My 4-year-old son, Emmett, swallows a spoonful of cereal and asks me if I know what a gentleman is. Surprised, I tell him I have some idea; then I ask what the word means to him.
“A gentleman lets girls go first,” he says, explaining that every day at naptime all the girls go to the bathroom before the boys.
His explanation, along with the quiet solemnity with which he delivers it, is completely endearing and yet it makes my heart ache. This adorable little boy, who is only beginning to learn the ways of the world, just got his first lesson in sexism — and from a teacher who, I don’t doubt, believes she’s doing something wonderful for womankind.
She isn’t the only one.
Start to complain about your preschooler adopting gentlemanly behavior and you quickly discover how out of step you are with the rest of the world. Almost everyone I mention it to thinks it’s lovely and sweet. What’s the harm in teaching little boys to respect little girls?
The implication, of course, is that I’m overreacting, and as a parent, I’ll admit to being prone to the occasional bout of hypersensitivity. For months, I grumbled that the inappropriately breathy tone of Cinderella on Emmett’s LeapFrog Princess laptop was warping a generation of impressionable young minds.
But I don’t think it’s an overreaction to resent the fact that your son is being given an extra set of rules to follow simply because he’s a boy. His behavior, already constrained by a series of societal norms, now has additional restrictions. Worse than that, he’s actively being taught to treat girls differently, something I thought we all agreed to stop doing, like, three decades ago. That the concept of selective privilege has been introduced in preschool of all places — the inner sanctum of fair play, the high temple of taking turns — is mind-boggling to me. How can you preach the ethos of sharing at the dramatic play center and ignore it 20 feet away at the toilet?
Yet as much as this double standard offends me as a mom, it’s nothing compared with how much it infuriates me as a feminist. Forty years after the tender, sweet, young thing in “Free to Be You and Me” gets eaten by a pack of hungry tigers after asserting that ladies should go first, we are still insisting on empty courtesies that instill in women a sense of entitlement for meaningless things. Many women see gallantry as one of the benefits of their sex; I see it as one of its consolations.
Letting girls use the bathroom first isn’t a show of respect. It is, rather, the first brick in the super high pedestal that allows men to exalt women out of sight. A true show of respect is paying us equally for the same work, not 77 cents on the dollar, which is the current average. That’s the world I want my son to live in and I seriously doubt it will ever happen as long as women believe men should hold the door open for them.
Global economic considerations aside, the real tragedy is that these girls aren’t being taught the fine art of yielding to others. Nobody is giving them the opportunity to be gallant. Instead, these fabulous little creatures, who absorb everything joyfully and tear through barriers gleefully, are being fitted for the same old corset. The stays are a little looser but the whalebone is just as rigid.
And this is why my heart aches when I listen to Emmett proudly explain what a gentleman is — because what he’s actually so proud of is his part in perpetuating millenniums of sexism.
So while he finishes his bowl of cereal, I tell him that I think a gentleman lets other people go first. If two boys reach the top of the slide at the same time, a gentleman lets the other one go first. Furthermore, I say, it would be very nice if his teacher decided to alternate on a daily basis who uses the bathroom first at naptime. The girls, I assure him, wouldn’t mind waiting a few extra minutes and it would give them a chance to feel gentlemanly. But the concept of a gentlemanly girl is beyond him and he shakes his head.
It’s churlish to argue, so I let it go, and when, a few hours later in the park, I see him grab his soccer ball from a girl his own age, I feel a ridiculous rush of relief at his ungentlemanly behavior. Then I cross the field to remind him yet again how to share.
Post by cookiemdough on Oct 13, 2015 5:21:52 GMT -5
Well it is pretty stupid to have preschool girls to go to the bathroom first and justify it as being a gentleman. I also don't think it is a teacher's responsibility to teach boys how to be a gentleman. That being said I teach my son certain manners, some of which I characterize as being gentleman (see intersectional feminism thread).
PS- none of them include giving my daughter or me potty priority.
