"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."
and stopped reading.
Please. Tell me more about these extra rules and societal norms. That is brand new information that I, as a woman, have never had to deal with.
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.
No, it's not.
We teach kindness and politeness in our house. To all people and all things. This is the foundation of civilized society. We are kind. We are polite. We are gentle and thoughtful and care for everyone.
It is not, however, an expectation based on their gender or the gender of another person.
It becomes oppressive when it's framed in gendered roles and expectations - that men are polite to women and that women are grateful for that politeness. That's the full, historical cycle of gentlemen/lady social interaction that she never quite gets to.
THAT should have been the argument. Not some bizarre amalgamation of "women expect men to be polite! That's terrible for men" and "Whalebone corsets! Equal pay!"
Post by marriedfilingjoint on Oct 13, 2015 10:27:05 GMT -5
I dated a guy when I was in grad school who thought he was super progressive for asking me out to dinner and always splitting the tab. No, asshole, I live off work study and student loans and you've been a banker for 2 years. If you invite me over and have no groceries in your bachelor pad other than beenie weenies and easy mac and suggest we do McCormick's for dinner you pay for that shit, you dumb fuck. You do not get my feminist card, nope.
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."
Yes, those were some of my own thoughts on the subject and not the author's. I'm expanding on the topic.
I do think there's a fine, but very important line, between arguing that chivalry and gentlemanly behavior is so unfairrrrrr to men and arguing that benevolent sexism is unfair to men and women alike. I was skeptical of the article for some of the reasons you mentioned and had to read it carefully before determining which one it was.
I still maintain it's the latter. It's another example of how feminism is also beneficial to boys and men, though, in that traditional "chivalrous" behavior shouldn't have to be performed by men in favor of women only.
This may also be a totally different discussion, but I quail at the idea that one should treat men and women completely equally. Men and women aren't equal, no matter how you view it -- societally, structurally, neurologically, psychologically -- and insisting that everyone be treated exactly the same reminds me sort of uncomfortably of parents who crow they're teaching their children to be "color-blind."
I get what you are saying and I agree that there are difference between men and women, but can you give an example of where men and women shouldn't be treated equally? I am not trying to be argumentative, I am just trying to think of a practical application for your statement.
This may also be a totally different discussion, but I quail at the idea that one should treat men and women completely equally. Men and women aren't equal, no matter how you view it -- societally, structurally, neurologically, psychologically -- and insisting that everyone be treated exactly the same reminds me sort of uncomfortably of parents who crow they're teaching their children to be "color-blind."
I get what you are saying and I agree that there are difference between men and women, but can you give an example of where men and women shouldn't be treated equally? I am not trying to be argumentative, I am just trying to think of a practical application for your statement.
I can. Career mentoring and sponsorship. Women on average need more support in these areas to attain the same career goals.
This may also be a totally different discussion, but I quail at the idea that one should treat men and women completely equally. Men and women aren't equal, no matter how you view it -- societally, structurally, neurologically, psychologically -- and insisting that everyone be treated exactly the same reminds me sort of uncomfortably of parents who crow they're teaching their children to be "color-blind."
I get what you are saying and I agree that there are difference between men and women, but can you give an example of where men and women shouldn't be treated equally? I am not trying to be argumentative, I am just trying to think of a practical application for your statement.
This made me immediately think of bathrooms. Facilities should have more women's bathrooms than men's. There's that tired cliche of there always being a line at the women's bathroom and not at the men's. But, women have to partially disrobe and sit to pee and men don't, of course it's going to take women longer. And urinals take up less space than toilets, so men also have more waste receptacles in their bathrooms.
Plus childbearing frequently creates incontinence both during and after pregnancy making it even harder for women to wait.
This may also be a totally different discussion, but I quail at the idea that one should treat men and women completely equally. Men and women aren't equal, no matter how you view it -- societally, structurally, neurologically, psychologically -- and insisting that everyone be treated exactly the same reminds me sort of uncomfortably of parents who crow they're teaching their children to be "color-blind."
I get what you are saying and I agree that there are difference between men and women, but can you give an example of where men and women shouldn't be treated equally? I am not trying to be argumentative, I am just trying to think of a practical application for your statement.
So of course omen don't need you to open the car door for them because they are women. Everyone can let themselves out of a car or open the car door for another person regardless of gender. However, centuries of economic, educationally and vocational oppression along with more insidious institutionalized sexism means that women should benefit from... well, from gender-based affirmative action in areas where they are underrepresented.
