Why are some men so upset with the idea that treating women differently can promote and teach Sexism.

[Notafraidtoo]

I am a Male in my early 30's and i can not understand the hostility of so called progressive men to the feminist here on this forum.
Why is it so difficult to understand that if you do something for a woman just because shes female that you would not do for everyone then you may be unconsciously promoting a sexist culture, i found it a interesting theory with merit but so many men here are simply talking about opening doors, taking things out of context and being openly threatened and hostile to this argument.

Why is it threating to some men that women may not like how they are treated and viewed culturally? Whats so hard to understand that if you teach young men that women are weak and need us to do things for them so they can get along in the world that some men may translate that to not strong enough for the job or cant handle the stress "I better get a man to do this work".

There is no reason for the door talk or chair talk,it is not the point at all,it has nothing to do with women being offended about you doing what you were taught as chivalry but that teaching these things to young males promotes sexism in some men,its not rocket science guys think for a minute this isn't a attack on men its a honest discussion about gender roles that promote weaker sex thinking.

[Arcanetrance]

1. I get the feeling judging by some of the names popping up in those other discussions

For some the issue has left the original topic and it's now a rehash of old stuff that would have been in meta when it existed.

[TheBlackAdder]

181. The OP appears to have unresolved issues with his lack of chivalry.

The author of this thread comes across as someone who doesn't hold the door for a woman or even his date.

He probably also lacks refined social and dining skills that will be needed at the corporate event level too.

===

The only time I see someone raise this type of objection is when their parents or partners chastise them on their lack of chivalry or courtesy towards their date.

Without being redundant... I have replied further down on this thread with the reasons why this is just a trolling OP.

[Notafraidtoo]

295. Not a troll post.

I am simply complementing on the theory that teaching male children that women are a weaker sex and should be looked after because they can not protect themselves may be a bad thing and should not be dismissed with open hostility but talked about.

It seems something i have said has threatened you too because you choose to insult me i find it weird.

[TheBlackAdder]

296. That 'theory' is right up there with Trump's Obama Birth Certificate theory.

Threatened by reading troll posts... More like tired of seeing them.

You are just trying to illicit a base reaction from people, nothing more.

===

PS. FSM was funny when it first came out. Since then, it's been pirated by a bunch of people who like to force their own viewpoints onto others just as much as the organized religions do. But, unlike most organized religions, FSMers do it for more of a personal satisfaction thing instead of a collective thing. Folks with a chip on their shoulders.

[rainy]

2. You can't escape the fact that

Overall men are physically stronger than women. They don't have more physical endurance or more lower body strength but if you can't open a jar you hand it to a guy. There are many exceptions but men are generally bigger and stronger. Men and women have different brain chemistries than each other. I think real feminism would try to project the real power of femininity by not always comparing women to men but by embracing the differences and valuing the greatness of both for what they are.

[justiceischeap]

9. Just FYI, I'm a woman and I open jars for my male roommate.

This has nothing to do with strength and chemistry and femininity. Maybe we should chastise my father for teaching me to change the oil in my car or using power tools or hanging sheet rock. Maybe I should trade in my cargos and t-shirts for sweater sets and skirts?

Real feminism isn't about comparing men to women, it's about being treated equally and that has nothing to do with whether a woman is some idealization of femininity (and who gets to define what is feminine and what isn't?) or not.

As far as strength, it takes real strength for a woman to give birth, it takes real strength for a woman to put up with sexist bullshit, it takes real strength for a mother to watch a child die or go through struggles that they can do nothing to help their child overcome--like my mom who has to watch the world treat me differently because I'm lesbian. No one is arguing that men and women are different physically or even emotionally. It's about how women are undervalued because of our perceived "weaknesses" and that a "real" man can help her overcome those weaknesses--like opening a jar. You know why women sometimes give a jar to a guy to open, because it's convenient. As a single woman, I've got no guy to hand a jar to, so if I have trouble opening it, I get the knife or I run hot water over it or I bang the lid on the counter. I've yet to encounter a jar I can't figure out a way to open without a man. You know what I really appreciate from my male roommates? Their height. They tend to put things away in places I can't reach because they're taller... I love being able to make them grab things they unthoughtfully put out of my reach and I love opening jars for them.

