There seems to be a lot of confusion about benevolent sexism.

[redqueen]

This isn't some wacky, made-up term. It's not a sign that 'feminism has gone too far'. It's a real thing, and it provides revealing insights about people's ideas about women and men. It's also not a 'positive' thing.

If you think this is just about holding doors open for anyone, regardless of sex, you're not getting it. If you're curious, please read. If not, well...

Men Don't Recognize 'Benevolent' Sexism: Study

Do most people recognize sexism in their daily lives? And what does it take to get them to shake their sexist beliefs?

In a recent study titled "Seeing the Unseen" psychologists Janet Swim of Pennsylvania State University and Julia Becker of Philipps University Marburg, Germany, set out to answer these questions.

Over the course of three separate, seven-day-long trials, Swim and Becker asked 120 college undergraduates (82 women and 38 men, ranging from 18 to 26 years old, some from the U.S., some from Germany) to record in a journal sexist comments they encountered on a daily basis. According to Swim, she and Becker hoped to determine whether forcing people to pay attention to less obvious forms of sexism could decrease their endorsement of sexist beliefs.

...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/27/men-dont-recognize-benevolent-sexism_n_885430.html

'Benevolent Sexism' Is Not an Oxymoron and Has Insidious Consequences for Women, Experts Argue

"The truth about sexism seems stranger than fiction," wrote authors Peter Glick and Susan T. Fiske, about their investigations into the nature of sexism. Sexist attitudes are not exclusively hostile, but include an "odd…conjunction of what at first seemed inherently incompatible: subjective affection as a form of prejudice," which they labeled "benevolent sexism."

Glick and Fiske have shown the negative consequences of attitudes that idealize women as pure, moral, pedestal-worthy objects of men's adoration, protection, and provision. People who endorse benevolent sexism feel positively toward women, but only when women conform to highly traditional ideals about "how women should be."

Benevolent sexism motivates chivalrous acts that many women may welcome, such as a man's offer to lift heavy boxes or install the new computer. While the path to benevolent sexism may be paved with good intentions, it reinforces the assumption that men possess greater competence than women, whom benevolent sexists view as wonderful, but weak and fragile.

...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111004121314.htm

Benevolent sexism puts women off asking for help

Benevolent sexism describes insidious behaviours and beliefs that reinforce the idea that women are less capable than men and need their help. It's a controversial idea. It's not always clear if an act, such as a man opening a door for a woman, is simply polite or an example of benevolent sexism. Another issue is whether or not benevolent sexism is harmful. A new study led by Juliet Wakefield claims to show that exposure to benevolent sexism can put women off asking for help. If true, it's a finding that has obvious implications for the workplace, especially in contexts where health and safety could be compromised.

Eighty-six female undergrads arrived one at a time at a psychology lab for what they thought was an investigation into sex differences in reasoning and problem-solving. A female research assistant welcomed them and explained that they'd be interacting with a remote research team via computer. She then went and sat behind a partition in the same room. The three-person remote team were either all male or all female (this was clear from their names), and they proceeded to ask some basic questions of the participant via the computer.

Next, the research assistant's mobile phone rang. It was obvious from her end of the conversation that it was her male plumber "Joe". He'd moved some items in her house without asking - an act that the research assistant blamed either on his impatience or his sexist beliefs. After her call, the research assistant apologised to the participant, either saying "Sorry about that, my plumber is so impatient" or "Sorry about that - my plumber is such a typical man - he thinks that women are incapable of doing anything on their own!"

...

http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com/2012/12/benevolent-sexism-puts-women-off-asking.html

Saved the best for last...

Top Conservative Author Endorses ‘Benevolent Sexism’

Charles Murray, a scholar at the leading conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute, may be the most influential populizer of racist views in the country. His book The Bell Curve, which posits that black people are genetically less intelligent than whites, practically spawned an entire field of scholarship devoted to debunking it. His most recent book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010 even made an appearance on the campaign trial during the recent presidential election.

Murray, however, appears to have set aside his retrograde views about race in order to tout equally backwards views about gender. In a short piece on AEI’s website, Murray recently suggested that “benevolent sexism” might be “healthy.” The only problem is that he appears not to have read the research on which he bases this extraordinary conclusion, which cited strong evidence that “benevolent sexism” was itself linked to discrimination against women and rape victims.

The paper in question, by Kathleen Connelly and Martin Heesacker, studies why “benevolent sexism,” understood as “an ostensibly flattering ideology that idealizes women who conform to feminine norms,” is so commonly accepted by men and women around the world. The authors find that “although benevolent sexism perpetuates inequality at the structural level, it might offer some benefits at the personal level” by giving men and women a sense of order and structure in their lives.

Though the authors see this as a concern, given that so-called benevolent sexism is net-destructive for women, but Murray believes this is knee-jerk liberal prejudice. “When social scientists discover something that increases life satisfaction for both sexes, shouldn’t they at least consider the possibility that they have come across something that is positive? Healthy” he asks rhetorically. “Something that might even conceivably be grounded in the nature of Homo sapiens?”

...

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/01/1262431/top-conservative-author-endorses-benevolent-sexism/

What a stupid, yet sadly all too common, sentiment.

[niyad]

1. k and r--and waiting for the usual. . . .

[redqueen]

2. Well at this point at least no one can claim ignorance.

I cannot begin to express my fed-upness with seeing people dismiss the concept of benevolent sexism with statements like, 'but I open doors for everyone!' ...

[snooper2]

3. Does this mean we have to stand up

When any person wants to leave the table at dinner now?

Or do we just stay seated and don't have to be bothered by that old tradition at all anymore?

[ieoeja]

14. There are men who do that? I'm 51 and don't believe I have EVER witnessed that my entire life.

On historical movies, but never in real life.

[lapislzi]

22. You know, I get up whenever

a person is leaving the gathering. It's polite. I also rise to welcome a guest or newcomer (unless it's a large group with lots of comings and goings), even if it's not my home/space. It's polite. Nothing to do with gender.

[MattBaggins]

181. Why is polite?

It is a made up cultural norm for certain sub groups and has nothing inherent that makes it polite.

[lapislzi]

225. Sure. But...

We as a society and individuals collectively agree on a set of behaviors called "manners." They are a social lubricant and a means of nonverbal shorthand.

Rising to greet a guest communicates pleasure (real or feigned) at the guest's arrival and an acknowledgment of respect for the other person.

My use of manners, courtesies, and politenesses indicates my enjoyment of social interactions and my respect for the thoughts, feelings, and time of others.

Call it dominance/deference behavior or what you will, it's what primate societies do.

[niyad]

4. my head hurts from all the incredibly stupid, and snarky comments on this subject.

[redqueen]

7. My head hurts from that too, as well as

hearing way too much about what some of the men here think about women's bodies.

[RobertEarl]

52. My advice?

Don't ever hire on to a construction site.
You would not believe the things that are said.

So you have me thinking... Androgyny. Would this be a better world were it androgynous? Maybe that is the answer to war? That we humans see each other only as a human with no sexual distinctions? Maybe we should all dress alike, and all wear our hair the same? Just thinking out loud here, ymmv.

Just saw three little songbirds doing the spring mating thing. Yep, the two males were actually fighting each other. Dumb little animals, eh? We humans are not much better, are we?

[treestar]

60. Don't know if it will ever be entirely so

but in the late 60s when girls started to wear slacks/jeans/bell-bottoms and men too had long straight hair - now women have pants suits for professional wear and don't have to wear the skirt based suits. Some equality has lead to somewhat fewer distinctions.

[ret5hd]

166. You were #4...how many could there be???

[niyad]

171. please notice that I said, "on the subject", not "in this thread" .the remark was about ALL the

stupid, ignorant, snarky, sexist comments I have read on this subject, wherever it is discussed. surely that did not need explaining?

[RobinA]

5. Not Necessarily Stupid

Depends on your theory of how society organizes. As a structural functionalist, I'd say it is an interesting question.

[geek tragedy]

6. It is possible for a man to do things like open a door for women, etc

because that's how they were raised.

Not "open door for women because they need help" but rather "that's just how things are done."

Of course, the assumptions underlying the "that's just how things are done" justification have roots in benevolent sexism that may or may not be instilled in the person.

And, of course, just to be clear: this does not mean that benevolence is itself sexist. Opening a door for people as a matter of courtesy is not sexist.

[redqueen]

8. Yep. Racists were raised to believe certain things about people, too.

And they'd probably rather kneejerk and get defensive than examine their irrational and harmful ideas, too.

[geek tragedy]

9. I wouldn't agree that the guy who opens doors

for women as a learned behavior necessarily holds sexist attitudes--behaviorally we get conditioned to do stuff without recognizing the context of the learned behavior--i.e. why that behavior is taught.

People use words and phrases without knowing the context of them--sometimes because they just don't stop to think about it.

But, once it's pointed out, people should stop to examine without feeling accused and like they have to defend themselves.

It's almost impossible to not get some of this stuff ingrained in us, since we're raised in a society that's infused with patriarchy, racism, etc.

[redqueen]

10. Does not realizing that it's benevolent sexism make it any less an example of benevolent sexism?

I wonder just how many men even still think and act this way.

I'd think most men would hold the door open for other men, too. I haven't really paid much attention. I do notice the shocked looks when I open the door for men, though. And some men will even refuse to go through, and insist that I go first.

The way I see it, simply not knowing the context, or not knowing it's benevolent sexism doesn't make it any less sexist.

