Favorite Anti-Feminist Theory Debunked By Purdue Researchers

[geek tragedy]

As anyone who has ever spent any time talking about feminism online before can tell you, a whole fuckton of men claim that feminism, in all its evil machinations, has made opening a door for a lady a fraught ordeal of doom. With straight faces, they assure everyone reading that merely holding a door open for a lady while giving her a slight nod or a tip o’ the fedora, will turn her into a raving beast of feminist-inspired madness, screaming about how the door-opener is the oppressor and how she can open her own doors, while damning you to hell or perhaps to live on a lesbian commune as their manservant. But is this true? Are women really so uptight about doors being opened, due to their punishing feminist indoctrination? Purdue researchers set to find out.

McCarty and Kelly describe an experiment featuring 196 people who walked into a building on a university campus. The entrance had two doors directly next to one another, each of which opened outward.

Each subject was approached by a male member of the research team as they walked toward the building. For half, the research associate “took a step in front of the participant, opened the door, and let the participant walk through the door first.” For the other half, he reached for the adjacent door, so that the two opened their doors more or less simultaneously.


Once inside, a female research associate approached each subject and asked him or her to complete a short survey. On a one-to-10 scale, they indicated their agreement with three statements measuring self-esteem (including “I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others”), and three measuring self-efficacy (including “I can usually achieve what I want if I work hard for it”).

The results: Male, but not female, participants reported lower levels of self-esteem and self-confidence if the door had just been held open for them.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/25/favorite-anti-feminist-theory-debunked-by-purdue-researchers/

So, fear not brave men of the world, if you open a door for a woman out of simple courtesy, you will escape unharmed. And so will she.

[Major Nikon]

1. "If you're unsure why benevolent sexism is worth discussing..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2517432

[geek tragedy]

6. opening doors for people is common courtesy, not sexism.

a mistake a few people make is confusing acts of courtesy done towards women because they're human beings (not sexism) vs treating women differently than they treat men (possibly sexism)

But I have never known a feminist to make that mistake

[Major Nikon]

17. I like to give most people the benefit of the doubt

When they are talking about "opening doors for women", I get that this is a metaphor in regards to acts of chivalry orchestrated for the benefit of women only which most certainly does fall under the category of benevolent sexism. Anyone who thinks this applies to all such acts either doesn't understand the concept or they are taking it too literally. The fact that someone decided to study it only proves they had nothing else better to do.

[rrneck]

60. And the used car lot wasn't moving enough product.nt

[RBStevens]

23. There is a clear difference between the common courtesy

helpfulness or even expediency of holding a door for another and having the door held for you with an expectation of *gushing gratitude* (read - an expectation of more personal attention than is warranted for simple polite behavior) and I give people - even women - enough credit to be able to tell the difference.

As for the article, I find it quite interesting and sort of surprising that men would feel emasculated - feminized, made to feel less-than - when a man held the door for him. Are men not capable of recognizing common courtesy in other men then? If that's the case then we're in a whole heap of trouble.

[Adrahil]

67. If I am in a position to hold a door open for anyone, make or female, I do it.

As you said, because it's a courtesy, that's all, irrespective of sex.

My wife does the same thing. She will open doors for people too. Most say thanks, and all moves on. She once had a man get upset because he said "that should be MY job." He menat it to be "gentlemanly." He came off as a douche.

[Jamastiene]

141. I'm female and I hold doors open and let the other person

go through first or hold the door if I am already out but close enough to the time when they approach the door. I said person, because I do it for someone regardless of their gender. It is a common courtesy. I have never heard a woman say anything about someone holding the door open for them, except thank you. Usually, that is what people say. Thank you. It is simple common courtesy, just like you said.

[REP]

2. I have only one worry about holding/not holding a door open:

When I don't do it, it's because it would require rotating my shoulder in a way that's not possible since my shoulder surgery, but the person behind me doesn't know that - and I worry that I might seem inconsiderate instead of merely defective.

[demigoddess]

108. don't worry about that.

I have never heard a woman complain of a door not being opened for her except by her husband. Sometimes we feel it is a show of respect that we can handle it ourselves. We are adults, after all. I only dislike the ones who, when you are trying to manage a stroller through a door, act exasperated because they are in a hurry.