[rainy]

10. I see your point very well. What I'm trying to say is that instead of

bemoaning something like why aren't there more women CEOs and why aren't more women doing bla bla bla why not ask what can empowered women do to make a better structure such as a company that pays the workers a true labor value? A company that has day care on the premises, flexible hours etc.... I'm thinking it is our money structure that causes the inequality and that women might think about not trying to be just like male CEOs and be more like female CEOs. There would be a huge difference in the structure, I think, if women could truly design the constructs of the organization.

In our capitalist society our worst men have all the power. We want the power but we do not want to be like those men.

[treestar]

189. Yeah for your father!

We should all be able to do the car stuff. No reason women aren't capable of it. I wish I'd been taught that.

[alp227]

199. And asians are good at math, and black people are less intelligent...

What happened to the idea that people are PEOPLE???

[loyalsister]

312. Different and equal

I think you make some good points. In fact, from an anthropological standpoint our different strengths can be viewed as complementary. Women are better at multi- tasking and have stronger language skills- thus, they teach the children. And they do it while they work. It's a generalized example, but hopefully, you get the point.

Men are very good at performing focused tasks. Try to interrupt a man watching football. That strength inconsistent with being the hunter. There are other, better examples. I recommend "The First Sex" by Helen Fisher for more on that topic.

There is some truth to men having larger\stronger body. But, it is an outdated stereotype in today's culture where women do workout and enhance their muscles.

The is one area in which I find the treatment of young boys as unfortunate. Women are generally encouraged to know how to use hammers and screwdrivers. But men are not encouraged to learn how to sew on a button.

[polly7]

317. I was sitting in the doctor's office the other day chatting with a man I didn't know ...

I've just learned to crochet cute little high-top 'sneakers' for preemies, some friends and I are in a group that makes and donates. Anyway .... he told me his brother has been crocheting all his life, that their father made sure all of the boys knew how to sew, crochet and knit. I think there are a lot more men who enjoy and do it than we might believe. Some of the most talented designers in knit and freeform crochet on Ravelry are men. They make beauuuutiful things.

[loyalsister]

321. that' really cool.

I am coming from the perspective of seeing how my nephew is treated. I don't think it is uncommon.

[sendero]

3. When are some people going to understand..

... that when you focus on trivialities (holding doors) at the expense of real issues (say, employment opportunities) you are doing your cause no favors.

Those of who that actually think you are going to make men and women treat each other interchangably are well, I will moderate my opinion to avoid having my post deleted, not exactly top drawer thinkers or observers.

Men are not women with penises and women are not men with vaginas.

The goal of feminism should be to make sure that men and women have equal rights, equal opportunities, equal respect - not that they are the same or interchangable in every way because they are not and when you insist that they are just undermine your own case.

[Harmony Blue]

21. Good post

I agree 100% and this is where the feminist movement has gone off the rails. When I try to explain that the majority of voters are female in the United States, and yet more and more regressive birth control laws are being passed in states I am shouted down because I am a man and I don't understand. Until the feminist movement becomes more inclusive and embraces differences, then equality can be the focal point.

[malaise]

53. Very well said

[treestar]

190. We are the same and interchangeable

A female doctor is interchangeable with a male doctor. Every function other than having babies - we are the same. We have much more in common than different, but some people insist on hanging on to every little difference they can make the most of.

Our brain chemistry is NOT different. There is no proof that can't be explained by thousands of years of society's assignment of sex roles.

[ljm2002]

195. No one has argued that men and women are "interchangable"...

...and while the bread-and-butter issues are important, so are the attitudinal issues. Things that seem irrelevant to one person, may seem very important to another.

I know that when I watch old shows like, say, All In The Family, it really underscores how far we've come with those attitudinal issues. My children never experienced the bad old days when many men really did have the Archie Bunker style of dealing with their wives, and with women in general. Women were considered "emotional", and incapable of reasoned responses.

It is condescending, to say the least, to tell feminists what the "goal of feminism" should be. The goals of feminism are what feminists deem them to be, just as the goals of the civil rights movement were what the civil rights activists and leaders and participants deemed them to be, just as the goals of the LGBT movement are what the people in the movement deem them to be. By the way, many people told them for years that their goal should not be gay marriage, that they should accept civil unions as a substitute, that insisting on calling it "marriage" was irrelevant, a side issue that offended the religious people and distracted from the "real" issues.