I do agree that people should stop being defensive and just learn. We've all done many stupid things out of ignorance. The important thing is to not be resistant to information simply because your fee fees are hurt or you feel all personally insulted. That ego-serving bullshit helps no one, least of all the person deciding to become knowledge-resistant because it helps assuage their ego.

[geek tragedy]

13. As a learned behavior, it would go under that category.

But (and this is a subtle point I have been making poorly) a learned behavior that is benevolent sexism is not necessarily evidence of sexist beliefs on the part of the person engaging in them.

Part of it is definding 'sexism'--is it operational/objective, or is it subjective intent? The writer/speaker can define it one way, but the reader/listener can define it another way.

The key is to get people to examine "does this behavior send a certain message" rather than feeling accused of believing in male supremacy.

In my opinion anyways.

[liberal_at_heart]

18. men do hold the door open for other men. My husband and father hold the door open for everybody.

Some people become defensive because they don't think they are doing anything wrong. Some people are open to being shown but become defensive because of the aggressiveness of the person teaching them what they are doing is wrong. Knee jerk reactions are bad on both sides.

[bike man]

123. In one of the other threads I said I hold doors for every/anyone - men, women, children. The

children never fail to acknowledge this in some way, but not so the adults.

I also say sir and ma'am to both children and adults, even though I am older than many of them (I'm 70). It is a shame if it offends any of them because of some perceived slight, but I mean no offense and probably will not modify this behavior.

[liberal_at_heart]

11. I don't believe opening doors is necessarily sexist. I guess it depends on the individual.

I do believe benevolent sexism exists. My father is one. He believes that big strong men should protect dainty little women.

[geek tragedy]

15. I guess a point (and I do NOT speak for her)

that redqueen is making is that even if someone is fully committed to gender equality/disbelieves sexist stereotypes, engaging in that behavior still perpetuates the underlying sexist assumption.

[liberal_at_heart]

20. I like to assume someone is just being kind unless they prove otherwise.

[BuddhaGirl]

128. Indeed

My dear hubby generally holds doors open for women (occasionally for other men) and doesn't have a sexist bone in his body.

It's not a big deal

[Mojorabbit]

224. Same here. nt

[Lurker Deluxe]

29. Well?

Is he a big strong man? If so, than I would agree with him that it is his responsibility to protect those who are not as strong.

You can call me sexist if that is how you want to label me. I'll get over it. Fact of the matter is I treat women and children different than men.

We work alot on the weekends and this office is open 24/7, we have an "after hours sign in sheet" that has name/date/time/phone on it at the front desk. If I am in here on a Saturday working and I go to leave and I see the only other person in this building is a female I will go to her office and ask when she intends to finish for the day and go back out onto the shop floor and find something to do until she is ready to leave. I will not, under any circumstances, leave and allow her to be in this building and have to exit it in the dark, alone.

Won't happen. I'll sleep in my damn car.

That may make me whatever you want to call me. But it is more for me than her, the fact is that if she was attacked leaving the office after I left I would not be able to live with myself for putting her in that situation. No different than if I was out driving and I saw a young child walking alone down a dark road. Sorry ... I am going to do something there. I will not be the one who reads about a kid getting killed and has to live with the fact that I just kept driving.

I'll even own up to it ... I'm a pig.

And you can bitch about me opening doors and all that other stuff too.

I look at is this way, there are alot of predators in the world. Most of them do not target full grown adult men who are 6' - 235, if that means you consider me a sexist because I would not pass a woman on the side of the road changing a tire but would drive past Grizzly Adams ... so be it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. "Fact of the matter is I treat women and children different than men."

Then yes. I'd describe you as a sexist.

[Lurker Deluxe]

35. Fair enough

[bettyellen]

56. agree, but no one called him a pig. I'd say if you have genuine concerns about office safety and

security you might better address them with the company itself. You can't always be there and it's not a burden (lurking in your car?) that you should try and take on. If women there have concerns you share, by all means feel free to bring them up to management. Being a thoughtful team member is great. Self appointing yourself as a security guard periodically is not a great long term solution. Brainstorm and see if you can't find tweaks to procedure that would make everyone feel better about working there off hours.

[liberal_at_heart]

64. great post bettyellin. Those are great ideas.

[Lurker Deluxe]

70. We have certain things

We have a security guard during the week. And the general rule is no one in the building by themselves. That does not mean it does not happen. I'm generally first here-last to leave, pretty much every day. I've driven up to someone waiting in the parking lot for me to show up before they get out of their car ... sometimes I think they are just being lazy about building opening/closing procedure.

I know, for a fact, that the HR/Finance girls have asked my boss if I was going to be around on some days during the weekend. They know that is how I am, they know that if they are leaving the building and are uncomfortable they can call me and I'll bring my doofus ass up there and walk them to their car. I can promise you that me wandering over to their office at the end of the day to check up on them doesn't bother them one bit, pretty much to a one when that happens the response is, "am about to leave, was just waiting for you".

I am sure the suits up there talk about this stuff all the time, there used to be a security guard here 24/7, obviously they thought that was not a cost benefit in whatever corporate gibberish they speak. I can imagine one or two of them said, "isn't there pretty much always a shop guy here seven days a week?"

It's not much different than closing down a bar at the end of an evening. If I end up being the last one there and the only other person is a female barmaid ... I leave when she does.

I do not self appoint anything, I am just saying that when presented with those scenarios I treat them differently depending on the gender of the other person.

Sorry ... that is just how it is.

[bettyellen]

78. I understand that the company is saving money using you as security instead of paying someone.

And the company is kind of forcing you into gender roles. If there enough people there who feel unsafe, they really should be banding together and ask for increased security though. I know that maybe unrealistic the way companies work these days. It would probably take a bad incident for them to pay up for security- because they are concerned about liability.
I've rarely felt unsafe coming and going to work, but if I did, I'd be looking to move on instead of relying on a coworker to get me in and out of the building. Because it's an unfair to lay that on you, and says to me the company doesn't give a shit.

No way would I attack you for doing this. Unless you threw this up as a reason you should earn more or be given super extra credit points for being a "white night". I've heard men hear argue they can use sexist language or behavior freely because they go the extra mile and "protect people" and so they have earned the right to be a sexist jerk. You don't seem to be of that mindset- like the guys who get really angry when women say "No thanks"- but we, as women- do experience a lot of hostility when we decline help from the "white nights". So, it is an interesting subject.

[Lurker Deluxe]

91. Heh

Them's the HR girls ... and the payroll girls.

-me protect-

LOL!

It is what it is. Super extra credit points are what you get with your own girl, not someone else's. Make no mistake here, each and everyone of those girls could get me canned with a whisper. When it comes to the hierarchy within the building the second floor is a place all to it's own. Outside of the Director of Services and President of Operations the entire group is girls. Every one of them knows who I am, and if you put them in a lineup I would not be able to put the name tags on them right.

I'm not here to get any recognition or by the same token take any slack. It is, as I said, what it is.

Fifteen years ago this prolly was a nice place, today it is one of the roughest neighborhoods in NW Houston, called Greens Point it has often been called "gunspoint". We are supposedly shopping locations now, where the division would be made as the shop would most likely end up in a worse neighborhood by the ship channel and the office being moved to Galleria area or some nice cozy place.

[MountainMama]

140. I'm the only woman here.....

At my office, I'm it for women.

I wish my co-workers were a bit more considerate like you are. We're not in the best neighborhood of Phoenix.

Maybe it's sexist, but I really appreciate when someone sticks around and makes sure my car starts. I remember my father doing that when we'd leave church on Sundays. If it were just us and another car in the parking lot, he'd make sure the other person's car started before he left....no matter who it was.

I appreciate you, LD.

[MattBaggins]

246. Yes this is a pure hypothetical

but suppose you were tasked with hiring a new security guard. Would you hire women for that job? Do you appreciate that your view would make women doubt your ability to give them fair consideration?

Every one of them knows who I am, and if you put them in a lineup I would not be able to put the name tags on them right.

How many women do you think would cringe at that statement?

[Lurker Deluxe]

247. Oh hush

If there is one thing I do, I treat people based on just a couple of factors. The biggest one, and I tell this to just about everyone I know, is there are basically two kinds of people. You either do what you say you will, or you don't.

If I were tasked with hiring anyone, I would consider that person on qualification alone. Period.

We get interns here every year, most of the time they are in the office but every now and again we get one in the shop. It was three, or four, years ago that we got a student out of MITAGS (marine school) who was a 19 year old female about 5'2" and 130 pounds. No one would put her to work, everyone else was giving her bullshit work labeling things and writing reports. She went up the food chain here and complained that she was not getting the experience she was after coming to intern in our shop. My boss called me in and told me to, "watch the language, but treat her like you would any other new hire". Next day she was tearing down some pumps and working just like anyone else. At the end of her internship she thanked me for treating her like a peer.

I couldn't put the name tags on those people because I don't know their names. I don't go up there unless there is a need for me to do so, which is never. If I see someone signed in when I leave I go up to the area where they would be speak with them, at that point I know their name because I just read it on a piece of paper. There are 450 people in this office, over half of them are female. Even if I wanted to know their names my memory is simply not that good.

[niyad]

145. hr/finance GIRLS?????? I am assuming that the people who work for this company are over

the age of 18?? if so, they are WOMEN, not GIRLS.

a girl is a female child. a female over the age of 18 is a woman.

[Lurker Deluxe]

226. Yea ... girls

Thems guys, and thems girls. Guys and girls.

Stop over at the house when a group is together and ask where's so and so ...