[Iggo]

3. Door-opening heroes in 3...2...1...

[NuclearDem]

10. He's a door stop hero.

[RBStevens]

63. ...

[Squinch]

97. The poor dear.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

128. I do believe he went the way of the juke box ...

Last seen in the 20th century. Moving On.

[pintobean]

12. All the makings of an epic battle

[Bandit]

4. I hold a door open for everyone, male or female, it is just simple courtesy

[GoneOffShore]

45. ^This^

That's all it is.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[one_voice]

54. Woman here..+1. n/t

[laundry_queen]

58. Woman here. I hold the door open for anyone behind me, period. nt

[deutsey]

124. Same here n/t

[Tuesday Afternoon]

130. yep.

and do you realize that DU3 you just said a mouthful because, in the end, simple courtesy is all it is about.

[OilemFirchen]

5. Doesn't this belong in one of the five women's groups?

Why is it in GD?

[geek tragedy]

8. sorry, are you saying sexism is only a women's issue? also, this addresses male behavior and

reactions too

[OilemFirchen]

49. Color me confused.

If the SI post was inappropriate for GD, why is this here? IOW, what is the purpose of the womens' groups?

[geek tragedy]

53. because this post doesn't objectify any human beings. nt

[OilemFirchen]

55. Do the posts in the womens' groups objectify human beings?

You still haven't answered my question. Why do those groups exist?

[geek tragedy]

56. same reason as all DU groups, someone asked if they could be created

and Skinner said yes.

Do you propose to ban from GD all discussions which are specifically addressed in topics groups?

[OilemFirchen]

59. I don't propose anything.

I'm fine with every subject being discussed in GD. You're not, however. You've specifically, and frequently, insisted that the SI post should have been moved to the Lounge.

Do you propose to ban from GD all discussions which are Lounge-related?

[geek tragedy]

61. it's not about current events or politics or anything related to public policy

it's an annual skin rag.

kinda like talking about the latest issue of Maxim

[OilemFirchen]

80. Au contraire.

It was obviously about current events and politics. Did you see the number of threads it garnered? Have you seen the dozens of threads it spawned? A lot of posters participated and quite a bit of the conversation was elucidating. I'd say that it was a cathartic process and, had it begun in the Lounge, none of this enlightening discourse would have happened.

If you feel that feminist/womens' discussions should always be open for general discussion (as do I), then why did you ask for five protected groups? Or, OTOH, if you believe that certain topics should NOT be discussed in GD, then why shouldn't they be posted to their respective groups only? Do you want to see kitteh posts sent to the Pets group? I note that the Sports groups don't include Olympic events. Where should the Olympics threads have been posted? Why is there a thread about True Detective in GD?

There are already clear rules about guns, religion, and I/P. Why shouldn't those apply to feminist topics?

[geek tragedy]

81. Yes, with the conclusion being that posting soft porn

in GD is generally not appreciated by most women--or men-here.

Women are not a narrow issue. They are 50% of society.

Would you dare suggest that we not talk about black people's concerns in GD?

[OilemFirchen]

87. Thanks for not reading my response.

You'll note that I'm the one stating that subjects like "black people's concerns" should be discussed in GD.

O/T, but I also think that you would benefit by dropping this embarrassing "soft porn" canard. Perhaps that's why quite a few here find the outrage a bit prudish.

[geek tragedy]

94. really, how would you differentiate

the SI swimsuit issue

vs

Maxim

vs

Playboy

vs

Hustler?

[OilemFirchen]

99. I'll let my local grocery store decide.

On open shelves: SI and Maxim. Cosmo, Easy Rider, Esquire, GQ as well.

Unavailable: Playboy and Hustler.

The local gas station has girly mags, but the covers are obscured and you have to be 18 to buy them.

Does that help?

[geek tragedy]

100. so, is The English Patient porn then? nt

[OilemFirchen]

103. Never seen it.

It's rated "R" though, so no.

ETA: Do you think it is?

[geek tragedy]

104. of course not. it's art. nt

[OilemFirchen]

107. Eye of the beholder.

Dogtooth is art, with some explicit sexual content.

Is it pornographic?

[RBStevens]

91. Gawd geek and here I thought you were a BIG

*prude* not just a little-bit prudish. Better up that game!