I am not slamming you for your statement. Many of us react to things and think WTF? Why on earth are "they" pushing that irrelevant claptrap when there are important things to address? I'm sure I've been guilty of the same thinking at times. It's just that one person's irrelevant claptrap may be another person's essential, underlying issue.

[The Straight Story]

4. I think where the problem lies is folks assigning motivations to others ad hoc

You do X more for women then men and you are sexist and harming women overall is the general idea.

It is the idea that even the most simplest of things is something we have to pause and ponder over before doing what to so many comes natural.

Growing up your mom tells you it is polite to open doors for women and let them go first. She is a woman. You trust her. You come here and find out your mom was a repressed sexist person who is stupid and only the smart folks here can make the world right and teach you the true paths.

It's as though some people have a vested interest in being outraged and need to find ways to justify their position/job/etc so then spend hours pouring over every action possible to find a way to show how they are being repressed.

I won't hold a door open for any woman anymore. Or let them cut ahead in line (and I didn't yesterday at save-a-lot). My mom was an evil repressed dumbass and now I am ashamed of her and all she taught me because she obviously hated and wanted to repress other women. I am not even sure at this point if me having sex only with women is sexist or not because it means I treat them different - why DON'T I want to have sex with men? Is it because I like power and see women as weaker?

Question everything because even telling a woman she looks nice, or 'hot', is repressing and deeply hurting them. I don't tell men they look hot. So yes, I have learned a lot in this whole debate.

Women are constant victims and some of the poor ladies don't even know it. Next time I see some dumb ass man hold open a door for one, help them with something, I will rush over and apologize to them on behalf of more intelligent and progressive men who should know better.

[txwhitedove]

11. As a woman, I approve this message. Some vested outraged persons would do well to remember,

you can catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. That's a Southern saying, and so gives them a whole new reason to be outraged.

[seabeyond]

26. except there was no outrage. except it was a thread straighstory put up about boobs that introduced

benevolent sexism. except it was all about another man asking what benevolent sexism was. and me giving a mere definition. no more. no outrage. but, a definition.

the outrage came from men.

what does that have to do with honey, flies or vinegar?

[txwhitedove]

147. Try speaking with kind words instead of harsh. The only outrage I had read is your harsher words,

moved from boobs, to doors, to colloquialisms.

[seabeyond]

149. were are the "unkind" words. and why is truth considered harsh, lmfao.

totally fuckin amazing. am i allowed to laugh?

[Z_I_Peevey]

152. Perhaps if you took a softer tone,

Modulated your voice to something smaller and more high-pitched (you know, like a child's)...

Perhaps if you cast your eyes downward before speaking...

If you were wearing something different...

Perhaps then what you say would be heard.

But I really fucking doubt it.

[seabeyond]

158. bah hahahah. thank you so much. at first i thought this was gonna be serious

suggestions and was laughing at the predictability of the "tone" issue. but, your post was just precious. thank you for playing. i appreciate the feel good and walking away from this today with a smile and in play.

truly.

thanks.

[whathehell]

168. LOL...Thanks!

[redqueen]

177. LOL! Nice :)

Tone policing, it never goes out of style.

[NaturalHigh]

173. I think you were the one who brought up the doors.

Opening doors for women is benevolent sexism is something like that. Was this the thread that said that guys who like big boobs are sexist?

[MattBaggins]

112. What outrages me

Is southerners who think they invented every clever saying.

[txwhitedove]

148. Gotcha!

[MattBaggins]

151. No you didn't

[klook]

155. Well, bless your little pea-pickin' heart. (n/t)

[MattBaggins]

165. OK now you got me

pea pickin? I hope that's not like cotton pickin.

[marions ghost]

16. Whew that's some serious bile

OK now that you feel better, here's a question.

Did you ever change your mind on something your Momma taught ya? Or was everything she said sacred and not open to modification later in life?

[The Straight Story]

22. Don't think I need to change my mind

I like women. I treat them different then men. I have sex with them and not men, which also makes me sexist I suppose.