The girls went to the store, or the guys are out back ...

[niyad]

231. I repeat, girls are female children. this is simply another aspect of the nearly invisible and

thoughtless sexism of our world. "guys" is not defined as minor male children, "girls" is.

[liberal_at_heart]

36. he doesn't like me driving to store at night because he thinks a mass murderer will kill me while

I'm walking to the car. Now, I do realize that as a woman I am a target. I am acutely aware of my surrounding at all times. But no one is going to tell me I can't drive to the store at night even if their intentions are good. I don't yell at him when he does these things. I just simply say I'll be careful and I'll be fine and I drive to the store.

[Whisp]

62. but then there you go.

that murderer didn't get you because you were careful...

murdered women weren't careful.
the only way to be absolutely sure you aren't in that danger is not go out at all, ever. But we know that's not true either. Even tho your husband is nice and would never hurt you, there are lots that aren't like that and kill their spouses in their own homes. So there really isn't any safe place.

don't mean to insult you, and I hope you know what I'm getting at.

[liberal_at_heart]

66. you are correct. There are no safe places anymore. I send my kids to school everyday knowing

someone could walk in at anytime and start shooting. That doesn't mean I don't send them to school. Sometimes it is dark out when my daughter walks to the bus stop. I tell her if she is going to listen to her music while walking only to use one ear bud and to always be aware of her surroundings. It does not mean I find a big strong man to walk her to the bus stop and it does not mean I don't let her ride the bus and it does not mean I stop her from going out in public.

[Lurker Deluxe]

97. Guess that would all depend

If you lived on a rural road and the "bus stop" was on a two lane black top with not another house in sight for half a mile in either direction would you allow your girl to go wait for that bus by herself in the dark?

Situations mean everything. Chances are taken every day. You evaluate those risks and act accordingly. Some people look out for others, some people are naturally more protective, some people have had things happen in the past which dictate their actions moving forward.

I can promise you that if one of your good friends had their child abducted from a bus stop, raped and then killed, you would not allow your girl to walk to the bus stop in the dark alone. - promise -

[liberal_at_heart]

137. my girl is now a grown woman who can do whatever she wants

She is 18 and a senior in high school. She is a grown woman who has the freedom to take any risk she chooses.

[hfojvt]

71. some people here

don't like me to ride my bicycle without wearing a helmet. They've even said that for me to take such a risk makes me a "moron". Now after ten years, a few cops tell me that I cannot ride my bicycle home at night without carrying a light. In some towns, and perhaps even here, they tell me I can't take my dogs for a ride in my car. That it is somehow unsafe or brutally inhumane to do so.

So it would seem that the desire, or willingness, to control other people's lives often really has nothing to do with gender.

[liberal_at_heart]

77. Well with my father it is. He doesn't tell other men they shouldn't drive to the store at night.

But you're right some people just like telling other people what to do regardless of gender.

[hfojvt]

173. well my mom

won't let me drink a pop, without nagging at me that I drink too much pop. She does not do that with her son-in-law though. Only her son rates that kind of "love".

[galileoreloaded]

61. That's not sexism per se

but chivalrous and generational conditioning that never kept pace with the rapid changes that technology provided women to protect the individuals from natural selection.

Women no longer need us as meatshields and to "protect" them. We aren't in caves. They can call 911.

You sir, have been relieved and are now off duty to pursue your own unique interests as an individual with your own emotional matrix as are women.

You should be happy!

[wryter2000]

67. Your motives are admirable

However, imagine a situation where the boss will not let a woman stay after him alone for the reason you cited, but instead of waiting for her, he orders her to go home at the same time he does.

She doesn't get her work done, doesn't get the promotion.

His motives may not have been sexist, but his actions could have a very real negative impact on her and her family.

[lumberjack_jeff]

90. If he's the first there, last to leave, and the defacto security...

...Then he should be paid more.

[wryter2000]

96. How do you get that from what I said?

Did he say he was the first to get there? Did I say she should make more money than he did?

Total non sequitur.

[lumberjack_jeff]

98. It's what he said.

I'm saying that pay disparity shouldn't be an unintended result of benevolent sexism, it should be a natural consequence.

The first person to volunteer to pump out the septic tank is first in line for a raise in any kind of rational workplace.

[Lurker Deluxe]

105. Everyone has points

And they are all good and relevant to the modern world.

I'm a f'n caveman.

I will not put myself in the position of leaving a female in a place where because of that there is a reasonable chance harm may come to her.

Period.

[Helen Reddy]

229. Being a woman,

I also would wait for a single female and walk out together under the circumstances you have described.

[Nikia]

234. I used to work second shift and sometimes had to go to the other building where no one else was

It did make me a bit nervous and concerned for my safety. I expressed my concern to the production supervisor, who was not my supervisor as I was the only person from my department working on that shift. She always sent someone with me. Sometimes they were male and sometimes they were female. I did not feel any less safe when I had a woman walk with me to the other building. Eventually, I got braver and I just gave an estimated away time and checked in and out.

[sabrina 1]

248. No, you're not sexist, you're just a practical realist and a decent human being.

Thank you for caring.

If I have to struggle this hard, how many threads now explaining all this, to figure out WHY I need to be 'offended', I think I'll just go on accepting kindnesses from men and/or women, who are, according to the instructions here, 'not aware of the harm they are doing, but have GOOD intentions'. I like good intentions. It's the bad intentions I worry about.

[alp227]

194. To put it simply, let's learn to respect each other as humans first and foremost

and do the right thing to each other out of kindness not worship of Victorian English values like gender roles.

[polly7]

204. +1000. nt.

[galileoreloaded]

12. This is critical for men today to understand especially in the workplace.

In a 19 year career, it has taken a lot of unlearning to cease deferring to female colleagues based on a perceived weakness to be accounted for.

As a man, and to survive in a 2013 workplace I have had to connect to the feminine worldview. In fact, I started executive coaching on the issue because frankly I am that good at reading it.

What I discovered is that as long as other men continue this abhorrent tradition, women come to expect it as the norm and it makes them targets for men like me. I unashamedly, and using very feminine tactics have single handedly crushed my female business competitors by utilizing their own social structures against them quite effectively. I especially love the crocodile tears that get resorted to as if I even care. This isn't 1950 and I don't care. I quickly remind these women of their professional positions that dictate flat and emotionless interactions.

For the wary exec, this transition provides some very useful chaos in which to hide and self promote, but until this practice ceases to exist and we truly interact as equals, it ultimately hurts women by faulty conditioning.

[redqueen]

16. lol... you use "very feminine tactics" do you?

Please share, what are those, exactly?

Also, thanks for adding in the part about "crocodile tears"... very enlightening.

[galileoreloaded]

40. Glad to answer

yeah, tactic one is to not get baited by covert or overt attempts to shame Better yet, in groups predominately staffed by females, observing the inherent and self-ascribed ranking helps in parsing loyalty to the best able to further my personal agenda. Unleashing their competitive desire on each other is very effective at removing any roadblocks. I've seen a staff of 3 min wage clerical workers devour and eventually cause the dismissal of a Senior VP with multiple degrees (MBA, MPA) all because the group dynamic allowed their internal ranking structures as corruptible.

All fair in love and war I say.

It's a bit easier with men, because their decision process are more focused on initial attractions to specific cues that lead growth into THEIR personal agendas.

If you want to know more, don't try to shame or bully by using words that attempt to deride my un-apologeticly self serving behaviors. I see you coming a mile away and I'll am trying to do is get to where you want to be. Thanks

[lapislzi]

49. I am glad I don't work with you.

I don't work well with manipulative, selfish, or greedy people. I always figure that rowing in the same direction is the best way to get the boat to move.

[galileoreloaded]

55. It's how you survive in 2013 America, we reap what we sow

and believe me I've only learned how to maneuver after having had my ass handed to me countless times all the while taking "the high road". I stopped worrying how it should be and just dealing with what is.

I will say though that working for me is coveted as I fiercely protect my own. Yin/Yang.

[klook]

138. Gotta say, very weird worldview, dude

I've worked with people who are hell-bent on advancement through office politics and internecine warfare. They often don't last long, either because they're constantly changing jobs to find an edge or because they create such an aura of rancor that somebody eventually has enough of their shit and finds a way to get rid of them.

I can think of one job I had where a bully boss (not mine, thank goodness) fit this description. He was always snooping around for dirt on people, telling people different things to pit them against each other to his advantage, and so on. The standard Looking Out for Number One Machiavellian orientation. His assistant -- who was cordial to him with gritted teeth while they worked together -- stabbed him in the back, which he richly deserved, in her exit interview. He was gone within the month.

I have a few other examples from the long landscape of my work life, but I don't really feel like spelling them all out here. I'll just say that the patterns are sickeningly repetitive.

My own approach has been to be a cooperative team player, to learn all I can, and try to provide good value to every organization I'm a part of. It hasn't always worked out for the best -- shit happens sometimes -- but in most situations I've received stellar feedback about my performance, advancements and raises, and the high regard of superiors and colleagues. (No brag, just fact.) I've advised my kids to take the same approach (one I learned from my dad), and it's served them well in their scholastic and work lives as well.

I find the approach you describe akin to road rage. It's like going into the office every day as though it were a battlefield or a viper pit. I know some work environments are like that, but sometimes when we go into a situation expecting enemies on all sides, that's just what we get.

As a wise man I used to work with said once, "Some people have bad neighbors everywhere they go."

[TheKentuckian]

241. I'm right there with you and would rather absorb the hits than become the antithesis of who I strive

to be.

