't. (That type of better only brings contentment to the oppressor if they have no empathy for humanity. It's psychopathic.)

I agree, but I didn't talked about avarice and violence. I talked about the will to dominate others. The later doesn't necessarily imply the first. And I think the later is innate in many humans.

A leader can indeed be effective without being a tyrant. But IMO no one will end climbing to a 'leader' status without the will to dominate. Yes, an athlete can be talented without being a poor sport. But can he win ? IMO, not without a strong will to pulverize the competition.
You can do it graciously, with fair play, or arrogantly, yeah, but in both cases the will to dominate must exist.

The will to dominate doesn't mean oppression IMO. It's just that thing which keeps you going relentlessly after you want, or allow you to reach the position you want. On this path some will keep ethical and fair play, others wont.

 

[Newai]

If you hold the door for all. Some will say nothing. Some will say thank you (or some sort of positive remark). Some will say something negative. This is a projective test. It tells you something about what is going on in the mind of the speaker. An interesting tidbit of information but no reason to take offense.

Bingo. And that's very good because this extends to just about every experience in life. There is no more a mature response than what edpell has given. This is the way of listening, of observing, of learning. And in so doing, you can understand why a person acts so.

Make it a habit.

 

[elect_eng]

Why would he apologize to his mother ? I don't think he wronged her in any way by cheating on his wife.

Of course he did. Wow, you can't see that? Amazing.

 

[Huckleberry]

Bold mine.

Really? You know the mind and intentions of and self-labelling of complete stranger, whose comment you weren't even there to witness. Wow. You're good. That takes some super psychic ability to know what someone else is thinking from that distance.

And she might have been a complete twit who was having a bad day, had heard the word flung about as an insult before, had no other context for it, and wasn't making a political statement at all but simply throwing out something that she felt was an insult. Maybe Char.Limit resembles her boyfriend who she had a massive text-message argument with that morning and so Char.Limit got the brunt of it.

My point is, you don't know. Unless you sat down and had a discussion with the woman about why she chose that specific word to fling about, you have no more clue than I do. I'm not going to assert anything about her other than what I know. And what I know is she was rude. That's all I know. You appear to be convinced that you know much more than you do. You don't.

There's no need for Miss Cleo here. Sure, she could have all sorts of issues. It wouldn't surprise me at all if she did. Still, she wasn't seeking equal treatment, and she was belittling the OP for being polite. Why she did it doesn't change what she did. Sexists have bad days too. She could have said any rude thing to denigrade him. Out of all the rude things in the world she chose "sexist." Unless she walks around randomly insulting strangers whenever she is upset, the OP was selected for ridicule because he was a man holding a door for a woman. There was something in that scenario that offended her. The circumstances of her unjustifiable comment are suggestive of a misandrist perspective. I've never heard a misandrist proudly proclaim themselves as a misandrist, since that idea survives and propogates by hijacking feminism, so I think the probability is pretty good that she calls herself a feminist.

But you're right. I don't know for certain, though I never claimed that I did. That's why I said 'probably.' In the future, when I run into a misandrist I'll ask them if they are a feminist.

 

[Huckleberry]

I agree, but I didn't talked about avarice and violence. I talked about the will to dominate others. The later doesn't necessarily imply the first. And I think the later is innate in many humans.

A leader can indeed be effective without being a tyrant. But IMO no one will end climbing to a 'leader' status without the will to dominate. Yes, an athlete can be talented without being a poor sport. But can he win ? IMO, not without a strong will to pulverize the competition.
You can do it graciously, with fair play, or arrogantly, yeah, but in both cases the will to dominate must exist.

The will to dominate doesn't mean oppression IMO. It's just that thing which keeps you going relentlessly after you want, or allow you to reach the position you want. On this path some will keep ethical and fair play, others wont.

Ok, I think I understand. One can be dominant in a competition or a relationship and not be oppressive. I agree with that. That's not the type of interaction I was referring to. I'll rephrase, but hopefully you understand what I meant.

I have trouble believing that someone who feels the need to belittle and oppress others is strong or content. That would be psychopathic.