May I please have the attention of all my fellow males

[Arcanetrance]

Thank you I don't normally start threads of my own but in this case I felt it to be necessary. I've noticed a multitude of threads mocking the thought of benevolent sexism with trivial bullshit. Most of this trivial non sense is about holding doors open for others. If that's all that you've taken away from the discussion you missed a lot. It's time to stop trivializing this because your personal feelings may be hurt. Lets look at it from a logical point of view if you treat someone differently because of their gender than yes that is sexism regardless of how good your intentions. Yes I know this is where you want to insert door comment here but its not about holding the damn door open go ahead and do so that's called being a decent and polite person. I don't think anyone is gonna refuse male or female. All I'm asking is some common sense and truly read whats been written its not about a damn door or anything else so trivial. I noticed a lot didn't want to listen to the females who said basically the same so maybe you'll listen to another male.

[randome]

1. Sexism? I thought we were talking about sex!

Damn! Excuse me, I have to go and delete a whole BUNCH of posts!

[Squinch]

2. Mmmmmwah! to you!

(That's a big kiss, in case it wasn't clear.) That's the second time I've wanted to do that in response to your posts.

But don't hold your breath hoping that any of the "tell me that you admire my chivalry or I will have a tantrum" crowd will get your message.

[Arcanetrance]

3. I will never hold my breath waiting for others to see logic I will pass out

That being said I know its a long shot but still worth it

[olddots]

24. I believe they see the logic

Part of being alive is about seeking attention especially with 7 billion people who need to feel important.
I'm hoping that a lot of people here that piss me off with what they type I would love to be real life ( in person ) friends with.

[Whisp]

4. ''but its not about holding the damn door open''

no, but talking about that dismisses the real point.

and that's the point of it all.

thanks for your post.

[niyad]

5. k and r--and THANK YOU

[Sheldon Cooper]

6. Spot on!

[ZombieHorde]

7. Thank you. I was going to write something like this,

but I was annoyed, so I thought I would just make things worse.

[LittleBlue]

8. Maybe it's time to consider the possibility that your argument wasn't persuasive.

This is the "you haven't considered everything" fallacy, where someone assumes people who disagree with them don't understand the issue. If I had a dime every time someone got frustrated and said "you just don't understand" to a person who fully understands but disagrees, I'd be wealthy.


To be honest with you, even fully understanding the concept of benevolent sexism, this concept is going to flop like a wet towel in the general public opinion. It always was.

[Arcanetrance]

9. So because the public doesn't like it we shouldn't accept it

I'm sorry if you live in your own world where this is considered a fallacy I'm putting forth. Do you feel you have a better understanding than those who actually live it.

[LittleBlue]

11. No. Do continue

But with the understanding that many fully understand the issue, but don't deem it a problem. And when they express this view, don't assume that they misunderstand you, maybe you didn't persuade them that benevolent sexism is a problem. Even with the best argument, you may fail to persuade them.

That's all.

To be honest, I think you're wasting your time defending a position that will never persuade a significant number of people. Once they realize that common courtesies are examples of benevolent sexism, 80% will laugh at the concept.

[1monster]

14. I'm assuming that you don't understand what it is like to be dismissed simply because

of double X chromosomes as opposed to XY chromosomes, honey. (The "honey" was in case you missed it.)

My husband and I once both witneesed the same incident and we came away with totally different views.

A man was restraining a woman by holding her as he pretty much carried her part way across the parking lot. She was struggling very hard and screaming, "Put me down! Let me go!" Everyone present in the parking lot stopped to watch and no one did anything.

I was absolutely appalled, especially since no one did anything to help the woman. So I yelled that I was calling the police and ran into the nearest store and did so (much to my husband's dismay). The man let the woman go and she ran to her car and left.

I saw a woman being manhandled by a man who was much stronger, and she was hysterical as a result of being restrained against her will.

My husband saw a hysterical woman being restrained by a concerned man who was just trying to calm her down.

I described the scene to several people, male and female. And guess what? The men all drew the same conclusion as my husband, and the women all drew the same conclusion I did.