[MattBaggins]

243. Are you aware that every thing you described is a definition

of a sociopath?

[MattBaggins]

245. "I fiercely protect my own"

No you don't. You use and manipulate every one around you and will discard others in a heart beat. You view anyone working for you as a useful tool or a minion at best.

You control peoples fears by telling them they are special and don't have to worry that you will one day treat them as you do the enemy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If you are as easy to read in real life as this fantasy internet villain you have constructed; you are by no means the successful shark you would have us believe.

This is like a bad Man Men plot.

[noiretextatique]

94. ditto

while i've have never actually punched anyone in the face at work, this poster could be the exception.

[Lurker Deluxe]

110. Heh

I have no idea WTF he even said there.

"observing the inherent and self-ascribed ranking helps in parsing loyalty to the best able to further my personal agenda"

This may, or may not be gibberish. I don't understand it so I am really not sure. Sounds like something a buddy of mine would say after 6-8 shots of Patron.

[noiretextatique]

118. i vote gibberish

machiavellian gibberish

[galileoreloaded]

134. That's how educated people speak, I'm not sure what else to say.n/t

[davidthegnome]

212. Oh please.

That's how pompous people speak.

[HiPointDem]

106. are you a hermit, then?

[olddots]

92. Oy

[lapislzi]

28. It's a tricky course to navigate.

I am a woman who is perfectly capable of opening her own doors (etc.), and I open doors for others all the time. Using the door-opening example because it's easy to understand.

But, there are men with whom I work or who work in my building, who become offended when I don't pause to allow them to open the door. When questioned, they express that they believe it's their obligation to do this. Mostly, these are older men. I have explained the concept of benevolent sexism to them, and they understand it intellectually, but they can't move beyond their perceived need to open doors for me. I've discovered it's pointless to argue; it just results in a silly game of chicken while we stand outside the door.

And I realize that their desire to open doors is about them, not me. They have to feel "manly" by performing this small act.

Now, I have no interest in stroking the manhood (not that way, you DU pervs) of strangers and acquaintances. It's not my problem. But, in the interest of politeness, I let it pass. They think they're being chivalrous. I know what they're doing, but it's not a ditch I feel like dying in on a daily basis.

I'm aware of the conditioning. I just don't buy into it. I can't help how the other party behaves, other than to point out his bias and let it go at that.

[Sheldon Cooper]

31. lol

[galileoreloaded]

44. Your screen name AND an aphorism appear a paradox.

Very un Sheldonlike.

[geek tragedy]

68. "very feminine tactics"

Do you buy those next to the tampons?

[galileoreloaded]

72. I wish! Maybe then I could return them. Ugh. n/t

[geek tragedy]

73. irony. nt

[noiretextatique]

93. are you serious?

i have never, in 30 years in the workforce, resorted to what you call "crocodile tears." so...you would never have to "remind" ME that my professional position dictates flat and emotionless interactions. and if you dared say that sexist bs to me, i'd knock you teeth out. how's that for a "feminine tactic??

[galileoreloaded]

133. Women and often men do cry at work 2013.

It's a nasty byproduct of benevolent feminism, the point of this thread.

Notice I didn't say "noiretextatique" did, but you quite interestingly and predictably shifted my anecdote to your experience.

Tactic two: when the shoe doesn't fit, reframe and shame. Clockwork.

Tactic three: when on and two fail, resort to violence.
*I especially find it facinating when someone resorts to fiolence even when they are not the focus of discussion

I dont blame you though, it really a societal issue.

[noiretextatique]

135. whatever

[Nikia]

230. All the people who I have seen or heard about crying at work fit one or all of these scenarios

They were inherently emotionally unstable, suffering from depression, anxiety, or other problems.
They received some rather bad news personally or professionally.
They were being treated especially badly, like being given impossible tasks and then heavily insulted when they couldn't complete them.
In all but one of the situations that I witnessed, I have no doubt that the tears were genuine and that if they could have held them back that they would have.

[galileoreloaded]

240. and I have seen women specifically cry because men abuse them with benevolence which

conditions them away from true equality by promoting gender bias.

Its a problem of abusive male behavior, not the cryer or their reasons.

[Gravitycollapse]

209. Nothing says feminist thought quite like "crushing" women in business.

[galileoreloaded]

228. thats the point...it does

any argument should be about how I treat people, not women.

[Gravitycollapse]

244. No, sometimes discussions are about women.

Get over it.

[Taverner]

17. OK...somebody just tell me....OPEN THE DOOR FOR WOMEN OR NOT?!?!?!?!?!

Yes, no, whatever it is I'LL DO IT!!!!

[Bicoastal]

30. I think we should all stand around awkwardly blinking at each other...

...furtively nodding at the door, and waiting for the other person's express approval to open or to not open, depending on their gender values.

Or we could all do whatever the fuck we want to do when faced with A GODDAMNED DOORWAY.

[Bay Boy]

85. Great response #2 n/t

[olddots]

95. true true

after awhile it becomes a comedy routine of people trying to out polite each other .

[deutsey]

126. As the Who put it:

I'm looking for me
You're looking for you
We're looking at each other and we don't know what to do...

[Cali_Democrat]

150. LOL

[freshwest]

239. We demand glass sliding self-opening doors everywhere. Except at our homes - hell no!

[Bok_Tukalo]

34. Yes

Also, get up if they leave the table, stop and help them if they have a flat tire, offer to carry heavy things, and every week, if you are in a relationship, gas up and wash their car.

And many other things. It's called being a man.

[The2ndWheel]

37. Just don't do anything for anyone unless they ask you specifically for help

[ronnie624]

42. Open it for anyone whom you think might need assistance at that moment.

I've never found the decision all that difficult. The part that takes some thought, is the introspection required to identify and modify behaviors with underlying assumptions about women that are rooted in culturally induced sexism.

[WilliamPitt]

45. Open the dor for everyone.

Problem solved.

[lapislzi]

50. YES! All the time, every time! n/t

[WorseBeforeBetter]

54. LOL After reading these threads, I'm ready to start slamming doors...

in peoples' faces. Not really, I'm a woman, and will continue to hold for everyone. Benevolent, malevolent, I don't fucking care.

Yep, we've come a long way baby...

[Bay Boy]

84. Great response #1 n/t

[Lionessa]

87. NO! Instead hold the door for anyone regardless of gender, then you're not sexist.

[Matariki]

132. According to Miss Manners...

Keep holding doors, please. You really do not want to learn manners from people who curse you out when you are trying to be courteous. Besides, that was a long time ago, and many such people have since learned that it was not a good idea to stomp out consideration of others.

However, Miss Manners suggests that you drop the bit about its being done to honor ladies. It should be done for anyone who needs it, male or female, simply because we all want to live in a world where not everyone is pushing everyone else out of the way to get in first.

In other words, whoever gets to the door first holds it opened for the person or persons behind them. Simple, no?

[redqueen]

170. "Simple, no?"

Seems like it to me, but judging by this thread (still, even after the explanations...)

[klook]

211. What a concept. Just be a decent person

and treat others with respect. I think I can get behind this.

[Cali_Democrat]

157. BTW...What is the proper way to open a door for someone?

I'm not even sure if I have this down yet.

Should you walk through the door first and then hold it open? This is assuming the door has to be pulled to be opened.

Or do you pull the door open and allow the other person to walk through before walking through yourself?

If the door has to be pushed...do you push, walk through and then hold it open? Or do you push without walking through, awkwardly keeping your arm extended as you allow the other person to pass?

It can all be so confusing.

[Taverner]

242. There's a seconds to opening thingy

That is, you have to be able to open it, while not standing around like an idiot, nor making the person for whom said door is opened to run...

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. K&R. Didn't see that one coming, did you?

My only objection is to the second study. Really messed up methodology.

Benevolent sexism makes women more inclined to ask for insist on help. Guys might ask other guys "Did you at least *try* to reach/lift/do it yourself first before you interrupted me?"

I need to work on this myself. Next time, my co-workers are going to kill their own damn spiders.

[snooper2]

24. "my co-workers are going to kill their own damn spiders"

and my co-workers are wondering why I just literally LOL


We got crickets here at times, everyone is on their own

[lapislzi]

53. Ha! I am the designated Rodent Disposal Response Unit.

It makes me crazy to see otherwise rational and able-bodied people fall to pieces because a rodent expired in their workspace. Heck, nobody likes it, but a pair of vinyl gloves and a paper towel get the job done with a minimum of fuss.

[NCTraveler]

38. Just let me know when you need a spider taken care of.

I will send my 67yo mother over to do it.

[MadHound]

21. So, what do you say, and/or do about women who expect such gestures?

Wait for the door to opened, the chair to be pulled out, etc.?

[upaloopa]

23. At the rate we are going every male on this

board will be a sexist for some reason or other.

[99Forever]

26. Yep.

Perhaps that's the goal.

[NCTraveler]

39. Or more educated. nt

[Zorra]

25. Wow, great post. You are awesome, redqueen.

Your knowledge and presentation of historical and current female/male relationship and women's concerns is amazing, your reasoning/logic process appears to be almost flawless, and your tenacity in the face of much criticism and hostility is admirable. It can be incredibly frustrating and distressing, trying to remove the boulders from this patriarchal collective consciousness.

So, anyway, thanks, and please keep up the great work!

[olddots]

99. I agree Thank you Red Queen

you provoke thought not just snappy patter .