For example, all other things being equal, I will vote for a women in an election. I believe that given the choice between several equal job candidates, especially in male-dominated industries, the woman should be chosen. Hopefully then, we'll get to a point where it's not novel to have 20% of congress made up of women, or 10% of Fortune 500 CEOs, when women actually make up 50% of the population...
Well, we all know I live by traditional gender roles, but I would argue that deep down most women enjoy being offered the only seat or having their chair pulled out fir them. It's why historical fiction/romance is such a popular genre. We like the idea of the chivalrous knight in shining armor and men fighting for our honor. Sure, some women couldn't care less, but I think the majority enjoy being treated specially. I, personally, don't view chivalry as demeaning or showing that women are weak. I think it is a way to show women are respected - something special and to be revered.
And deep down, men enjoy treating women that way. People were talking last week about modern men not having purpose and perhaps that being the cause of some of the unhappiness in modern men. The idea that women are something special that you should protect at all costs makes men feel good. It makes them feel needed.
I get that people think we should be beyond gender, but the fact is that men and women are different. I am not weak, but I am special. I grow people inside of my body and can feed them with it, too. That is worthy of the respect and admiration of men. I should be treated differently because of it.
So, sure, parents can tell their boys not to be gentlemen and to treat women like one of the guys, but then I think they should also prepare those boys for the fact that there is a large segment of the female population that is completely turned off by that behavior and don't be surprised if you have a hard time with the ladies.
"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."
and stopped reading.
Please. Tell me more about these extra rules and societal norms. That is brand new information that I, as a woman, have never had to deal with.
Yeah, this is the part that's killing me. Because, of course, women, have ZERO societal behavior expectations.
Post by downtoearth on Oct 13, 2015 11:35:44 GMT -5
Don't these moms have a community or board like this to complain to so they don't have to try to take things viral/bloggy? Maybe that is their community.
It's similar to the mom with the stiches kid who got mad about the inappropriate receptionist comment, although this one is old-fashioned, borderline inappropriate. I feel like it's not a big enough offense to take to social media, but instead a good real-life learning moment for you to bring up to the one making the offensive remark (likely in front of your kid, also).
Well, we all know I live by traditional gender roles, but I would argue that deep down most women enjoy being offered the only seat or having their chair pulled out fir them. It's why historical fiction/romance is such a popular genre. We like the idea of the chivalrous knight in shining armor and men fighting for our honor. Sure, some women couldn't care less, but I think the majority enjoy being treated specially. I, personally, don't view chivalry as demeaning or showing that women are weak. I think it is a way to show women are respected - something special and to be revered.
And deep down, men enjoy treating women that way. People were talking last week about modern men not having purpose and perhaps that being the cause of some of the unhappiness in modern men. The idea that women are something special that you should protect at all costs makes men feel good. It makes them feel needed.
I get that people think we should be beyond gender, but the fact is that men and women are different. I am not weak, but I am special. I grow people inside of my body and can feed them with it, too. That is worthy of the respect and admiration of men. I should be treated differently because of it.
So, sure, parents can tell their boys not to be gentlemen and to treat women like one of the guys, but then I think they should also prepare those boys for the fact that there is a large segment of the female population that is completely turned off by that behavior and don't be surprised if you have a hard time with the ladies.
No. If I'm pregnant, offer me that seat. If not, no thank you. This is simplistic and demeaning to most women on this board.
I think she's overreacting, and some of the phrasing rubs me the wrong way. "Girls aren't being taught the fine art of yielding to others"? Women have been yielding to others, involuntarily, for millennia. And considering culture today, I don't see that women are being instilled with a general sense of entitlement because someone held a door open for them.
This was essentially my first thought...when she said something like 'special rules just because he is boy'...um, yeah we TOTALLY don't have that as women...oh wait - shave everything, be thin, don't burp or fart, don't be too smart, don't be too dumb, etc...yep, no special rules.
Well, we all know I live by traditional gender roles, but I would argue that deep down most women enjoy being offered the only seat or having their chair pulled out fir them. It's why historical fiction/romance is such a popular genre. We like the idea of the chivalrous knight in shining armor and men fighting for our honor. Sure, some women couldn't care less, but I think the majority enjoy being treated specially. I, personally, don't view chivalry as demeaning or showing that women are weak. I think it is a way to show women are respected - something special and to be revered.
And deep down, men enjoy treating women that way. People were talking last week about modern men not having purpose and perhaps that being the cause of some of the unhappiness in modern men. The idea that women are something special that you should protect at all costs makes men feel good. It makes them feel needed.