If I am going out somewhere, like a bar that allows smoking (well, back when we had freedom of choice), and I dress nicely it is because I want women to see me a certain way. If I am more polite and talk them in a different manner then men it is because I am wanting their company.

Holding the door for men...meh. I could care less if they think I am polite in that regards.

Sometimes people do things not because they hate and want to oppress. But some folks need to make it about being a victim. Even when it is something like going out of your way to do something nice.

Men treat women different than they do other men. Women treat women different than they do men in some cases as well. What is the surprise here? Why does it have to be one is trying to oppress the other?

[marions ghost]

69. "Men treat women different than they do other men."

--And that is what we're talking about.

Can you accept that there might be occasions when "treating women different" might not be the right thing to do?

Women have been oppressed for centuries. What are the residual behaviors that reinforce that state? What behaviors support stereotypes and keep women in a box? Don't you want to understand how that works? Have you never seen cases of overly deferential behavior between men in business or political situations? If not, watch Madmen. Men use it in order to keep other men in a subordinate position--an elbow check, if you will. This is how some women experience certain instances of male deference. An elbow-check. Controlling. Many women will run away from it.

Of course I am all for common courtesy. But that's not the topic here really. We are not really talking about opening doors. You put your finger on it with the line, "Men treat women different than they do other men." We are talking about patterns of treating women as Other that keep them down. We are talking about the resentment that some men may feel at the expectation that they perform symbolic acts of chivalry even though they compete with women as equals (and maybe have no problem with that).

There is no one size fits all when it comes to inter-gender relations.

[MattBaggins]

132. It is very strange

He comes right out and says he treats women differently because he wants something from them.

Women who might have an issue with that are the ones to blame. A grown man angry that women might not liked to be called hot. Didn't that die out in the 80s

[redqueen]

141. It seems to me that feminism just stalled in the 80's.

It took a decade for liberals to start fighting back to reclaim progressive ideals.

Imagine if other liberals were shouting them down with nonsense like 'All this welfare talk makes us look lazy!' or 'We have wars to stop! And real issues like that to deal with! Stop talking about the poor (or whatever other issue said liberal didn't want discussed)!'

[MattBaggins]

150. Or told the LGBT community

to lighten up about latent homophobia. That we have bigger issues than DOTA or Marriage Equality.

Lighten up right?

[marions ghost]

281. It didn't die out--it just morphed into Retro Sexism

[seabeyond]

311. she is so awesomely brilliant and so young. we have a lot of years of her voice.

thanks. kick ass. i havent seen that one though i have seen a couple others that were great.

[marions ghost]

315. The younger generation --many get it

...I'm optimistic that sexism like racism & homophobia will die out ...in time. Teach your children...

[seabeyond]

319. a year ago or so i was bummed, looking at the state of our youthful feminism. but,

having a group that i actively hunt out articles and discussions i have seen so much power in our youths voice. UK is very strong in the young feminist cause and it is growing, rapidly. our young women have really stepped forward since the war on women.

it has given a lot of us hope, and it has reignited many of us, and i am so proud.

[ljm2002]

201. Let me tell you a story...

...about men treating women differently.

Long ago and far(ish) away, I worked in a software company. I attended weekly meetings consisting of about 10-12 people, each representing his or her department. I was the only woman at those meetings.

On one memorable occasion, we were going around the table bringing up the issues for our department that week. When I began to talk, I was interrupted. When that person was finished, I started again, only to be interrupted again. This continued to happen, at least 5 men in that room just casually interrupted and talked over me, to the point where not only was I getting really annoyed, but some of the men in the room were also visibly uncomfortable.

Well I couldn't figure out what to do about it. If I said something, I'd either look weak or look like a nasty feminist b*****. I couldn't just walk out, for the same reasons. Finally, I figured out what to do. When I started speaking again and the next guy inevitably interrupted me, I just looked straight at him and continued speaking. We were both speaking for maybe 30 seconds or so, and I didn't back down. It was weird, but he finally got the message and shut up and I was then allowed to say my piece.

So there is a bread-and-butter example that also addresses the attitudinal issues. Men often talk over women. It has been researched in academic settings. My son didn't believe it, until one day he was watching one of those chef reality shows, and he saw the male chefs responding to criticism from the male and female judges. Not once did they interrupt any of the male judges, but they interrupted and became defensive with the female judges.