[lumberjack_jeff]

27. Would you consider the phrase "women and children first" to be exemplary of benevolent sexism?

There's a flipside to benevolent sexism. If I believe that women are deserving of preferential treatment by virtue of their weakness/sensitivity/purity/whatever, then I must also believe that men are not due to their relative lack of those characteristics.

In other words, benevolent sexism is simply another word for plain 'ol sexism directed against men.

[Bay Boy]

81. How could it not? n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

88. Thanks, but I'm very interested in the OP's take on this.

I find it intriguing how even straightforward bias against men can only be challenged on the basis that it subtly harms women.

[HiPointDem]

108. doubt you'll get an answer. as that is one of the problems with identity politics.

[seabeyond]

113. i answered. we have had threads on it in our feminist forum. you would be wrong. nt

[HiPointDem]

219. no, you didn't answer the question at all. you answered some other question in your own

head, but your comment was a non sequitur so far as the other poster's question goes.

[seabeyond]

221. ha ha ha. you are right. i thought i read him asking about the sinking ship scenerio. hmmm... nt

[seabeyond]

112. i think it is ridiculous. there will be women that kick ass and are needed in an emergency.

i think there will be men in the way in an emergency. use the resources provided.

which is the essence of benevolent sexism. denying a resource because she must play the role of weak or inferior. or on a pedestal to gaze upon.

[Bay Boy]

101. Sorry, I didn't realize you were trying to pick a fight with the OP

Proceed.

[lumberjack_jeff]

104. I recommended her thread.

My history with the OP suggests to me that she hasn't examined the ramifications of what she's saying.

[Whisp]

154. In times of war, and those are often, women and children are often first

to feel the ravages, and to be the victims - for reason of demoralization from the enemy. Age old tactic. So this first isn't so delightful.

Are we assuming that women and kids have some kind of privilege that men don't? I think it's more just a slogan or line that makes people feel more comfortable and heroic or whatever, but in practice it really doesn't work this way. I wonder how that went when the Titanic went down - I don't think the women and children went first - I think the rich went first.

It's kind of a rusty old meaningless saying, along with many others like it. Pretend stuff.

[seabeyond]

160. that whole womens first thing is fabricated to an extent. i do not remember it,

but we had a thread going on in hof. i will have to see if i can find it.

[Whisp]

163. thanks, I'll look too, sounds interesting. n/t

[seabeyond]

165. it was. i just forgot cause today i simply believe there will be useful capable women shoving men

who would only be in the way, toward the life rafts.

[Zorra]

232. It's an individual thing. If someone is not sensitive enough to easily recognize and understand

the phenomenon of benevolent sexism directed toward women, then it is highly likely that this person definitely lacks, at least, the characteristic of sensitivity to some extent. No one is perfect.

But deliberate obtuseness, rather than lack of sensitivity, may also be a characteristic of this person, causing them to deny a truth that they recognize as a truth, because of a desperate personal need to cling to a particular long standing culturally induced belief.

[Apophis]

32. Of all the things to discuss in this world

Rampant poverty, a homophobic and anti-woman pope, CPAC, gun control...We're discussing whether or not it's okay to hold a door open for someone. Really? Really?

[upaloopa]

41. We had a big to do about this when I was in

college in 1979.
We decided that there was no way to know what side of the issue a woman was on so we decided that all students should open the door for themselves and if you were with someone else, hold the door open for them.

[LanternWaste]

51. Many people can posses multiple concerns simultaneously.

Many people can posses multiple concerns simultaneously. It seems rather a bad form to project one;s own inability to do that onto others...

[seabeyond]

115. even though enough folks have explained it to you beyond the holding of the door, this is where you

sit. stuck at the damn door.

you choose to not understand the issue, do not feel bad about being left behind.

[Apophis]

121. It's stupid to put down people for being nice.

There's not a whole lot of nice or common courtesy left in this world anymore and some are trying to say that the nice gesture is sexist.

That's where you're left behind.

[seabeyond]

122. it is even more stupid to claim people are putting down others who are being nice.

there is a difference between educating yourself on beenvolent sexism, and understanding the concept and recognizing the harm it causes and declaring it is all about holding a door open. which it is not.

[olddots]

43. if I could rewrite history I would

[WilliamPitt]

46. Open the dor for everyone.

Problem solved.

[Purplehazed]

47. With one side of the arguement saying....

"Don't you know what opening the door for me implies"? and the other side saying "Huh"? It points to gender differences that shouldn't be denied. Embrace them, they're complementary.

[ieoeja]

48. I believe that benevolent sexism is "sometimes" good.

I try to enter the elevator before a strange woman because I know that a lot of women feel uncomfortable with a strange man between themselves and the exit. If I thought men felt the same way, I suppose I would try to enter the elevator before other men. But if this is a common feeling among men, I am unaware of it. So I don't bother.

For the same reason, I tend to maintain greater distance between myself and a strange woman if passing her in the dark.

I also let my (now ex-)wife get away with attempting to physically abuse me. However, I'm fairly certain I would never put up with that shit again. Woman hits me, I'm going to hit back. Unless I deserved it.

That's about it. I treat everyone pretty equally when it comes to holding open a door, helping with the heavy lifting, etc. As a matter of fact, I have pissed off a lot of women over the years who thought they should get some sort of special treatment. Women may be more guilty of benevolent sexism than men.

I have even seen that among female feminists who push the "it is never okay for a man to hit a woman" meme. You may agree with that just as I believe it is right for me to avoid making women feel threatened. But both are benevolent sexism.

[treestar]

57. put off asking for help

Interesting, as men do that too - won't admit they need it, as in the canard about men refusing to ask directions.

[LittleBlue]

58. It's not that I don't recognize it, it's that I don't care

I will still open the door and pull out a chair for women with the full knowledge that I'm treating them differently than men. If you don't like it, tell me and I'll go away. No woman has told me that she doesn't like it, so I'll keep doing it. No harm in it.

It's still a free country.

[Go Vols]

131. +1

[MineralMan]

59. My basic rules of polite behavior are based on the principle that

I am not the most important person on the planet. What that implies for me is that when I interact with others, I should recognize that they are equally as important as I am. What that means in the door opening scheme of things is that the first person to arrive at the door opens it. If another person or small number of other persons is approaching close behind, then holding the door and allowing them to enter first is a recognition of their existence and that someone will have to open the door. There is no reason for the door to be opened more than once, so the first there opens it. If the other people approaching the door exceed two or three in number, then one of them should take the door and allow the first person to enter.

That seems to be the general rule that most people, men and women included, follow, most of the time, and it's a sensible one.

Going a bit further, if I encounter someone who is clearly less able than I am, it is always my responsibility to assist them if I am in a position to do so and close at hand. Any person with a cane, a walker, or a clear disability takes precedence always, if I am nearby and able myself. Women without obvious disabilities are perfectly capable of normal day-to-day things typical of human behavior. If they arrive at the door first, then it falls to them to be the one to open it. Whoever gets there first has that job, man or woman. If the first arrival doesn't open the door, and I am behind that person, I will, of course open the door, since it was my intent to go through the door. I will also let that person go in first, on the assumption that the person may well have some disability I am not aware of. I won't reason any further about it.

I am not the most important person on the planet. Nobody is. We're all just people on the planet, and we have to get along with each other. That's the entire reason societies develop etiquettes. We have to get along. So, we do many things based on that etiquette.

The other aspect of all of this is that if someone does need assistance with something, that person should feel perfectly comfortable about asking for assistance, of any person who can render it. The corollary is that anyone seeing someone struggling with something should feel free to offer assistance. An example might be changing a tire. Often, lug nuts are over-tightened in auto service businesses. Very often. As it happens, I keep a toolkit in my own vehicle. It contains tools capable of loosening any lug nut, regardless of how over-tightened it is. So, if I see someone who is unable to loosen lug nuts without risking injury, I will, as a matter of course, offer to help. I can do that quite easily, and am glad to. I keep those tools in my vehicle for that very purpose, as well as to deal with wheel removal on my own vehicle.

Similarly, when my car suddenly died at a traffic light and would not restart, another motorist, who saw that my hood was up and that I was not holding a cell phone to my ear, stopped and offered me the use of her cell phone. I thanked her, called AAA, and returned her phone. She noticed my situation, had the means to assist me, so she assisted me. That is simply a behavior that is called for by the situation and the general rules of polite behavior.

Nothing is required of the person being assisted but to offer a simple "thank you" to the person doing the assisting. There's no need to philosophize over it. Offering assistance, whether it is to open and hold a door when more than one person will be going through it or when asked or when you notice someone's need for assistance, is simply how we should all behave. We have to get along.

So, If I hold a door open for you, it has nothing to do with who you might be or any characteristic you have. I am simply following my basic rules. If I got there first, I'll open the door and hold it for the person behind me. If you're holding the door, I will say "thanks," and pass through it. It's that simple.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. Seems like this is a "problem" solved by a simple "Thank you" or "No, thank you".

[lunatica]

65. As I get older I find there's 'benevolent ageism' too

We all have stereotypical thinking about a hell of a lot of things. Sometimes we actually become aware of them and try to do something to change.

I've been dealing with my own stereotypical thinking for decades. It has changed me because I changed from being a stereotype. I like to think of it as consciously living.

[geek tragedy]

69. Benevolent ageism is actually the law in places.

For example, certain seats on buses are reserved for the elderly or disabled.

[MineralMan]

75. Yup. And individuals decide for themselves if they fit that

category. I don't sit in those seats. I don't need to, yet. Someday, I may need to use them. That's why I don't sit in them now.