! ---> <--- !

[geek tragedy]

96. I'm half tempted to show my wife the posts calling me a prude.

When she's in need of a laugh.

[OilemFirchen]

102. Perhaps you should.

We're already laughing. Why deprive her of company?

[Gormy Cuss]

11. From the SOP: "Discuss politics, issues, and current events..."

That's why. Nothing stops anyone from x-posting it in the gender groups too, but the focus of the discussion might be a little different particularly if it were posted in the Men's Group where I'm guessing that they'd want to discuss why some men had self-esteem issues over having the door held open.

[Major Nikon]

21. You mean like this one...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125538847

[Gormy Cuss]

22. That's an x-post example

but as I pointed out, I could also see this topic in the Men's Group too because of the issues it raised. I replied to someone who apparently only envisioned it as a women's issue.

[OilemFirchen]

50. Then the SI post should have been x-posted to the Lounge?

Tough to follow the grousing around these parts...

[Gormy Cuss]

64. Well yes, that's why clarification of the SOP (i.e. more words)

would go a long way towards helping people figure it out. More words in the TOS would be even better.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

74. because GD is not for the exclusive discussion of thing that are pertinent to you?

but rather things that are pertinent to a lot of us

[TheFrenchRazor]

93. women make up up 50+% of the human race. women's issues are human issues. sorry. nt

[OilemFirchen]

95. Thanks for sharing.

[frazzled]

7. I (a woman) hold a door open for whomever is behind me

no matter what gender they are. And I am also appreciative when the person in front of me holds it open for me. Nothing seems ruder than rushing through a door and allowing to slam on the person behind.

I tried to teach my kids when they were of a certain age (say 8 or 9) to hold the door open for elderly people. It was really hard for my son, especially to remember: he'd go storming through, slamming it in some old lady's face.

Doors can be heavy sometimes: I'm always glad when someone--either male or female--thinks to open it for me. It's the privilege of getting older.

[geek tragedy]

9. yes, that's my take on it.

held the door for thousands of men and women. never faced any negative consequences.

[opiate69]

13. Oooooooh. a sample group of 196.. change the world, that will..

[geek tragedy]

31. no one will blame you if you fail to hold doors for women

because you fear the consequences for them or yourself

[opiate69]

34. nah.. I'll continue to be a decent person and hold the door for anyone and everyone.

[Blue_Adept]

62. However...

in the state of the state these days, not holding a door open for someone may get you shot at.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

71. 196 is a large enough sample for this research.

there is no need for a large sample. it would only blow up significance levels

[opiate69]

72. 196 isn't even outside the margin of error for real scientific studies.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

73. what do you mean by 'real' scientific studies?

social science sizes are determined by number of conditions and expected effect sizes. for this type of study, 196 is adequate. larger than that and you would find significant differences even if the actual differences were minor. large sample sizes tend to produce significant differences, even if mean differences between groups are small.

[opiate69]

77. Well..

First, if the researchers are unable to control or compensate for those variables, the study is less than worthless. Further, performing this study solely on the campus of a top-tier university severely limits the diversity of the group being studied, making it a fool's errand to try to extrapolate the findings out to the larger populace.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

78. is there any theoretical reason why this particular finding would depend on

the diversity of the sample?

"First, if the researchers are unable to control or compensate for those variables, the study is less than worthless. " I am not sure what you mean by that.

Sample size and diversity of samples are the two reasons we always go to when we dislike the conclusions of a research study.

Sample size in this study is more than adequate. Diversity, may not be if there is a theoretical reason as to why these variables of interest should operate differently in different socio-economic samples.

[opiate69]

79. The variables being the "significant differences" your large sample groups would lead to.

If those can't be either controlled or compensated for, then the study could produce suspect results.

[Lost_Count]

14. That's a lot of hyperbole in one article...

Too bad though.. It might have been interesting if not for all the snark.

[hlthe2b]

15. Being helpful ought to be appreciated.. We need more of it, not less regardless of who does it.

[Comrade Grumpy]

16. Well, I'm glad that burning issue has been settled. nt

[dilby]

18. I open the door for everyone.

Ladies, gentlemen, elderly and children it's a common courtesy you perform if you are at the door first or standing next to the door when someone comes by. I have only had one instance where someone told me they can get their own door and I explained I do it for everyone not just women so it was not an issue.