Again: this is just one anecdote. I don't believe those young men in the meeting with me were overtly sexist in their attitudes (may some were, it's hard to remember them individually at this late date), and I also acknowledge there may have been other dynamics going on here that were not only about gender. But there was an attitude that what they had to say was intrinsically more important than what I had to say, and it is still a common attitude among men, even well-meaning men.

Women also have gender attitudes that need to be examined -- we often expect men to be handy around the house and to know about cars, we think it's okay for a woman to choose to be a housewife but God(dess) forbid a man should choose that, why he's a slacker... So it does cut both ways.

Also, ultimately there are still differences between the sexes. It's just that society codifies them in strange and useless ways and by doing so, constrains the choices available to us as individuals. So we are right to examine those issues, whether they are direct bread-and-butter issues like equal pay for equal work, or attitudinal issues that may appear "softer", but are at the very heart of how we view one another and thus how we treat one another.

[alp227]

208. Think again. perhaps you do those things because they are right

NOT because of gender role.

"I like women. I treat them different then men. I have sex with them and not men, which also makes me sexist I suppose." Because of YOUR sexual orientation actually! It is in the best interests of you and partner, and it's the most honest thing to do.

"If I am going out somewhere, like a bar that allows smoking (well, back when we had freedom of choice), and I dress nicely it is because I want women to see me a certain way. If I am more polite and talk them in a different manner then men it is because I am wanting their company."

Do women not dress nicely in such setting too? thing is there are places where EVERYONE is expected to dress formal whether fine dining, work, even CPAC! And I think bars are allowed to admit smokers if the establishment posts a sign warning so. And if you want to make good first impression on ANYONE like at first date or job interview you've got to put on your best manners. once you two have established trust THEN you can get casual.

"Sometimes people do things not because they hate and want to oppress. But some folks need to make it about being a victim. Even when it is something like going out of your way to do something nice."

...

"Men treat women different than they do other men. Women treat women different than they do men in some cases as well. What is the surprise here? Why does it have to be one is trying to oppress the other?"

You are misunderstanding things and misrepresenting arguments. I can't believe simple moral issues are seen as "POLITICALLY CORRECT" even on the left!!!

[Whisp]

27. pearls of wisdom.

I think you should go on a tour.

But first you might want to work on reading comprehension and try to figure out that doors and shit have nothing to do with the original post. Now you drag your mom into this.

doesn't get any better for hoots and giggles. thanks.

p.s. the vested outrage was not coming from women on this topic. some men were blowing steam out of their orifaces they were so angry.

[seabeyond]

32. straightstory was the one that introduced the term in his OP.

though i am sure that was not the relevant part of his post or the direction he wanted it to go to. more, guys playing criticizing/critiquing/joking about boobs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2511124

[NaturalHigh]

176. And again, you were the one who brought up the opening of doors in that thread.

Keep posting the link so everyone can be reminded. Then keep blaming the guys.

[Squinch]

29. Might you be overreacting just a tad? You seem a little outraged.

[The Straight Story]

46. Well, my panties aren't really in a bunch at this point

It is just interesting how people will find ways to call others sexist for anything they can, helps them to keep feeling oppressed so they have a reason to go on perhaps. Is there sexism that harms? Yep. Should we expose it and fight it? Yep.

It reminds me mostly of the US and terrorism. We find it everywhere these days. Carrying bottled water on to a plane? You might be a terrorist. Taking a one way trip? Same. We spend billions out of fear and that people are possibly, maybe, going to do some crazy shit and everyone is now a suspect.

You might be a sexist if you don't treat men and women the same in all ways. Which means someone has to do a study and educate you on being a better human.

I used to treat women better in some ways than I did men (mainly cause I like women more so then men), which means - I think - that I am sexist against men. But am also, it appears, against women....

Of course some will look for motivation (you did something nice for a woman you didn't do for a man, you think she is weak and you were raised to hate women, etc and so on).

The only thing that does outrage me is stupidity, regardless of the topic.

[Squinch]

56. Except no one was finding ways to "call others sexist for anything they can."

This whole thing started with an eruption of outrage about someone's opinion on a thread about benevolent sexism. Which, by the way, is a real thing.