"Benevolent sexism" has never been about men opening doors for women. That has always been a red herring. The above scenario was an example of men's "benevolent sexism." Believing that restraining a woman who is hysterical will calm her down is an absolute fallacy.

[LittleBlue]

20. Do you think that if a woman was restraining her

the reaction would have been different? Or if a man were restraining another man, there would be a different reaction?

This might be a case of attributing something to a situation which does not exist.

[bettyellen]

29. are you advocating that the men were correct, and the situation should be ignored?

let's clarify that, before we go off the rails on hypothetical tangents, okay?

[LittleBlue]

36. No.

My first question reading the situation was whether the woman was being abducted. "Is she hysterical?" didn't enter my mind, it was whether the man knew the woman and the circumstances.

Without any information, it is impossible to make a determination. The smart thing to do (what I would have done) is walk up and ask "What's going on here?" If it's obvious that the guy is trying to abduct her, that's one thing, if it's obvious she's been in a fight and he's separating her, that's another.

I once had to restrain a woman at a dance club who had opened the passenger side door of my cousin's car and started punching her in the face WHILE SHE WAS TRYING TO DRIVE AWAY. They were friends who had a bad falling out that night fueled by alcohol consumption. I had to grab her by the neck and waist and physically pull her out of the car, she was heavyset and far stronger than my 115lb cousin. She screamed at me "let go, you **** so and so" and started trying to kick me with heels. If you had only seen me grabbing her by the neck and waist, and her screaming to be let go, you might assume I was trying to sexually assault her, but that wasn't the case. No one challenged me for restraining her because they knew the context, they were calling the cops- ON HER.

Likewise if there is a man yelling with a cop (male or female) restraining them, it wouldn't be sexist if people assumed the restraining person was in the right and the screaming man had lost his shit. You may receive an identical assumption if a man is restraining another yelling man. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with sexism.

[bettyellen]

39. sticking to the incident in question- what was interesting was that the men present didn't imagine

there was any reason for concern... or perhaps thought it wasn't "their business" to intervene.
And the women erred on the side of caution- which you agreed with.

How about we not create a half dozen hypotheticals to distract from the point, and discuss it, instead?

[LittleBlue]

53. I can only speak for myself and the people I know

Sometimes the context is obvious. If the woman is yelling "Help! He's abducting me!" of course I will run up and stop the situation immediately. If the woman is drunk and yelling "I'll kill you, you f***** b****" then yeah, I'll make a not-sexist assumption that she is in fact hysterical and possibly violent/drugged out of her mind. If the guy is dragging her into a van or has a weapon, it's time to intervene physically.

All I can say is that the bystanders might have known the context, or incorrectly assumed a context that had nothing to do with genders. Many assume the cops are always right, that isn't sexism, it's the bias against someone who looks angry being restrained. The person who raises their voice first in an argument is often incorrectly assumed to be wrong because they lose composure. I don't know why all her male friends made this assumption, but it doesn't seem representative of any situation I've been in.

[Jamastiene]

40. In your case, wouldn't you rather the police come and sort out the situation

and arrest the woman for assaulting your cousin? Assault is against the law. In either case, I would think calling the law was the right thing to do. You had witnesses who clearly knew what was happening. In the scenario described above, the witnesses did not seem to know what was happening...only assumed what was happening. See the difference?

[LittleBlue]

50. By the time the cops get there

her face would be ground beef. She was red and puffy because the girl struck my cousin in the face with her fists, I'm not going to stand there dialing the police while her nose and jaw get broken. The police did come, but since my cousin drove off, they held her for disorderly conduct. They later determined she committed battery but my cousin didn't want to press charges.

Also, how do you know what the witnesses know? If someone had walked out and saw me doing this after the battery had occurred, then they wouldn't have known.