Her reasoning is doing too much for me, but I agree with the premise that barely potty-trained boys shouldn't be told this is what they need to do in order to grown into decent men. That is ridiculous.
I agree with her, the bathroom thing is dumb and sexist. However, I also kind of think writing this was an overreaction and a polite word to the teacher probably would have sufficed (although I'm sure she was paid for this piece so maybe not, lol). Anyway, I liked her solution: to teach her son to be courteous to both boys and girls.
Post by WanderingWinoZ on Oct 13, 2015 5:48:10 GMT -5
Eh- I can see her point, but I also think it's dumb to get upset over this.
How do you teach manners/respect without being a bit sexist? Because the world itself if sexist against women 99% of the time, so i think it's going to be a challenge to try to teach some behaviors that counter that without being unfair. So many of the ways society is sexists against women are very subtle that it's hard to right all those wrongs or push back against the sterotypes in just as subtle ways.
This reminded me of @eclairs and her son being told to stand outside the closet in an active shooter drill while all the girls went inside....
I think we discussed this article before, maybe last year?
Anyway, I won't lie, it would bother me that my son had to wait to go to the bathroom until after the girls every day, or that he was being told that a "gentleman" lets girls go first. Not enough to write an article about it, but enough that I'd probably nicely mention it to the teacher, that I'd prefer a more egalitarian setup. I don't think four is too early to teach manners, things like opening the door for people, giving up your seat, etc, but that's stuff I think all children should be learning, not just the boys.
I'll be the first to admit that I always cringe a little bit when I hear boys being told they should have manners to make the more "chivalrous" or "gentlemanly". Mostly because most of the men I know that think in those terms were not exactly the most forward thinking when it came to women. Of the two that come most to mind, one was emotionally abusive and very controlling of his gf and the other put them on a pedestal until he slept with them for about a week at which point they were promptly dumped. I'm perpetually leery of any guy who describes himself as chivalrous, or teachings that seem to coincide with that sort of behavior.
I agree that the bathroom thing is dumb. But I think she is way way way overreacting. And I don't think that "too many boys acting like gentlemen" is an actual problem in our society.
I kind of agree with her but I think writing an article about it is kind of unnecessary. Something more productive would be to talk to his teacher.
Anyway, I talk to my young sons about being "gentlemen." It involves eating with forks (NOT HANDS!) & a napkin on your lap, not hitting people, and being kind to others (no matter their private parts). Similarly, I talk about how I am a "lady" when I do that behavior. ::shrugs::
Post by eponinepontmercy on Oct 13, 2015 8:32:39 GMT -5
I'll throw out that girls need to be encouraged to go to the bathroom more often to reduce the risk of UTIs. I understand the larger implications of the "gentleman" phrasing, but letting girls pee first shouldn't be a hill to die on.
Well I agree with her completely! This is how and where sexism begins. The soft idea that females should be placed on pedestals.
But the thrust of her rationalization is... off. She's arguing the same thing as the "high holy womanhood" bullshit that meninists spout off. That women are elevated and put on a pedestal. No. We're not. Men keep TELLING US we are, but we're not.
That's what's pissing me off about this. I am not on a fucking pedestal. Men have not put me on a pedestal because of my gender. They've buried me in the ground up to my neck and said "What's wrong with you? Why can't you dig yourself out? See, you women are weak and need our help."
I kind of agree with her but I think writing an article about it is kind of unnecessary. Something more productive would be to talk to his teacher.
Anyway, I talk to my young sons about being "gentlemen." It involves eating with forks (NOT HANDS!) & a napkin on your lap, not hitting people, and being kind to others (no matter their private parts). Similarly, I talk about how I am a "lady" when I do that behavior. ::shrugs::
It's like everyone with an opinion feels compelled to lecture the rest of us. Being a "gentleman" isn't about letting girls pee first. Why is she simply accepting the teacher's definition? Teach your son what it means to you - he asked you, didn't he?