The outrage about how the poor polite men are being maligned is manufactured, hysterical, and very very silly.

And we both know that you're smart enough to know that.

[ljm2002]

207. You wear panties?

Hmmm, that may explain a few things here...

I kid, I kid. But why not say "Well, my shorts aren't really in a bunch"?

[fishwax]

224. um, weren't you just complaining about people assigning motivations to others?

"It is just interesting how people will find ways to call others sexist for anything they can, helps them to keep feeling oppressed so they have a reason to go on perhaps"

[MattBaggins]

45. Oh please

You do X more for women then men and you are sexist and harming women overall is the general idea.

This is by no means the general idea and I think you know that.

It is the idea that even the most simplest of things is something we have to pause and ponder over before doing what to so many comes natural.

Why do you say this as if it is a bad thing? One SHOULD examine their own prejudices and cultural norms. It is a great self development tool.

Growing up your mom tells you it is polite to open doors for women and let them go first. She is a woman. You trust her. You come here and find out your mom was a repressed sexist person who is stupid and only the smart folks here can make the world right and teach you the true paths.

Your world view is questioned so you become defensive and lash out. It is OK to question what mom and dad taught you.

It's as though some people have a vested interest in being outraged and need to find ways to justify their position/job/etc so then spend hours pouring over every action possible to find a way to show how they are being repressed.

Now this is just out of line. I'm sorry Mr. Story but you are one of the kings of faux outrage on DU. You post more than your own share of dubious and down right silly stories based on faked outrage. You yourself are quite proficient at strawman construction and the ensuing fist waving.

I won't hold a door open for any woman anymore. Or let them cut ahead in line (and I didn't yesterday at save-a-lot). My mom was an evil repressed dumbass and now I am ashamed of her and all she taught me because she obviously hated and wanted to repress other women. I am not even sure at this point if me having sex only with women is sexist or not because it means I treat them different - why DON'T I want to have sex with men? Is it because I like power and see women as weaker?

Again get defensive and lash out when challenged. When that isn't enough make sure to follow up with a ridiculous non sequitor about sex and sexual orientation.

Question everything because even telling a woman she looks nice, or 'hot', is repressing and deeply hurting them. I don't tell men they look hot. So yes, I have learned a lot in this whole debate.

Women are constant victims and some of the poor ladies don't even know it. Next time I see some dumb ass man hold open a door for one, help them with something, I will rush over and apologize to them on behalf of more intelligent and progressive men who should know better.

This is asinine and you can do much better than that.

[snooper2]

163. Careful with sex, if it's "PIV", even consensual, it still is assualt....

I learned this on the Internet

[fishwax]

222. I think where the problem lies in BS distortions of what other posters have said n/t

[Honeycombe8]

5. I am a feminist woman, and I have no problem with being treated "differently."

I distinguish tradition and etiquette from equal pay and equal rights.

Women and men do not need to be the same in every respect in order to be equal. There are biological differences between the genders, as well as differences in the brain. Just as women don't need to behave the same way as men in their managerial style or personal behavior, it's okay for a man to take a woman's arm while going up stairs or whatever.

It's okay for women to manage a team in a more personal, human way than a man. It's okay for a woman to tear up at appropriate occasions without being regarded as weak or hysterical. It's okay for a man to manage with a less personal touch.

Everything's okay. I'm okay...you're okay.

[XRubicon]

17. Great post, I could not agree more with you.

[MattBaggins]

164. "I distinguish tradition and etiquette from equal pay and equal rights"

Why do you do this?

Tradition and etiquette are part of the roots of Sexism, Racism, and Homophobia. Examining them and evaluating how they influence us is a damn good idea.

I believe people also have the right to break out of the perceived biological and social roles you seem to want to assign for them. A man can break down and lead with a personal touch as a woman can lead like a man (what ever that means).

Have to disagree with your saying it's OK to take a woman's arm while going up the stairs. If a man did that to a woman at work or in public they should have the riot act read to them. Keep in mind that men once "tipped their hats to a Lady", not women, Ladies. Did they tip their hats to the black woman walking down the street or the chimney sweeps wife? The social norms you call etiquette may not be the same for others and instead perhaps should be reexamined.