I get that people think we should be beyond gender, but the fact is that men and women are different. I am not weak, but I am special. I grow people inside of my body and can feed them with it, too. That is worthy of the respect and admiration of men. I should be treated differently because of it.
So, sure, parents can tell their boys not to be gentlemen and to treat women like one of the guys, but then I think they should also prepare those boys for the fact that there is a large segment of the female population that is completely turned off by that behavior and don't be surprised if you have a hard time with the ladies.
Nope, nobody is beyond gender or will ever be. That isn't what people want to teach - being a kind person (gentlemen, in this case) is not wrapped up in giving girls privileges before boys. It's really about knowing social boundaries and norms, plus understanding empathy for others different than you (because there are differences in genders). Empathy/Sympathy and understanding of someone's position that is different than yours is WAY more sexy than a guy pulling out my chair in a restaurant or holding their raincoat over a puddle or automatically being "special" b/c a girl has sex organs that can house a baby.
ETA: I took back my previous post above - I guess some people do need these blog/viral things.
Actually, it kind of makes me think about the things we were taught as children. I remember, distinctly, boys being told never to hit girls. To the point that when I am dealing with discipline at school I have to hold back on my instinct to remind boys that it isn't okay to hit girls. Duh, it isn't okay to hit anyone and the premise of it not being okay to hit a girl is because they, supposedly, can't defend themselves (someone has to tell some of the girls at my old school that!). But I do think what we 'say' matters, it does become part of our though process.
Well, we all know I live by traditional gender roles, but I would argue that deep down most women enjoy being offered the only seat or having their chair pulled out fir them. It's why historical fiction/romance is such a popular genre. We like the idea of the chivalrous knight in shining armor and men fighting for our honor. Sure, some women couldn't care less, but I think the majority enjoy being treated specially. I, personally, don't view chivalry as demeaning or showing that women are weak. I think it is a way to show women are respected - something special and to be revered.
I don't. Being offered a seat on public transit frequently comes with the expectation of conversation with the person who gave the seat up for me. I'm incredibly misanthropic, especially during my only 20min of the day to myself, and would rather stand pressed up against someone who hasn't showered recently enough than talk to some rando who thinks I should have to because he did something for me. Also, my historical romances (and also my paranormal) always have strong female leads who are trying to save themselves and/or their love interest.
But, you know, I don't think I'm special or should be revered. I'm just a person, no more special than the dude talking TOO LOUDLY right now a cube away. He should treat me well in our interactions for the same reason I should treat him well. We're both people and that is the least we can do for those with whom we share our society.
Well I agree with her completely! This is how and where sexism begins. The soft idea that females should be placed on pedestals.
I LOVE THIS ARTICLE!!!
I love that there is someone out there venting about this on the internet and I can read it and nod along. In the grand scheme of human rights this issue is not a priority but doesn't mean I don't agree that differentiated gender roles are holding us back. And it bugs me.
And yet, I'm still going to teach my boys to pick up the check and other assorted gendered behavior because they still have to function in this society.
Well, we all know I live by traditional gender roles, but I would argue that deep down most women enjoy being offered the only seat or having their chair pulled out fir them.
I totally agree with this. I'm not even ashamed to admit it. I love attention and compliments and treats and shiny things.
The thing is, I believe that deep down people with penises love attention and compliments and treats and special things, too.
Well, we all know I live by traditional gender roles, but I would argue that deep down most women enjoy being offered the only seat or having their chair pulled out fir them.
I totally agree with this. I'm not even ashamed to admit it. I love attention and compliments and treats and shiny things.
The thing is, I believe that deep down people with penises love attention and compliments and treats and special things, too.
Exactly. Treat me well because I am your partner and you want to do things that are nice. Or because I'm a human and you want to extend some kindness. Not because you believe me to have a vagina.
For example, my husband often bikes to work. Lately, it's been getting darker earlier. He either bikes home with his lights on or he gets a ride with his friend who can throw the bike in his truck. Either way, he has to put his bike in the garage when he gets home. So recently I have been mindful to run downstairs, turn on the porch light and the back door light, and open the garage door with the remote so he doesn't have to come inside (through the dark) and open the garage door before putting his bike away. It's a little something I can do to be nicer to someone I love.
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.
This is going right up my flagpole. I'm saluting this. I am also leery of a guy who proclaims his chivalry out loud. I do love a man who's polite and well-mannered, but if they have to tell you how old fashioned and gentlemanly they are, it's a huge red flag.