[KitSileya]

19. I really like her conclusion.

So I offer this as a counter-theory to all the men online who claim women are cruising for a confrontation if you dare open a door for them: Perhaps you are projecting your own insecurities and easy-to-offend nature onto women. Maybe you should take your own advice and take door-opening for what it is, an act of politeness that doesn’t actually indicate that the door-opener believes you to be weak or inferior.

An act of politeness, yes, but these men, whose fragile self-esteem is hurt by someone opening the door for them, obviously thinks that for women, it is different. Isn't it likely that they think that women actually are weak and inferior, if they think that opening doors for them, men, judges them that way. Classical projection, isn't it? And then they wonder why women get angry when they claim women demand men open doors for them. They are pretty much admitting to what women knew all along, that many men feel that women are weak and inferior, and that's why it is polite to open doors for them...and just them.

[Vashta Nerada]

20. I slam the door in everyone's face.

That way, this will be a non-issue.

[RBStevens]

25. Was that really necessary?

[geek tragedy]

28. If they're the Jehovah's Witnesses, it is. nt

[Vashta Nerada]

35. It was absolutely necessary.

[RBStevens]

41. Why is it necessary to say something that I think probably

everyone knows you don't mean.

Or do you really slam doors in everyone's faces? If so...

[Vashta Nerada]

43. I'm a jerk.

What can I say?

[RBStevens]

44. Well I do appreciate honesty in people. So thanks.

[NaturalHigh]

119. I started doing that after being "educated" on the subject here.

Don't want to offend anybody...

[snooper2]

24. How much is a fuckton?

If I go to the Chevy dealer could I get a three-quarter fuckton truck? LOL

[geek tragedy]

29. It's about 1000 "fucks of a lot" nt

[NuclearDem]

38. About 13 craploads

[snooper2]

40. how much is a crapload? just one human in the morning

or the results from cleaning a 12 stall barn?

[NuclearDem]

48. Well, it's the impeerial system, so just about the size of an average crap.

Metric shitograms are base 10. Much more reliable.

[Squinch]

101. One crapload is 2.737 liters. But that's metric. You'll have to do the quart conversion yourself.

[edbermac]

70. I think it's a brazilian squared.

[mathematic]

26. Huh? This debunks a feminist theory, not an anti-feminist theory

The theory being (allegedly) debunked: a man holding a door open for a woman is harmful to the woman.

Spinning this as an anti-feminist caricature of feminist theory is just not true. There are plenty of examples of feminists that agree that a man holding a door open for a woman is harmful to the woman. The door-opening example is commonly used to as an introduction to the sexism of chivalry because it is (or was) such a widespread practice.

[geek tragedy]

27. Actually, you just repeated the anti-feminist myth.

Feminists do NOT believe that treating women with common courtesy harms them.

You're not accurate when you claim that.

[mathematic]

42. Here are some examples of what feminists think about door-opening.

Note, I said "opening doors" not "common courtesy". You used that phrase as a strawman to try to indicate I'm making a broader claim. Additionally, who is against common courtesy? Probably people that hate puppies and kittens. So here are examples and accounts of feminists that think opening doors is harmful to women:

Let's start off with the DU example that made this a DU meme:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022511124#post19

Here's are two professional feminist commentators on the issue:

And finally, a work by a feminist scholar that discusses the issue seriously:
http://www.terry.uga.edu/~dawndba/4500Oppression.html

[geek tragedy]

46. yes, if a man opens a door for a woman when it makes no sense for him

to do so (running ahead 20 feet to get it, holding it while holding a large box and on crutches) expecting a garland of roses for his chivalry, that's different than common courtesy.

these nuances are too subtle i guess

[RBStevens]

47. Professional Feminist Commentators.

I'm going to suggest my daughter change her major right now!

[RBStevens]

32. Please read what I said in post #23 above.

[uponit7771]

30. "a whole fuckton of men"...sigh... the article needs to be a tad bit more abrasive and the message a

... lot more opaque so people can read it better.

[LanternWaste]

134. I s'pose a lot of people fight for vulgarity only if it appears on DU...

I s'pose a lot of people fight for vulgarity only if it appears on DU where it's enshrined as a right of artistic expression (so I'm told)... otherwise, it's waste of people's time.