[whathehell]

169. +1 n/t

[redqueen]

180. Excellent post. So very well said.

[Honeycombe8]

197. I have examined them and do not find they are sexist. (I don't know what traditions in etiquette

you are referring to as homophobic or racist.)

No, no woman is going to read the riot act to a man she knows who takes her arm.

Men don't wear hats, anymore, dude, as part of business attire. It is appropriate for them to remove their baseball caps indoors, though, and not to wear a baseball cap to church.

It's just etiquette. It's not sexist in my book, and I am SO hardcore feminist, you would not believe.

Some break with tradition, and that's fine, if that's what they want. But it's not cool to call those who follow regular etiquette sexist.

[MattBaggins]

211. Actually removing your cap in doors

is a matter of opinion and nothing to do with appropriate. I don't wear hats at all so I don't care.

It is perfectly fine to examine if the roots of a behavior are sexist and should be encouraged. We will have to disagree. I am sorry but I completely disagree with your belief that societal norms do not influence behavior and interactions towards women.

If I saw a co worker take a woman's arm at work I would bring it up with him myself.

[Honeycombe8]

259. Then don't remove your hat, dude. No one's making you. Women don't have to remove

hats indoors, as a rule. But as a woman, I would. (I do wear hats sometimes in the winter.)

But don't call people sexist if they follow traditional good manners. It's probably how they were brought up. No one is forcing you to do it.

You don't grab a woman's arm for just any reason. And it's not just any guy. You're going up stairs, and she's wearing heels. And usually it's her date. I guess you're not familiar with that one.

For example...did you see the actress trip on her way up to get her Oscar? She tripped because she was wearing heels and that big skirted dress. She tripped because there wasn't the usual obligatory guy standing there to offer a hand to assist. There is a reason for some of the manner things. It's not always, or even usually, needed. But the etiquette comes from somewhere and exists for some reason, although probably not existant in most cases anymore.

I don't have any problem with the rules of etiquette that exist these days (there aren't many). And I don't have a problem with people who don't want to follow those rules. I think that is the tolerant view.

[MattBaggins]

298. I am not calling people sexist for "traditional good manners"

just stop it. For the love of reason

[nessa]

185. Exactly. Men and women are different. There is nothing wrong with recognizing that. (nt)

.

[gollygee]

214. Inequal pay is related to being treated differently

When we're treated as though we're in need of special concessions and can't handle relatively easy tasks like changing a tire, it's going to show up in what we're considered capable of in the workplace. These things are related.

[TimberValley]

288. Great post. Many people simply cannot tell the difference between the two

tradition and etiquette vs. equal pay and equal rights as you put it.

[kdmorris]

6. A majority of the men here are not hostile to feminists

Most of them are very supportive and absolutely not hostile. There is a SMALL sub-set of men who are just being jerks (who knows what they really believe - it's the internet) and a SMALL sub-set of women who are just being jerks. They go at it every few months and then it looks like "all" men or "all" women.

Don't be sucked into this abyss...

[randome]

8. Wise words.

[seabeyond]

28. my bad. a man asked what it was. i provided a definition. i am the jerk. amazing. fucking amazing.nt

[kdmorris]

66. I didn't say that, seabeyond

And this didn't start with you giving someone a definition.

This OP is absolutely unhelpful to ANY of us. Stop inferring things from posts that have nothing to do with you. I didn't say you were a jerk, so stop putting words in my mouth.

[seabeyond]

74. this started with that. ground floor. the threads took off. men outraged by feminists outrage

about men holding doors open. OP after OP.

then redq put up a thread on benevolent sexism to explain it is not about doors.

OP after OP about damn doors and how this small group of feminists are such extremist.

[kdmorris]

100. Why the hell did "we" feel the need to do anything about benevolent sexism, seabeyond?

Aren't there enough issues that we have with sexism without continuing this stupid fucking meta fight all over DU?

I stand by what I said - the majority of men and the majority of women at DU are not anti-feminism. This continuing fight, over and over again, month after month, to try to prove that "this side" or "that side" sucks does nothing for feminism.