[1monster]

60. The scene was exactly as I described. They were the only two involved.

[Jamastiene]

38. While we are using hypotheticals...

If you were the one being restrained, would you want to be left to deal with whatever happened with no help? What if you were being restrained by anyone(of any gender) in a public parking lot and voicing your objection to being restrained? Would you want people to listen to your objections and take them seriously or assume that you are hysterical and think you need to be restrained? What if you were genuinely being abducted by someone who was going to torture and/or kill you later? Wouldn't you rather someone, anyone, have the compassion to call the police and make sure you were not being forcefully abducted against your will? Why is it ok to assume a woman is hysterical and in need of restraining by any other person?

I, personally, would have done the same thing the poster you were replying to did and call the police, just in case. I would certainly want someone to have enough common decency toward their fellow humans to call the police if I was screaming for help while any man or woman was physically restraining me. As a matter of fact, I cannot think of any scenario where I would "need" to be restrained by anyone. It is weird that so many people thought that situation was somehow the woman's own fault or that she needed it and did nothing. I applaud the poster above for taking some action to be sure the woman was not being abducted.

[sibelian]

43. ???

Little Blue the point of the OP you're responding to is that perecptions of the incident were sharply divided across gender....? I don't see how the hypotheticals you've posited throw any light on what the person you're responding to described. I assume you're *not* saying that there would have been a similar division in perception across gender if restrainer and restrainee were of the same gender?

Anyway, I find the story you're responding to disturbing, clearly people should not be restrained against their will...

[Fawke Em]

48. I wonder if these people really thought that restraining a woman

against her will would calm her down.

Seems to me that forcing people to do something they don't want to do would spur the exact opposite of "calm."

[1monster]

62. Agreed 100%! If anything would make me hysterical, it would be being restrained against my will.

Whether or not I knew the restrainer.

[Bay Boy]

57. Something that makes me think

she was being restrained by a friend/relative is by what she was yelling. The words "Put me down! Let me go!" I expect to be followed by "So I can go kick his/her ass!". If the woman was being restrained by a stranger I would expect "Help me! Call 911!" or the like.

On the other hand after being let go she ran to her car and left and I assume you mean without the male who was previously restraining her. So that makes me think it was a bad situation that needed responding to.

BUT if it was a person restraining her from getting into a fight (or back into a fight) wasn't that a good thing to do regardless of the sex of either of the people involved?

[1monster]

63. There was no one else involved. It was the man and the woman. A second male

was nearby, and when the woman took off, he came over and stood with the first male and they talked like they knew each other. The sheriff's car pulled up and both men melted away.

But as someone up thread mentioned, my post was about how different the perceptions were of the men and the women. And I'm seeing the same thing here.

Men are looking for a reason to justify the man restraining the woman. Women recognize that there was something wrong. A family member thus restraining someone doesn't mean everything is okay. Domestic violence if a major problem in this country.

[Katashi_itto]

10. What type of doors are we talking about?

[pamela]

12. Isn't this benevolent sexism, too?

I'm not trying to bash you, I am genuinely just curious as I had never heard that term until the other day. This sentence struck me, though: "I noticed a lot didn't want to listen to the females who said basically the same so maybe you'll listen to another male." That strikes me as an example of benevolent sexism. Your intentions are honorable and kind but there is an element of jumping in to save the poor females from the mean old males. And seriously, if any guy here would listen to a male on the subject, but not a female, they're so blatantly sexist that it wouldn't matter what anyone said.

I'm probably going to get slammed for saying that but, honestly, I'm just trying to understand the whole concept. I kind of rolled my eyes the other day when I first saw all these threads but it is an interesting concept and has made me rethink some things.

[Arcanetrance]

13. I'm not going to slam you I'm only going to say that I started this thread due to the annoyance I

Had at the other guys I saw mocking the subject so I felt it was my duty to start this thread and call them on it.

[pamela]

15. That's cool.

I didn't mean it as a slam to you, either. I always appreciate kindness and good intentions from either sex. I am just genuinely trying to understand the whole concept.

[Squinch]

18. I took this as him getting in the boat and pulling on an oar. I didnt' think that he was saying,

"I'm captain now and I'll steer you to safety, little lady!" THAT would have been benevolent sexism.

[Squinch]

21. Here are two good examples of benevolent sexism that I can think of:

DUer sibelian pointed out this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2521603
and the thread has some good comments.