Post by jeaniebueller on Oct 13, 2015 8:43:21 GMT -5
I hate being treated like a damsel in distress. No, I don't need anyone to hold the door for me (although its nice if they do, but please don't go out of your way), I don't need to go first, I don't need someone to carry my suitcase/packages for me. That said, I teach my DS to be polite and respectful to everyone, regardless of whether he is dealing with a male or female. I always correct "we don't hit girls," to "we don't hit anyone," etc.
Well I agree with her completely! This is how and where sexism begins. The soft idea that females should be placed on pedestals.
But the thrust of her rationalization is... off. She's arguing the same thing as the "high holy womanhood" bullshit that meninists spout off. That women are elevated and put on a pedestal. No. We're not. Men keep TELLING US we are, but we're not.
That's what's pissing me off about this. I am not on a fucking pedestal. Men have not put me on a pedestal because of my gender. They've buried me in the ground up to my neck and said "What's wrong with you? Why can't you dig yourself out? See, you women are weak and need our help."
Benevolent sexism. Men and boys think they are being nice and polite, but it reinforces the idea that women are delicate and need special treatment simply because they are women.
Well I agree with her completely! This is how and where sexism begins. The soft idea that females should be placed on pedestals.
But the thrust of her rationalization is... off. She's arguing the same thing as the "high holy womanhood" bullshit that meninists spout off. That women are elevated and put on a pedestal. No. We're not. Men keep TELLING US we are, but we're not.
That's what's pissing me off about this. I am not on a fucking pedestal. Men have not put me on a pedestal because of my gender. They've buried me in the ground up to my neck and said "What's wrong with you? Why can't you dig yourself out? See, you women are weak and need our help."
I guess that's the point. Acting like women should go through the door or off the elevator first, or convincing yourself that you are a chivalrous gentleman because of BS actions like that allow men to believe that women are equal, or even "above" men (if you're an MRA), and therefore they don't need help in other areas. God, don't women get enough special treatment?!
Benevolent sexism. Men and boys think they are being nice and polite, but it reinforces the idea that women are delicate and need special treatment simply because they are women.
Yes, this.
I'll take equal pay instead of elevator exit priviledge, thanks.
Someone on my FB posted an article a while back about how mothers shouldn't buy into feminism because they want their sons to hold doors open for ladies.
Meanwhile this woman is an attorney. You don't think that feminism helped you get into law school in the first place??
But the thrust of her rationalization is... off. She's arguing the same thing as the "high holy womanhood" bullshit that meninists spout off. That women are elevated and put on a pedestal. No. We're not. Men keep TELLING US we are, but we're not.
That's what's pissing me off about this. I am not on a fucking pedestal. Men have not put me on a pedestal because of my gender. They've buried me in the ground up to my neck and said "What's wrong with you? Why can't you dig yourself out? See, you women are weak and need our help."
I guess that's the point. Acting like women should go through the door or off the elevator first, or convincing yourself that you are a chivalrous gentleman because of BS actions like that allow men to believe that women are equal, or even "above" men (if you're an MRA), and therefore they don't need help in other areas. God, don't women get enough special treatment?!
Yeah, that's not how she's arguing it. In fact, she's arguing the exact opposite.
"But I don’t think it’s an overreaction to resent the fact that your son is being given an extra set of rules to follow simply because he’s a boy. His behavior, already constrained by a series of societal norms, now has additional restrictions."
"we are still insisting on empty courtesies that instill in women a sense of entitlement for meaningless things. Many women see gallantry as one of the benefits of their sex; I see it as one of its consolations"
"It is, rather, the first brick in the super high pedestal that allows men to exalt women out of sight"
"the real tragedy is that these girls aren’t being taught the fine art of yielding to others."
Well, I would want to pee before a bunch of preschool boys too. Gross, lol.