I don't ride the bus a lot, though. When I do, if I see someone who looks like they need a seat and I'm sitting, I'll offer my seat, since I'm also perfectly capable of standing. That's only right.

[Lurker Deluxe]

117. I'll offer my seat to a woman

If me and some buds are sitting at the bar and one of our female Friends comes in and there is no seat at the bar I will hop up off my ass and offer her that seat, sometimes they take it ... sometimes not.

I always offer though.

[lunatica]

76. I think of that law as being quite deliberately aimed towards actions that are benevolent

and I don't see how it affects people in a negative way the way unconscious stereotyping does. And laws enabling the disabled have actually given them much more freedom to move about and have helped dispel ideas that stereotyping them.

The benevolent ageism I'm talking about is the assumption that I'm not all there or that I don't understand things and need to be spoken to slowly. I can actually bring it on if my voice quavers a bit, especially on the phone when the person I'm talking to isn't looking at me.

[geek tragedy]

79. I wouldn't call that benevolent ageism.

I would call that plain old condescension.

[lunatica]

82. Yes. Condescencion born of stereotyping

[MineralMan]

74. At age 67, I have no issue with it.

From time to time, people offer to assist me with stuff. Since I'm capable of just about anything I could do when I was younger, I just say, "Thanks. I've got this." A few years from now, I may be saying, "Thanks. I appreciate your help." I'm old. My hair and beard are white. People may think I need help with something. I can't find a problem with that, frankly.

For now, though, I just consider it benevolent behavior. I can't imagine being offended by anyone's offer of assistance. I just say "thanks," and move on.

It's a good thing to offer assistance. It should be rewarded with some sort of appreciation, whether that assistance is needed or not.

[lunatica]

80. I agree with you on this

I'm 64 and think it's very nice that the cashiers in supermakets offer help with the groceries, which so far I've turned down, but I may need that help some day and getting it will enable me to be as independent as I can.

The only thing I object to is being treated like I'm not all there. But it happens very rarely and usually stops pretty quickly when I show I'm definitely all there.

[MineralMan]

83. I've realized that I'm the age of most checkout clerks'

grandfathers. That's why they think we're old and feeble, I suppose. I've also noticed a lot of people about my age who are old and feeble. I'm lucky to still be upright, fit, and capable. Not everyone my age is. I do so hope that continues for many years to come.

[Bay Boy]

86. The first Boy Scout that

tries to help me across the street will get punched.
(I'm sixty)

[lumberjack_jeff]

120. Social security is entirely predicated on "benevolent ageism".

Sorry, I can't agree.

Best case scenario, we all get to a point where we are less able than we were when we were young, and absent a cultural sense of respect for elders, we're not going to survive in a contest of pure fitness.

[Bay Boy]

129. I thought it was based on...

...if I pay in X amount for so many years I get to withdraw Y amount monthly till I die.

Is an IRA or a Keough plan BA?

[lumberjack_jeff]

130. The whole point is that the elderly can't work, right?

Seems straightforward enough to me.

[lunatica]

136. My point is not about common sense laws and social programs

They are not benevolent ageism. They're common sense.

I was making a point about stereotypes. I suspect that when I get really old I'll rely on the kindness of people and I'll be grateful for it. The ageism I'm talking about is the assumptions made about older people which pretty much pegs them as being useless, mentally unstable and needing help.

Do you disagree with that?

[Bay Boy]

89. From the link:

"Swim recalled that one female participant reported a complete stranger had walked up to her in a laundromat and asked if she would fold his laundry because she'd be better at it."

Sexist and creepy. Very, very creepy.
He probably thought this was a great pick up line.

[HiPointDem]

100. not an example of 'benevolent sexism' though.

[Bay Boy]

103. You don't think letting her fold his laundry...

...was a benevolent request? I suppose you are correct.

[lumberjack_jeff]

114. Maybe it is.

"I'm scared to be in this neighborhood after dark. Can you come risk your life on my behalf?"

The appeal to our masculine manliness serves to obfuscate the real issue. My perceived purpose as a man is protector, and it's part of the reason that men are 23% more likely to be victims of violent crimes.

Is it more insulting to tell someone that their purpose is domestic help or that their purpose is to serve as my bodyguard?

Better neither, in my opinion.

[HiPointDem]

220. no. it's an example of a strange creepy guy being creepy.

"a complete stranger had walked up to her in a laundromat and asked if she would fold his laundry because she'd be better at it."

there's nothing benevolent about it. it's just creepy.

and your other comments are completely irrelevant.

[Gravitycollapse]

222. Definitely more offensive to relinquish women to domestic activities.

Being a protector naturally places one on a higher social order. Men have established themselves as the protector. Women are simply socialized to believe that is correct.

In the patriarchy, men as a whole are always the advantaged.

[seabeyond]

102. thank you redq. i was gonna do this but, walking out the door. seeing the nonthinking replies were

amazing. i appreciate you starting a thread to explain. not that many of the people will both. i had the definition within the post on opening doors. that expanded on the harms. no one bothered to read. just went off on holding the doors.

and then they want to be taken seriously.

[redqueen]

177. Holding the door is just one thing. It really says a lot when it's obvious how little people know

about the issue, yet how much they have to say about it.

I knew people would snark and complain, but geez, people are leaving feminism because of 'this'? WTF?

[Bake]

107. I guess lighting a woman's cigarette is totally out of the question ...

Thats' sooooo old school.



Bake

[The Straight Story]

109. Well it is polite if she is busy breast feeding at the olive garden and needs help lighting it (nt)

[Rex]

111. I don't think there is a lot of confusion over the topic.

I think some here like to pretend there is, but no.

[lumberjack_jeff]

116. Not so much confusion as cognitive dissonance.

"I place my jacket in the mud puddles to prevent women from soiling their shoes. Therefore, I'm a feminist."

[Rex]

119. Yep that is it right there.

Unless all the people I've watched post over the years and years and years suddenly all got hit (all at once) by an alien mind blanking device...what you said.

[Nye Bevan]

125. I don't swear when ladies are present.

And I don't like it when people swear in front of my wife.

Perhaps I am hopelessly old-fashioned.

But it's not just me. Every waiter and waitress in every restaurant my wife and I have ever been to have taken my wife's order before mine.

[snappyturtle]

127. And would you believe there was a time in some restaurants that a server would

ask the man what the lady would like to eat? He placed both orders. Yep, I'm old.

edit: spelling

[niyad]

147. old here, as well. I can still remember times that the check was automatically placed in front

of the man. it took a while, but finally servers started placing the check in the middle.

[seabeyond]

148. yes. i remember. and i always had a blast picking it up. but then, i recognized the hypocrisy of

a man always paying when we were both making about the same. and never bought into it. also, i have heard enough men gripe about it i refuse to be paid for. also i hear some men thinks that makes all women prostitutes and i really oppose that one.

nah.... i always paid my own way.

[snappyturtle]

149. You're so right! I'd forgotten....the age thingie I guess! nt

[Nye Bevan]

151. I once went to a restaurant where some menus had the prices, and others did not.

I was given a menu with the prices, my wife one without the prices.

[seabeyond]

152. yup. lol. totally forgot that one, lol. nt

[snappyturtle]

153. Never saw that but did see both menus withoout pricing....which always meant $$$$$. nt

[niyad]

155. oh yes, that one, as well.

[Raine1967]

139. Things like this is why the end of the PBS show makers was so depressing.

Women, GOOD women, started leaving the movement because of stuff like this. I;m of the opinion that women have far bigger fish to fry than 'Benevolent Sexism' -- seriously.

Just take a look at this thread again. We have both men and women now concerned about whether it is ok to have a door opened for them or to open a door for someone else lest it be tagged is some sort of -ism.

This isn't about benevolent sexism -- it is about ambivalent sexism.

Benevolent sexism represents evaluations of women that may appear subjectively positive, but are actually damaging to women and gender equity more broadly (e.g., women need to be protected by men).

<-- I don't think I appreciate that title being put upon women who might actually like being helped by people who have been born genetically as male.

I will say this, If a guy holds a door open for me, I'm not going to automatically assume he's benevolently sexist. What is happening here is a lot of people reading this thread are now left to question everything they do with regard to interacting with a woman is sexist or not.

You may or may not have intended that, but it is happening here in this thread -- as well as a few others here on DU.

If we are really going to finally achieve equality I am of the opinion that we don't demean men for doing something that "may appear subjectively positive" -- that enters thought control territory -- It assumes motives and makes people defensive.

Women have left the feminist movement for reasons like this OP.

[seabeyond]

141. and some women have never participated and uses it to dismiss feminism without thinking thru

what it is. but, just settle for the.... it is nice to hold a door open.

there are all kinds of behaviors that effect society. this is a mere one. no one is proclaiming anything, but an ability to have an understanding of a concept. and many refuse to take a simple step of understanding, researching, thinking it thru. and how it may effect gender.

but, go figure.

really was not meant to be an in of the world must... but with so many people showing no understanding or an ignorant understanding of what benevolent sexism is, redq thought maybe soem people may like the info.

you are right.

much better to sit in ignorance.

[Raine1967]

143. I certainly hope you are not trying to accuse me in some backhanded way of sitting in ignorance.

and some women have never participated and uses it to dismiss feminism without thinking thru

what it is. but, just settle for the.... it is nice to hold a door open.

there are all kinds of behaviors that effect society. this is a mere one. no one is proclaiming anything, but an ability to have an understanding of a concept. and many refuse to take a simple step of understanding, researching, thinking it thru. and how it may effect gender.

but, go figure.

really was not meant to be an in of the world must... but with so many people showing no understanding or an ignorant understanding of what benevolent sexism is, redq thought maybe soem people may like the info.

you are right.

much better to sit in ignorance.