Another is this situation that I come up on reasonably often: you are parallel parking, and some guy walks up on the sidewalk and, unbidden, starts directing you into the parking space, telling you to turn your wheel now and yadda yadda. I am an absolute champion parallel parker. I can get into a space that is 2 inches larger than my car in 3 maneuvers. When guys do this, it is meant kindly, but it is distracting, unhelpful, and actually screws me up because I need to be paying attention to where the guy is so I don't hit him. It is always a guy, and I have never seen a guy do this to another guy.

[Marr]

45. You've never seen a guy do that to another guy?

I've seen it a thousand times. Ricky Gervais had a whole standup bit about it-- about the way you can suddenly start helping people backup their vehicles when you turn 40, but before that they tell you to fuck off.

[Squinch]

51. Nope, never saw a guy do it to another guy. I get it about twice a week. From men young and old.

Once it was a kid who looked like he was about 12.

My favorites are the ones who tell me I'll never fit into a space, and then yell at me for not listening to them while I do so.

[Orrex]

25. As far as I can tell...

I haven't seen anyone mocking the phenomenon described as "benevolent sexism." Some, myself included, have mocked one person's choice of example, but that's very different from mocking benevolent sexism. Others have questioned the significance of "benevolent sexism" compared to "hostile sexism," and this also is very different from mocking.

I've seen no one denying that the phenomenon occurs, though I haven't read all of the 1000+ posts on the subject.

[Squinch]

30. Outrage at that one person's choice of example has been the subject of those 1000+ posts.

I think that says something pretty clear. Kind of a lot of overkill and hysteria.

And while we may not see a lot of denial of the condition of benevolent sexism, every post attempting to discuss benevolent sexism has been hijacked by arguments about whether someone deserves to be admired for opening a door. That is pretty clearly an effort, conscious or not, to avoid the discussion.

[Orrex]

34. I haven't seen much outrage or hysteria.

Nor have I seen "arguments about whether someone deserves to be admired for opening a door." I have seen a number of discussions of whether the act of holding open a door must be sexism, and the consensus appears to be that, in itself, the act is not sexist.

That is pretty clearly an effort, conscious or not, to avoid the discussion.

Avoid? Perhaps, but that's not mocking the subject; it's taking issue with the framing of the subject. Very different.

[Squinch]

37. The sheer volume of threads with the general subject of "don't tell me I'm not a great guy because I

open doors for women", and the sheer volume of comments within those threads of men who feel woefully wronged, is an expression of outrage.

The avoidance of the discussion of benevolent sexism by hijacking threads with outrage about doors is not the same as taking issue with the framing of the subject. It is a way to shut the subject down. It isn't about the framing. It's about not allowing the discussion to take place.

[Orrex]

42. Sorry, but you don't get to declare that someone is outraged just because it's convenient for you

You may find the threads outrageous, but that doesn't mean that the people posting in those threads are outraged. I'm certainly not outraged. If I were to call you outraged or hysterical, would you simply accept the label as true? If not, then why should anyone else accept it when that label is applied to them?

Persistent accusations of outrage are likewise an attempt to hijack discussion, because it turns it into an argument about whether or not someone is outraged (as it has done here).

It's about not allowing the discussion to take place.

I imagine that this is also a convenient interpretation, but that doesn't make it so. Although a different conversation is taking place, that doesn't imply an attempt "to shut the subject down." Such an accusation assumes intent that may not be there.

If the discussion gets out of the control because ([font color=red]"because" added on edit[/font]) of some of the participants, then perhaps those participants should be ignored, for the good of the discussion?

[Squinch]

44. Wait a darn second there!!! I don't get to declare that someone is outraged because it's convenient

for me??? I thought that was what we do here on DU!!! I can't count the number of posts in which feminist posters on this board are accused of outrage for the convenience of someone else.

All right, though. Leaving that. Again, the sheer number of posts in which the discussion was raised and then hijacked does imply an attempt to shut the subject down. Such an accusation is based on observation of repeated incidents.