I'm trying to raise my son the same as my girls. I except them all to be gentlemen and ladies. In our house that means taking the time to consider the needs of others, being polite and respectful, being helpful and doing your part. As a family unit it also means being loving and kind. It does not mean giving one sex privileges over another. For example, whoever opens the door first holds it open for the rest of the family. That could be anyone- it doesn't have to be DS or MH holding it open.
share.memebox.com/x/uKhKaZmemebox referal code for 20% off! DD1 "J" born 3/2003 DD2 "G" born 4/2011 DS is here! "H" born 2/2014 m/c#3 1-13-13 @ 9 weeks m/c#2 11-11-12 @ 5w2d I am an extended breastfeeding, cloth diapering, baby wearing, pro marriage equality, birth control lovin', Catholic mama.
I guess that's the point. Acting like women should go through the door or off the elevator first, or convincing yourself that you are a chivalrous gentleman because of BS actions like that allow men to believe that women are equal, or even "above" men (if you're an MRA), and therefore they don't need help in other areas. God, don't women get enough special treatment?!
Yeah, that's not how she's arguing it. In fact, she's arguing the exact opposite.
"But I don’t think it’s an overreaction to resent the fact that your son is being given an extra set of rules to follow simply because he’s a boy. His behavior, already constrained by a series of societal norms, now has additional restrictions."
"we are still insisting on empty courtesies that instill in women a sense of entitlement for meaningless things. Many women see gallantry as one of the benefits of their sex; I see it as one of its consolations"
"It is, rather, the first brick in the super high pedestal that allows men to exalt women out of sight"
"the real tragedy is that these girls aren’t being taught the fine art of yielding to others."
Benevolent sexism. Men and boys think they are being nice and polite, but it reinforces the idea that women are delicate and need special treatment simply because they are women.
I had a boyfriend back in the day that had a pathological need to open the door for me. Like, if I opened one for myself, he'd try to force me to go either back inside, in the car, etc, so he could open it for me.
It took him an embarrassing amount of time to realize I wasn't having any of it.
Yeah, that's not how she's arguing it. In fact, she's arguing the exact opposite.
"But I don’t think it’s an overreaction to resent the fact that your son is being given an extra set of rules to follow simply because he’s a boy. His behavior, already constrained by a series of societal norms, now has additional restrictions."
"we are still insisting on empty courtesies that instill in women a sense of entitlement for meaningless things. Many women see gallantry as one of the benefits of their sex; I see it as one of its consolations"
"It is, rather, the first brick in the super high pedestal that allows men to exalt women out of sight"
"the real tragedy is that these girls aren’t being taught the fine art of yielding to others."
Yeah this is all bullshit, sorry.
There is nothing that offends my Jesuit-educated sensibilities more than a Sound Thesis Being Improperly Argued.
I guess that's the point. Acting like women should go through the door or off the elevator first, or convincing yourself that you are a chivalrous gentleman because of BS actions like that allow men to believe that women are equal, or even "above" men (if you're an MRA), and therefore they don't need help in other areas. God, don't women get enough special treatment?!
Yeah, that's not how she's arguing it. In fact, she's arguing the exact opposite.
"But I don’t think it’s an overreaction to resent the fact that your son is being given an extra set of rules to follow simply because he’s a boy. His behavior, already constrained by a series of societal norms, now has additional restrictions."
"we are still insisting on empty courtesies that instill in women a sense of entitlement for meaningless things. Many women see gallantry as one of the benefits of their sex; I see it as one of its consolations"
"It is, rather, the first brick in the super high pedestal that allows men to exalt women out of sight"
"the real tragedy is that these girls aren’t being taught the fine art of yielding to others."
What the fuck is this supposed to mean? I must have skimmed over this line the first time but now it is pissing me right off.
Post by laurenpetro on Oct 13, 2015 9:23:36 GMT -5
i completely disagree that someone holding the door for me lessens me in any way, at all, ever. i don't think there's a rational person alive that thinks a woman can't hold open a door for herself. doing something kind for someone is not opression.
*i say this with the expectation that we all know the bathroom example is stupid.
I talk to DS about being a gentleman a lot. I'm trying to help his future spouse by telling him that a gentleman PUTS THE SEAT DOWN. Also, doesn't burp and fart and then giggle at the dinner table. I am losing on all fronts right now.