Is Holding the Door Open for Women Considered Sexist?

[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.

 

[Char. Limit]

Georgina, it's not like I have full control over every slight change of topic this thread takes. I'm not the only one contributing, and I'll be damned if I'm going to force others to stay on a narrow and pretty well discussed topic without allowing them to discuss even related things.

On another note, I may not respect Tiger as a person (or I might, I've never met him), but damn if he isn't a good golfer. Let him play golf, that's all I want to see...

 

[FizixFreak]

There are people in this world that will call you sexist if you try to help out a lady lifting her luggage they will accuse you of being a man that considers women weak and timid you know, the FEMINISTS these type of people are so frustrating to deal with these people never see the difference between men and women and one day they will probably demand to see boxing matches between men and women they are too ignorant to realize that they are not helping women by spreading their views but actually doing the opposite.

 

[PhDorBust]

She was hitting on you bro, should've asked for them digits.