If the discussion is consistently hijacked by drivel, perhapse those writing the drivel are fearful of the discussion. Ignoring those who are actually having the discussion is not that productive for the good of the discussion.

At any rate, this thread, like so many others, has gotten off the track of a discussion of benevolent sexism. This conversation you are trying to start about who is worthy of ignoring is not interesting to me, so I'll leave you there.

Have a lovely day.

[Orrex]

49. If someone has accused feminists of outrage, then they were wrong to do so

Point me to those threads when they occur, and I will call them out for their bullshit rhetorical tactic.

However, their bullshit rhetorical tactic doesn't justify your use of it nor anyone else's.

Again, the sheer number of posts in which the discussion was raised and then hijacked does imply an attempt to shut the subject down.

No, you infer that attempt by assuming intent from a result. It may be that a given thread was hijacked or was shut down, but that doesn't imply that anyone attempted to shut it down.

[one_voice]

41. Excellent point!

I thought I read somewhere that if you pointed out 'in a bad way' that a man stood up for the women it was MRA talking points or something like that. I didn't know what MRA talking points were until I'd read about them here. Still not clear on them either.

But you do make a good point. Apparently it's ok for men to do the 'heavy lifting' when it suits your needs.

Yesterday I went out with my husband, he helped on with my coat, opened the car door for me, carried the two bags of groceries into the house, but sat there and watched me carry a 42lb box of cat litter to the basement. He knew I didn't need the help with the cat litter and I would have just told him that, but the other things were out of habit. Sometimes men do things out of habit.

My son and husband will always stop and help a woman on the side of the road. Why--because women are always more of a target for violence than a man. That doesn't mean they won't stop to help a man, but they may not always stop to help a man.

Guess if some want to call them sexist because they choose not to drive by a woman because they care, so be it. I call them good men.

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. He seems to think that it's the men who aren't getting the concept.

I don't agree with him in that sense, because I see people here about evenly split on their refusal to discuss the issue.

It threatens some men who are forced to rethink what they mean when they call themselves feminists. It threatens some women who've gotten used to the idea that flat tires on their car aren't their problem.

No, it isn't demonstrably sexist, benevolent or otherwise.

[Honeycombe8]

16. Except that it's not sexism. (spoken by a feminist female) nt

[ismnotwasm]

17. Thank you

[liberal_at_heart]

19. I'm starting to agree.

At first I thought it was silly to tell men they shouldn't hold doors open because personally I think everybody should hold doors open for everybody. And sometimes it is hard for me to side with aggressive people, so when aggressive feminists start telling people what to do I often side with the people they are bossing around. But many people on here are acting so childish and dismissive of a real problem, the problem of sexism that I think I'm going to have to change positions on this issue. I still think everybody should hold the door for everybody, but the sexist and misogynist attitudes on this board suck.

[Squinch]

22. This warms my feminist heart.

Welcome to the dark side. We have cookies.

[pamela]

27. I'm having the exact same reaction. n/t

[bettyellen]

32. you see it all the time here. they manufacture huge drama and blame feminists.

and that is their endgame, shutting down real discussion by creating flame fests.

[Little Star]

47. Bingo

[boston bean]

23. I'm going to laugh my ass off if this slinks down the front page of GD.

All those guys who were so upset at the thought of benevolent sexism, when a woman broaches the topic, might not speak up when a male peer brings it up.... hmmmmmm...

Or, maybe they will start to tell you that you are just trying to ingratiate yourself with the ladies.

[Arcanetrance]

26. I hope it doesn't slink down and wind up on page 5 but if it does so be it some people just aren't

Ready to have a civilized discussion. But it doesn't change the fact that I felt it was my responsibility to call my fellow males on their crap.

[boston bean]

28. I hear you. I think it was a great post.

It's nice to see, for sure!

[bettyellen]

31. you'll notice they are actually afraid to play their little games with men.

Pretty telling, isn't it?