[zazen]

33. I wonder about confounding factors here and will look up the study--eg

Were there any other trends (cross-tabs) among men who reported lower self-esteem? I'd speculate that the lower self-esteem in door-opened-males might have to do with the association for men of being assisted with being elderly (not femininity per se)--which is why I'm curious about the age breakdown in particular of the respondents.

Did the fact that the questioner was female have anything to do with the results? I wish they could repeat it with a male questioner--OTOH, some men inflate themselves around women, but in my experience, men do more of that with each other.

What time of day was this held--at a time where there were predominantly employees, students, certain types of majors, etc?

And of course this is at a polite midwestern university--not NYU or Cal Poly. I'm sure there are polite people at the latter but there are major cultural differences, recognizing that not everyone at Purdue is from Indiana, of course (and at an engineering land grant you have a lot of Asian students too). So expectations about door-holding and what it means socially might vary as well.

[Gormy Cuss]

36. Good questions

I hope that you post a link when you find the study.

[zazen]

37. link to full original study, FYI

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15534510.2013.869252

[Solly Mack]

39. I open doors for people older than me, people with their hands full - children, bags, whatever.

For people, for whatever reason, it seems will need help opening a door.

I also go and get grocery carts for people when I see they need one.

I pick up things people have dropped and hand them back to them. I pick up stuff in stores that I haven't even dropped and put it back.

I get up and offer my seat to people. (especially those older, expectant mothers, mothers/fathers w/ children, etc.)

I'm female. I do this in part because I was reared to do so but mostly because it just seems like the nice/right thing to do.

I'm not out to offend anyone when I do this.

If you open a door for me I'll say "Thank you".

I wasn't raised that men are supposed to open doors for women. I was raised that people were supposed to help each other.

[ohheckyeah]

51. If having a door opened for you

affects your self-esteem you didn't have any to begin with.

Is there any way to know what their self-esteem levels were like BEFORE the door was opened for them? Isn't it possible that due to many other factors, the men were already feeling low self-esteem?

I'm sorry, but this research is, IMO, at best silly and doesn't prove anything.

[NaturalHigh]

121. Agreed.

[justiceischeap]

52. You know what I hate?

People who hold doors for me and then I have to rush to get to the door so I don't leave them standing there like idiots. That's what I hate.

[Vashta Nerada]

57. That's passive aggressive behavior.

Not on your part. The door holder is the one who is passive aggressive. I read an interesting discussion on this: http://www.counselling-directory.org.uk/counsellor-articles/what-is-passive-aggressive-behaviour

[RBStevens]

68. I had a look at the link you provided because my mom exhibits

many of the behaviors associated with passive-aggressive personality so I'm interested in that subject but I didn't see anything relating to *door holding* per se. Was it in the comments?

[Vashta Nerada]

69. No.

Holding the door open for someone who is a long ways behind the door holder, and making that person hurry up to go through the door while the door holder is standing there, is passive aggressive behavior. The door holder is exhibiting control over the person who is going through the door by making the person hurry up.

[RBStevens]

76. Hmm. I'm just not sure that that's exactly passive-aggressive behavior though.

The person holding the door can't "make" the person hurry - that's up to them. As an example, often when I'm walking into a store from the parking lot a car will stop and wait for me to cross. Sometimes I'll pick up my step and sometimes I won't, but I've never felt that because they stopped to wait for me that they were attempting to control my behavior.

IOW, it's up to the person *providing* the courtesy to decide how long they want to continue. Now if the person holding the door way ahead of another were to be tapping their foot and looking at their watch then they are obviously not extending a courtesy and had no intention of doing so.

[laundry_queen]

89. It's not, IMO. I agree with you.

PA behavior would be holding the door open for a period of time then as you got closer, the person holding the door would let go just as you got there and the door slams in your face. THAT is PA behavior. The first example may be passive, but it's not aggressive.

[RBStevens]

92. Nice example - thank you.

[treestar]

83. Could just be bad timing

[lumberjack_jeff]

65. I'm not sure that your conclusions are valid

If a man opens a door, steps aside and lets the approaching person pass through first, the person either feels validated, appreciated and worthy OR invalidated and demeaned depending on sex.