This reminds me of my favorite Margaret Thatcher quote: Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't.
I actively dislike having my chair pulled out or men standing when a woman gets to our leaves a table.
Other than boys being messier, I don't know why they can't alternate who goes first. And if that's rejected, well, there's merit to asking what message they're trying to teach
I'm offended I read most of that too long and poorly argued post.
This may also be a totally different discussion, but I quail at the idea that one should treat men and women completely equally. Men and women aren't equal, no matter how you view it -- societally, structurally, neurologically, psychologically -- and insisting that everyone be treated exactly the same reminds me sort of uncomfortably of parents who crow they're teaching their children to be "color-blind."
Just as an exercise, when I change men and women to black people and white people I get this:
This may also be a totally different discussion, but I quail at the idea that one should treat black people and white people completely equally. Black people and white people aren't equal, no matter how you view it -- societally, structurally, neurologically, psychologically -- and insisting that everyone be treated exactly the same reminds me sort of uncomfortably of parents who crow they're teaching their children to be "color-blind."
I think the bolded "equal" should probably be "the same"
(You probably spent 3 seconds typing this as a random thought so this isn't meant to be serious criticism.)
As far as boys not hitting girls goes, I don't see the harm in teaching that. Of course, you should teach your child not to hit anyone. But if my boy is on the playground and a girl starts hitting him, he needs to know that it is not OK to hit her back and he needs to walk away. If another boy is hitting him, he has my full permission to defend himself however necessary. Why the double standard? Because of basic physiology. Women ARE physically weaker. It is never OK to hit a woman and they need to learn that as children.
Once again, the lesson here is that you shouldn't hit anyone. But the rules for defending yourself against men and women are different. It may not be fair, but it's life. l
And deep down, men enjoy treating women that way. People were talking last week about modern men not having purpose and perhaps that being the cause of some of the unhappiness in modern men. The idea that women are something special that you should protect at all costs makes men feel good. It makes them feel needed.
I hope people don't ignore this because AW wrote it. This is what I was thinking about while reading. Maybe if some of these guys looked at women as something to be protected, then they wouldn't get all angry and violent when a woman told them no. They would still have a desire to protect them. This doesn't make the woman weak in my eyes. But I don't know if I classify as feminist or not and I didn't read the intersectional feminism thread, so what do I know.
But then the "nice guys" assume that they deserve love and affection and sex merely for treating women like human beings. Women should be grateful to them for holding doors and paying on dates so they owe them sex.
If you no longer have a purpose in life because I want to open my own door, I can't help you.
"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."
"Fine art of yielding" is either sarcasm or a poor choice of words. But I agree with the idea expressed in the paragraph. I want to be gallant! I want to be the heroic female protagonists in meshaliuknits books. I want to save my sweetie and kick ass and take names. There's nothing wrong with wanting that for our daughters and ourselves.
As far as boys not hitting girls goes, I don't see the harm in teaching that. Of course, you should teach your child not to hit anyone. But if my boy is on the playground and a girl starts hitting him, he needs to know that it is not OK to hit her back and he needs to walk away. If another boy is hitting him, he has my full permission to defend himself however necessary. Why the double standard? Because of basic physiology. Women ARE physically weaker. It is never OK to hit a woman and they need to learn that as children.
Once again, the lesson here is that you shouldn't hit anyone. But the rules for defending yourself against men and women are different. It may not be fair, but it's life. l
Just as an exercise, when I change men and women to black people and white people I get this:
This may also be a totally different discussion, but I quail at the idea that one should treat black people and white people completely equally. Black people and white people aren't equal, no matter how you view it -- societally, structurally, neurologically, psychologically -- and insisting that everyone be treated exactly the same reminds me sort of uncomfortably of parents who crow they're teaching their children to be "color-blind."
I think the bolded "equal" should probably be "the same"
(You probably spent 3 seconds typing this as a random thought so this isn't meant to be serious criticism.)
The fuck? Wrong. WRONG. Black and white people are equal, because the only difference is in skin tone.
Men and women are different. Their brains are structured differently. They respond to neurological stimuli differently.
I can't fucking even with this.
You and I agree that black people and white people are equal. There's no need to move fast and break things.
I thought your wording in the original post was strange: men and women aren't equal. You can't mean that. You do believe that men and women are equal, yes?
So I changed men and women to black people and white people for extra attention grabbing emphasis. Because CEP.