Your post came across that way. I understand -- I happen to disagree.

You claim to be a feminist and yet feel that you have the right to allude that I am ignorant?

Let me get this right, you get to say that I am ignorant because I have disagreement with much of the the OP? How feminist of you. Thank you so much for treating me with equality for speaking my mind.

[seabeyond]

146. i do not know raine. i have yet to see an opinion on sexism. only feminists. and what is not

sexism.

so as far as i know, you may not believe that sexism exists. how the hell would i know.

the only posts i have read of your is you smackin' down the feminist on this board and calling them out.

here, you are stating you do not believe in benevolent sexism. i can understand if you said you did not see how it was harmful. but, to flat out say that it is not sexism, benevolent or otherwise leaves me wondering.

Benevolent sexism is a part of a model of sexism developed by Peter Glick and Susan Fiske in 1996. Benevolent sexism, as opposed to hostile sexism, often seems to be a favorable view towards females, despite being grounded in gender stereotypes. For example, the beliefs that women are more nurturing, the men should always pay for a date, and that women should be rescued first from a sinking ship are all indicative of benevolent sexism. Benevolent sexism has three sources: protective paternalism (wanting to protect women), complementary gender differentiation (viewing women as different and better), and heterosexual intimacy (worshiping women).

A problem can arise when women are opposed to hostile sexism but not benevolent sexism, such as demanding equal pay for equal work but also believing a man should open the door for a woman. Men often view this as a double standard.

Glick and Fiske found that both types of sexism can, and generally do, coexist. Men who exhibit signs of benevolent sexism also tend to exhibit signs of hostile sexism. This is part of the reason that benevolent sexism may not be as harmless as it seems: it is clearly linked to the more injurious hostile sexism. This may help explain why sexism is still so prevalent in our society. Since the two are related, we can't eliminate the one without the other. Allowing benevolent sexism to remain may be forcing hostile sexism to stay, too.

now, if you do not see the hypocrisy in insisting being paid equal, yet expecting man to open door, stand when you enter room, come around and pull your chair out during a meeting, then go for that feminism. i do not like hypocrisy.

[Raine1967]

158. The only posts you have read of mine are the ones you choose to have read.

Take a gander at the posts I have written on DU. Maybe take a gander on some of the posts I have written on my blog. I posted this right here on DU. I don't recall seeing you post in my OP.

You alluded to me being ignorant. Now you allude that I am a hypocrite for not agreeing with you.

so as far as i know, you may not believe that sexism exists. how the hell would i know.

Let me tell you here and now, I know sexism exists. You have a lot of nerve even questioning that, or me and my right to post on DU. I get to post what I want here. As long as it it is within the TOS and within community standards, I am allowed to have an opinion.

That you actually are here questioning whether or not I think sexism exists is amazing. I am posting in GENERAL DISCUSSION.

That said let me get to something that you posted, and this time I am going to bold face something else:

Benevolent sexism is a part of a model of sexism developed by Peter Glick and Susan Fiske in 1996. Benevolent sexism, as opposed to hostile sexism, often seems to be a favorable view towards females, despite being grounded in gender stereotypes.

They developed this model. 2 people developed it. In other words -- they created something. and now you are calling me a hypocrite and ignorant for actually having the gall to question it.

You claim you don't know. What I see from you is someone who has no tolerance from people who may have a difference of opinion from you.

Don't try to portray me on DU as something I am not. That isn't just anti feminist -- it is anti-progressive. You would be hard pressed to find one thing I have ever written on DU that was anti-feminist. I am doing nothing more than questioning motives.

so as far as i know, you may not believe that sexism exists. how the hell would i know.

the only posts i have read of your is you smackin' down the feminist on this board and calling them out.

her, you are stating you do not believe in benevolent sexism. i can understand if you said you did not see how it was harmful. but, to flat out say that it is not sexism, benevolent or otherwise leaves me wondering.

You wonder all you want. you are wondering about things I did not say, and things I wrote that you never read. 'As far as you know'? You only know what you seem to want to know.

I did not say I didn't believe in benevolent sexism. That said, I don't believe in many theories. (ok, gravity, I am TOTALLY ON BOARD)

I said If we are really going to finally achieve equality I am of the opinion that we don't demean men for doing something that "may appear subjectively positive" -- that enters thought control territory -- It assumes motives and makes people defensive.

Go back an read what I wrote and read what I wrote and stop projecting what you believe about me and what I wrote as tho I said that. It's really demeaning not just to me, but for DU.

My words are my own. Please, I ask you: don't twist them. We are both women, this is my voice, these are my words. I stand by them and I do not appreciate what you are doing here.

I am not a hypocrite. I am not ignorant.

I disagree with you.

That is how the hell you would know.

[seabeyond]

162. I did not say I didn't believe in benevolent sexism. That said, I don't believe in many theories.

oh, well, see, you cleared that right up.

[Raine1967]

169. You are now just being obtuse and beligerant.

I wrote a response to you. I took time.

... and this is what you respond with?

It appears that you are not interested in discussion -- you clearly have formed your opinion about me.

Thanks for making this personal. Thank you so much for reading my entire post -- something you clearly did not do, based upon how quickly you responded to my post.

I get it. I'm not your kind of feminist -- I don't fit your mold.

[DURHAM D]

167. Well done.

[klook]

142. Very interesting article - thanks for the link.

The labyrinth of nuance and meta-upon-meta involved in the discussion of benevolent vs. ambivalent sexism is new to me, and, frankly, is making my head spin this tired and late afternoon at the end of a long week. I'm going to bookmark this Wikipedia article you linked to and finish reading it (and hopefully understanding it better) later. Very interesting stuff.

And yes, obsessing over questions that devolve into "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" kind of thinking certainly can drive good people away from movements. Some seem unable to stop their quest for purity until it has driven off all but a core of True Believers. Thus the process can ultimately become a maddening (though inadvertent) way of undermining a worthy cause.

[Raine1967]

144. I appreciate this.

It's very confusing. I spent a good portion of the day trying to understand myself.

I really do try to understand. I'm not trying to undermine, I'm actually trying to make it clear that there is no one answer to this subject.

That said, this being a discussion board, I disagree with some people. Feminism is not a monolithic movement.

[Apophis]

168. Thank you.

I was wondering all day if I've been a sexist jerk all of my life because I hold doors open for people.

I'm glad to know that if I hold a door open for you, I'm being nice and courteous and not a sexist jerk. I don't like wondering if my interactions with women are sexist when they're really not.

[redqueen]

174. What are you talking about when you say "stuff like this"?

Women left because researchers identified forms of sexism that weren't overtly hostile?

That makes no sense.

Nobody is all that concerned. There is a hell of a lot of posturing. Some thinking. Lots of snarking.

Your framing this as some hugely important drama where people are abandoning feminism because someone bothers to explain why it's sexist to treat women as if they need special favors because they're women doesn't wash with me.


Why would you think ANYONE would assume that someone holding the door open was a "benevolent sexist" (and WTF DOES THAT EVEN MEAN!?)

We don't know if that person does it for everyone or not, so WTF?

Anyway, whatever. I was explaining a concept that a lot of people pretend is just too difficult and confusing to comprehend.

[Cali_Democrat]

156. I work on the 8th floor of a 15 story building....

I usually take the elevator. One thing that happens often is that the men in the elevator allow women to leave the elevator first if they are getting off on the same floor. It's so routine that the women know it will happen and will usually charge at the door first.

I'm not sure what to make of this phenomenon , but I find it interesting and it could be an example of benevolent sexism.

This post makes one really think.

[seabeyond]

159. that is all. we had a conversation about it in our forum. discussion. no more or less. and that

is exactly what was brought up. how in sinc we are with it, and it allows people to know how to step. that is something. the reality is, it is still benevolent sexism.

people flippin out about this is odd... to me.

[snooper2]

238. No, we need to keep this thread alive until everyone has the rules down...

Are there Turkey cutting rules on Thanksgiving?

Does your husband always do it or do you take turns each year?

[justiceischeap]

186. This happens where I work too

and I always have stare downs with the guys on days I have extra time. I refuse to get off first or I let other women go before me and it seems to confuse them.

What I think is funny is that the same guy who may wait for me to get off the elevator first, won't allow me onto the Metro first, then it's no holds barred.

[peace13]

161. With all of our problems....WHY IS THIS AN ISSUE?

This is a disgusting distraction. I suggest, as we have in the past....LET IT DROP! Let these embarrassing posts drop. Now back to starving, homeless people right here in our own country and around the world!!!

[seabeyond]

164. cause guys started a big boob thread to have their kicks talking about womens boobs and in that

Op it mentioned benevolent sexism. then many people jumped on it as calling men out for opening a door. hence the need to educate what benevolent sexism is.

yes, the "talk about womens big boobs" was much more relevant. hurry up, lets all run back to that thread to continue talk about womens tits.

[peace13]

184. : )

[niyad]

172. starving and homeless people are not the only problems in this country, or anywhere else in the

world. we are perfectly able to have discussions, and consider, as many of our problems in whatever way we wish. war is a problem, disease is a problem, patriarchy is a problem, climate change is a problem, fundies and repukes are problems. telling people that only one thing is a problem, and only one thing merits discussion or attention, even if it is your particular area of concern, is ludicrous.