First: The confidence being measured isn't "self-confidence" at all. It's the confidence boost that comes from twenty-something person of the opposite sex doing something nice for you.

As a control, measure the "self confidence" of guys for whom college aged women opened and held a door for them.

Second: The issue with benevolent sexism isn't the state of mind of the person receiving the solicitous treatment, it's the belief system of the person who thinks she needs it.

Many men who consider themselves feminists could better be described as benevolent sexists.

[left is right]

66. I hold doors open for everyone in close proximity and appreciate when they do the same

However, I sometimes have small issues with what is reasonably considered close proximity. I appreciate door-holding less if I feel that I have to quicken my step to not inconvenience the door-holder

[1awake]

75. Very interesting

Either way, I'll continue to hold doors open for women, men, children, dogs, not cats... and what ever else. Courtesy and all that.

Here's a scenario that use to happen all the time. At our city building, the doors weigh A LOT. I bench 350, and still find them heavy lol. I would specifically open doors for women because many would not be able to with relative ease. Overall... men are physically stronger (even though its true.. is that going to get me in trouble??). Would that be sexism?? Should I have stood there and watched each time? I did assist all sexes, but more so for women because the need was greater. To be clear.. im not trying to start anything, just wanting to know.

[Warren DeMontague]

82. Indeed. I don't know anyone, out here in the real world, who gives a shit about a door being opened.

Of course, I don't know anyone who actually wears a fucking fedora, either.

[geek tragedy]

84. you must not have hipsters in your neighborhood nt

[Warren DeMontague]

85. We get a different breed, I suspect.

Skinny jeans, creative facial hair, unicycles, pabst blue ribbon, that kind of thing.

[geek tragedy]

86. those are universal traits. maybe the fedora is restricted to the

North Atlantic hipster subspecies ironica trustfundiiae

[Warren DeMontague]

88. Probably.

The West Coast is too windy for that sort of hat.

[geek tragedy]

90. it's very unpractical in NYC too due to wind canyon effect

ergo its appeal to ironica trustfundiiae.

[Warren DeMontague]

98. If you're gonna wear a hat

wear a fucking HAT.

[BainsBane]

105. AHHHHHH, save mankind from the matriarchy of doors!

Stolen from RBStevens

[Warren DeMontague]

109. Sorry, but that looks more Led Zeppelin, to me.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

142. Yep. And the inner-jacket pulls out, leaving the little window cut outs exposed.

I miss LP's sometimes.

[sufrommich]

112. ......

[ZombieHorde]

106. I go through the door as quickly as possible,

and then shut it if someone is behind me. If I have time, I will then try to hold the door shut while starring at the person and mouthing, "I hate you."

[Warren DeMontague]

110. I try to nail it shut with a 2 by 4 as quickly as possible.

Because, brains.

[sufrommich]

111. Lol. nt

[deutsey]

132. I literally "lol'ed" on this

Very funny. Thank you!

[NaturalHigh]

113. Thanks to the education I received here...

I have sworn off ever opening a door for anyone. I don't want to be denounced by the gender privilege and relations experts (all hail).

[geek tragedy]

114. you learned the wrong lesson then. nt

perhaps you should listen to real women instead of the cartoons you've imagined.

[NaturalHigh]

115. I anxiously await your wise advice.

[geek tragedy]

116. common courtesy offends no one. nt

[NaturalHigh]

117. But calling an act of common courtesy...

a sexist act might. Food for thought.

[geek tragedy]

118. if you open the door for men and women both, it's not sexist and

no one has claimed otherwise

time for a new lame talking point.

[NaturalHigh]

120. What if I only open it for women?

What if I only open it for men? Which one is benevolent sexism? Is sexism ever really benevolent? Is calling the simple act of opening a door for a woman not itself a lame talking point?

[geek tragedy]

123. are you really interested in this topic or merely trying to triviliaze

the concerns of feminists?

[NaturalHigh]

125. I just think the entire premise is ridiculous.

The idea that opening a door for someone should offend anyone or lower anyone's self-esteem is nuts. Yet when someone posts something ridiculous and inflammatory (opening doors for women is sexist), the people who laugh and find humor in the ridiculous and inflammatory post are then somehow the assholes.