[Arcanetrance]

35. It does speak volumes I wish I could be surprised but I'm not.

Oh well silence isn't an option I have a little sister that has a black belt in 3 different styles of martial arts. I speak up so I can help forge a world where her accomplishments would be the equal of any male who were to do it. I've had to see her cry losing jobs at different studios because she's a woman and they don't think she could do it despite her qualifications. So as I said silence isn't an option

[libodem]

33. I'll bet when we wore hoop skirts and 4 petticoats

And corsets and bustles and rode in stage coaches, having a man offer his hand to help you down would not have been sneered at.

Thank the goddess we can wear 501's and drive ourselves around.

Those odd traditions of chivalry arose from some actual purpose.

I think we can fit it all into our heads and think our way around this.

I don't think it is an either/ or debate, but one of understaning traditions and an evolving culture.

[olddots]

59. whats a civilized discussion ?

calling your fellow males on their crap is a form of sexism. ( just messing with you )

[Arcanetrance]

61. Personally from what I've seen here a thread that doesn't devolve into personal insults and name

Calling I will call a win.

[XRubicon]

46. If I treat someone differently because their gender that's sexism?

So I can just treat women same as men without considering gender?

[Arcanetrance]

52. Are you being purposely obtuse on the matter

We are all human yes. Now the only thing that separates the two genders is chromosomes. Therefore it would seem to me the logical course of action would be to treat each other equally with mutual respect and care because that's the only way we will move forward to see each other as equals

[XRubicon]

66. Makes sense on planet Vulcan

But I live on Earth.

[Arcanetrance]

68. So that's your answer deflection to star trek

I love star trek and keeping with that analogy if I remember correctly humans strove for equality of the genders as well. So is it wrong to want the same in real life.

[arely staircase]

54. the door holding example was first brought up by people who take "benevolent sexism" quite seriously

it is when that example started to fall apart that the "don't you see its so much bigger" meme started.

so, what is another, better example we can discuss if we move away from the door holding buiness?

[Arcanetrance]

56. Well here's an example I know of from personal experience

My little sister is a black belt in 3 different forms of martial arts. She applied for a teaching position at a martial arts academy. The guy who ran the dojo told her that for her own safety he can't hire her. He felt that her being a woman she wouldn't be safe despite her credentials but he "did it for her own good" sounds like benevolent sexism to me

[arely staircase]

58. that is legit.

though i doubt many women have experienced that scenario. but i would have to say i would call benevolent (well-intentioned) and sexist (unfairly based on gender.)

[Arcanetrance]

64. See but a statement saying that's legit is part of the problem.

Guys telling women what is and isn't legit sexism. I'm willing situations like the one my sister happens more than anyone will admit.

[arely staircase]

65. ok so if i agree with you i am still wrong. jesus christ

and guys are no more or less entitled to opinions about what is sexist than women. again, jesus christ.

[Arcanetrance]

67. I'm not saying you're wrong at all I was saying a guy saying what is or is not sexism to a woman is

Wrong. Can a straight guy tell a gay or lesbian individual what is homophobic can a white person tell a black person what they should consider racist.

[arely staircase]

71. so you have a problem with women telling men what is sexist or just men telling women?

wow

and now you have changed it to "what they should consider"

a white person is no less entitled to an opinion, or the right to express an opinion on the subject of racism than a black person. expressing that opinion is not telling the black person what he/she should think. only what the white person does think.

[Arcanetrance]

72. I think we should listen to each other as to what's hurtful to the other

We all have a right to an opinion that doesn't mean someone else can't push back against your opinion. We should listen when women tell us that we said something hurtful to them. Just like they should be receptive if they've crossed a line. The problem is from the posts I've read it's just been us as males crossing the line.

[Squinch]

69. Again I say, Mmmmwah!!

[Taverner]

70. My post was an attempt at levity

Because feminism can be liberating, and it can be imprisoning.

If we expect to succeed, we have to make it the former, not the latter.

To quote the great uber-Feminist, Emma Goldman,

If I can't dance, it's not my revolution!
If I can't dance, I don't want your revolution!
If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution.
A revolution without dancing is not a revolution worth having.
If there won't be dancing at the revolution, I'm not coming.