[peace13]

178. Aaaa, I never said one thing.

Hunger is one thing among many. But arguing about holding a the door open for a woman degrades women while pretending to support strong women.

Real women open as many doors for men, women, children, and elders without debating who needs or deserves the kindness. They also accept the kindness graciously as all should do!

[redqueen]

180. "arguing about holding a the door open for a woman degrades women"

This is not about holding doors open, or about who "needs or deserves" the kindness.

And it surely doesn't "degrade" women to discuss it.

Would you please read some of the linked articles about benevolent sexism? Please?

[redqueen]

176. Then flipping hide the thread if you care so little! Why are you freaking out?

FFS I'm just explaining something that a lot of people seem to have some major problem figuring out and don't seem to want to read about it themselves.

And FYI, this shit contributes to wishy-washy views about sexual harassment, so it IS important.

Most of us can discuss and deal with more than one issue, so your wharrgarbling about other issues is a waste of your energy.

If you care so little, hide the thread. There's a little x next to the title. Click it. It's really super easy.

[peace13]

179. If opening a door for a person can be sexual harassment then this world is lost.

But thanks for the advice. Enjoy the poutrage!

[redqueen]

182. Yeah, I didn't say it was sexual harassment.

FFS are you serious with this?

"Poutrage", yeah. I'll leave that to you.

[Gravitycollapse]

183. This is the kind of stuff we discuss all the time in feminist theory courses.

It's not a distraction unless you think discussing the issue of women's rights a distraction.

[peace13]

185. I think it is pretty low on the chart but hey....

If 'educated people' think spending hours , days, years, decades talking about this go for it. The rest of us will be out getting homeless women and their kids food and shelter. Maybe next year we can discuss the inhumanity of a toilet seat left in the upright!

To be clear the problems for women are endless. I'd start with the raping of our women soldiers. Right after we get the door thing solved maybe we can get to that!

[Gravitycollapse]

187. It's called deconstructionism. And it's important.

Because it helps to reveal underlying motivators in social issues.

Such revelations eventually alter the way we view and interact with the world. So it's not pointless in the least.

[peace13]

189. Deconstruct away.

While the gnats are under the microscope, contraception disappears, women's rights to abortion is vaporized, female troops are raped at record rates and woman are sent back to the stone ages with no control. On the flip side we won't have to deal with those pesky doors, unprofessional comments and sideway glances after inappropriate jokes.

[Gravitycollapse]

190. Most sexism now a days is covert and fragmented.

Which means it's difficult to recognize. Deconstructing otherwise assumed non-sexist interactions is important in pointing out this underlying sexism. So actually debating feminist or queer theory and deconstructing common interactions helps everyone.

Also, as human beings, we are capable of multitasking.

[peace13]

191. If you are a female I just can't believe that you fall for that bull.

There is a full attack on women around the globe. No need to play footsy. They are dragging us back to the cave feet first!

[Gravitycollapse]

192. Play footsy? Do you think this is a game or something?

Deconstruction is a prominent part of the feminist movement. It's a prominent intellectual part of essentially any progressive cause.

[egduj]

175. This is similar reasoning a republican uses when discussing affirmative action. n/t

[redqueen]

188. Maybe every time we bring up a feminist issue that people just love derailing, we should place bets

on which derailing tactic will be most popular during that particular discussion.

I think maybe this one wins, this time.
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/resources/mirror-derailing-for-dummies/#moreimportantly

All the joking around and snarking is just another way of saying 'this is not important to me' so yeah, I think this tactic definitely wins the popularity contest this time.

[cthulu2016]

193. "We"? Perhaps the "redqueen" name is going to your head

[seabeyond]

197. really? lordy, lol. nt

[Gravitycollapse]

196. I was just accused of not helping the homeless for practicing feminist deconstruction.

[seabeyond]

198. i love the deconstruction conversation. i had not heard it that way, but it is exactly

the way i see the need to be focused on and the direction we try to go in our group.

thank you for your posts. excellent.

[Gravitycollapse]

200. Even when we discuss something like benevolent sexism we say "possible sexism..."

Because we recognize that it is not the literal act of opening the door that is the problem but the underlying motivation of the person opening the door.

Being a modern feminist is very much about being exceptionally good at situational awareness.

[seabeyond]

202. true that. good point. thanks. nt

[Bonobo]

195. Every woman that ever slapped a man should be arrested.

There is an idea that fits perfectly with your theory of equality, right?

If a woman slaps a man in anger, outrage or whatever 0they need to slap on the cuffs.

Don't you agree?

We have all seen it. A man says something offensive and gets slapped. It gets played off, but it is assault plain and simple as I am SURE you will agree.

[seabeyond]

199. agreed. i have never advocated women having the right to physically assault anyone. nt

[Bonobo]

201. Excellent.

I am glad we agree.

So if we agree that THAT is assault, suddenly we are in agreement that there is a great deal more physical assault of women against men than is commonly recognized.

In fact, it is ubiquitous. It is a pandemic of violence.

[seabeyond]

203. bonobo. you are arguing with the wrong person.

but, i know what you are working toward, and no, it is not even comparable.

i have always felt strongly about fairness and not gender with this issue. i have always spoke out about women feeling they should be "allowed" to physically assault.

but, i will not play your game because i am honest and fair enough to recognize it is not even comparable.

[Gravitycollapse]

205. I believe it was Marlyn Frye who talked about obsession with male access to everything.

And how discussions always have to focus on men in order for them to be socially acceptable. When we take on a discussion where it does not focus on men, men will come into the discussion and attempt to refocus it back on themselves.

[Bonobo]

206. The point of this thread is equality.

I am just pointing out that equality involves sacrifices as well as gains.

One of those sacrifices is losing the "right" to slap people in the face when you feel wronged.

Start at thread on a discussion board and yes, all sorts of things will be discussed.

I am a man and so yes, I will focus the discussion on issues from my perspective.

You are under no obligation to answer if you find the issues of the double-standard too difficult to discuss.

[Gravitycollapse]

208. This is a thread chiefly on the discussion of benevelant sexism against women

Thus, it is not for you hijack to discuss some sort of sexual double standard against men. If you want to talk about that issue, start a new discussion.

[Bonobo]

213. The issues are entirely related. nt

[Gravitycollapse]

214. How is benevelant sexism against women related to violence against men?

[Bonobo]

216. Sexism

is, according to the thrust of this thread, based on the mistaken implication that women are weaker and need to be either defended or have doors opened for them, etc.

The same implication is at work in accepting that a slap or hit from a woman is different than a slap or a hit from a man.

The same level of force exerted by a man against a woman would be considered assault and likely result in a crime charge -and it is based on the same idea aka women's inferiority/lack of power.

Take the same level of power and rights and you also have to accept the responsibility for wielding that power.

[Gravitycollapse]

217. Yeah, I'm not playing that game with you either.

My mention of Marlyn Frye's argument is correct. Most men cannot comprehend a discussion that does not place them as central to the subject.

This is not a thread devoted to the discussion of violence against men. And no matter how hard to try you change that, the fact remains.

[Bonobo]

218. I am sorry but I think you just quit when you realized I was right. nt

[Matariki]

210. Ain't that the truth

[MadrasT]

227. It happens. Every. Single. Time. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

207. I agree. It is battery. Nobody should be slapping anyone.

Last edited Sat Mar 16, 2013, 12:02 PM - Edit history (1)

I've seen that scene portrayed many times in movies, TV, and books as foreplay. The man ogles or says something crude, the woman slaps, the man chuckles and says something lame about feisty or a tigress... implying that her willingness to slap is an indication that she's a wildcat in bed.

But it is indeed battery and shouldn't be played off.

[davidthegnome]

215. Hmm

I rarely if ever examine my motives when I hold open a door for someone. At my university, everyone pretty much holds doors open, with some exceptions that are generally considered rude or inconsiderate, whether male or female. I guess I've always seen it as a pretty simple concept. If I'm on a date with a woman, I make an effort to hold doors, perhaps, more frequently, or struggle to be the first one to get there so I can hold the door open. I don't do it because I think she's weak, incapable, or ineffective, I do it to show that I care, to be nice. I have yet to have anyone of either gender complain when I hold a door for them, if it bothered someone, I would probably simply not do it for them.

Am I sexist? As much as anyone else. I am firmly convinced that there is no human being on the planet that is not at least a little bit sexist.

[Zax2me]

223. Wow - so much 'study' and hand wringing over molehill - made into mountain.

Women are women men are men and people are people.
If you treat a woman like they aren't people (as objects) you suck.
If you treat men like they aren't people (as objects) you suck.

All the back and forth about why and for the money for the status for the sex only - what the fuck ever, it's all white noise clouding a simple subject until it is - well, all the articles linked above.

[Zorra]

233. Well, rq, you obviously hit dead center of the bullseye with your OP subject line.

[redqueen]

235. It really isn't complicated. And it ties into rape culture, so it is important.

I truly do not understand the silly focusing on doors.

I don't know if it's a case where some people intentionally want to distract from the real issue, if they just get a kick out of dismissing feminist concerns and encouraging others to be as thoughtless, or if the idea really is akin to quantum physics or rocket science in its complexity and hard to understandness.

I truly didn't expect people to still be posting nonsense about doors, as if that was a central issue.

[gollygee]

236. It's a strawman to use to bash feminists

"Look, feminists are upset when people open the door for them!"

I don't think the people here are actually this stupid, so I assume people are doing it on purpose.

[fishwax]

237. +1 n/t