[geek tragedy]

126. you seem very eager to find people who disagree with you. nt

[NaturalHigh]

127. It's not hard.

I just do a (very) quick search for people who think that opening doors for women is sexist.

[geek tragedy]

133. yawn. last words is yours nt

[ismnotwasm]

122. They just playin' games

They see some guy coming through somewhere with an armload of groceries- they'll open the door.

If they come through with an a load of groceries I'd be happy to open the door. And you're welcome

Here's one guys take on the topic

It’s a simple common courtesy: two people walk toward a door, whoever gets there first holds the door open for the person. Truly one of the most mundane acts we perform as human beings and should have little effect on our ongoing existential crises.

Unless you’re a man, of course.

A study conducted by researchers at Purdue University found that holding a door open for men lowers their self-esteem and self-confidence, as compared to men who open doors for themselves. Yes, you read that correctly. If you hold the door open for man, chances are he feels less confident in himself. Holding a door open for a man could lead to a bout of self-loathing and despair, as he has been emasculated to the point he does not recognize himself as a man. Imagine that world. Imagine all the sad men having doors held open for them. Imagine the angst building up inside.

Imagine just how silly this whole thing is.

This isn’t the first study to show how fragile the male ego can be. Just last fall, in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, a study found that men’s self-esteem dropped when they found out that their wives or girlfriends performed a task well. Not that they did better than they did, but just that they performed well at all.

Guys: what the fuck is wrong with us?

Yes, yes, usual disclaimer (and an attempt to derail the conversation) “it’s not ALL men.” Whatever. It’s enough to be disconcerting. The idea that men’s egos are so tied up in the most trivial things, like opening doors, does not bode well for our project of deconstructing masculinity. Its tentacles are deep into our psyches and affecting us on levels that are truly not that serious.

http://feministing.com/2014/02/26/hes-got-a-big-ego-thats-really-easily-bruised/

[BainsBane]

131. Here you go

Note the doors reference.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12595087#post1

[NaturalHigh]

136. Don't cherry-pick the post.

"I can't promise you that you will never read anything that offends you on DU"...

Undoubtedly that is a foreign concept for some, that they have the right to never be offended by encountering a different point of view. Some ask "can you please PM me those links?", so they can try to get somebody yanked by MIRT, even though MIRT generally doesn't touch people with over 100 posts.

I still think the concept that opening a door for a woman is sexist is moronic.

[BainsBane]

137. Ah, yeah. I don't think anyone here is claiming it is sexist

But you swore you would never open doors for women again. Your call, of course. I will continue to hold doors open for women and men alike just because it's common courtesy.

I myself am not concerned about so-called benevolent sexism. I happen to think the hatred that some men hold toward women is of far greater concern.

[NaturalHigh]

138. Okay...the next time I say I won't hold doors open for anybody...

I'm going to use the thing.

[BainsBane]

139. You also might want to work on

Dropping the grudge filter through which you read articles like the one in the OP. It would save your self a lot of angst.

[NaturalHigh]

140. I'll get right on that...

though what I usually get out of these OPs is the chance for a hearty belly laugh, not angst. I would suggest that I am not alone in this.

Any angst that I feel pales in comparison to the wailing and gnashing of teeth I have seen about the Sports Illustrated cover.

[d_r]

129. the cultural meaning

is different in Lafayette, Indiana than it is in say Nashville, Tn. Just like the cultural meaning of the way you stand in a line is different in Tokyo than Atlanta.

[Warpy]

135. If you're the first person through a door

hold the damned thing open for a a few seconds for someone who is directly behind you.

That's simple courtesy.

Sprinting in front of a woman in time to grab a door is at first disconcerting and then annoying. It's not courteous, it's showing off. Bag it.

Same goes for car doors, although it helps if you know the woman. Most of us prefer to open our own doors, especially if the car is one of those low slung jobs. Getting out of those is ungainly at best and indecent at worst should the date night skirt be short. We'd rather do it unobserved by our date.

However, if she sits there like a bump on a log, open her door and be treated to the spectacle.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

143. Interesting study, lousy reporting of it.

The article the OP is quoting is drawing conclusions from the study that it just doesn't support.

That's not to say that those conclusions are wrong - they may well not be - but just that they're non-sequiturs in this context.