"then redq put up a thread on benevolent sexism to explain it is not about doors. "

Read the links and what those links describe benevolent sexism as - carrying heavy objects for women, offering to help them when you wouldn't a offer to help a man, pretty much all of it as ridiculous as "opening doors"... then read the follow up that equates benevolent sexism with rape apologia and victim blaming - making everyone who feels that concentrating on benevolent sexism is a HUGE MISTAKE at this point in gender equality feel like they are PARTICIPATING in rape apologia and blaming the victims of rape. THAT was not an innocent attempt to explain what it was. It just opened the door for these threads - thread after thread after thread that makes us all look ridiculous. What was the purpose of these threads - it sure as shit wasn't education.

I KNOW that these OPs are to make feminists look ridiculous - but why the hell hand them the ammunition to keep doing it?? Now everyone who is a feminist is painted with the same brush and all the men who are our ALLIES are painted with the same ridiculous brush because of a few people who thrive on this bullshit drama.

[boston bean]

105. I don't feel ridiculous at all and I am a feminist.

The ones who should feel ridiculous is the ones who created this strawman.

It wasn't feminists that did that. But you go right ahead and keep on blaming them.

A door, and all feminists are radical and way out there, seabeyond has ruined feminism on DU?

Nope, no thank you.

[kdmorris]

113. *I* NEVER SAID IT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH SEABEYOND

She nailed HERSELF to that cross.

I am a feminist too, so there is no THEM.

Fuck it... I need a break from this bullshit. You guys go right ahead and tear each other apart... Civility be damned. I'm sure that it will be a completely productive exchange and you will come out the winner - looking like the poor innocent victims that never do anything to anyone and still get picked on by the BIG BAD MEN of DU who are all anti-feminism.

Thanks for nothing, BB! This wasn't about YOU or SEABEYOND.

[boston bean]

122. I say this with all respect, please note that there are sexists on DU. nt

[kdmorris]

268. Do you seriously think I don't know that?

I acknowledged it in the other thread.

There are more important issues dealing with sexism (both in real life and DU) than benevolent sexism.

[boston bean]

322. In your opinion KD.

You can't control this discussion, in fact no one could.

Can you at least realize that it was not feminists that turned this into a flame war?

Why are you blaming feminists for alienating people? I think you are missing that piece of the puzzle.

[seabeyond]

107. a man asked what it was. i gave examples and definitions. outrage and lies ensued.

on a discussion board, you are suggesting we do not address being attacked, lied about, or misinformation.

you are going after the people that did nothing wrong. and accusing them of wrong.

that does not sit well with me

so, i will end this with.... i will agree to disagree.

[kdmorris]

276. I didn't attack you (or Boston Bean or Redqueen)

None of the three of you were who I was talking about when I said there were jerks here (both men and women) who thrive on this drama and nastiness.

I didn't say a damned thing about any of you ("the people that did nothing wrong&quot . You decided it was about you and attacked me. All I ever said about Redqueen's threads is that I believe THAT'S where it started and, frankly, I think it was a mistake to hand them ammunition like that. That's my opinion and I stick by it. It doesn't mean that I think Redqueen is a jerk and it doesn't mean that I deserved what you three just did to me.

This discussion is going nowhere, so I'm with you - I have nothing else to say to you (or Boston Bean or Redqueen) about it.

[boston bean]

323. for the record I didn't feel attacked by you. nt

[seabeyond]

324. btw... this was just brought to my attention. i wanted to say, good, thanks for letting me know.

i am too tired to go all the way back to post one, why i felt that it was our group you were talking about, but, i am glad that you let us know that it was not specifically me anyway, that you were referring to.

thank you

[redqueen]

109. "equates benevolent sexism with rape apologia and victim blaming"

Absolutely, 100% wrong.

That is some seriously nasty framing. We sure have learned from republicans.

This is akin to 'you criticized America and said we are to blame for all the world's problems, leading people to feel like...blah blah blah'

This is just sad.

[kdmorris]

115. You posted it, Redqueen, not me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022517432

You can edit it again or you can self delete.

Either way - you did say it and I'm done with this shit.

[redqueen]

129. Wow.

Just wow.

[NaturalHigh]

279. +1

[tkmorris]

139. You calling kd a Republican now Redqueen?

Oh I'm sorry. You said "learned from". Because that's completely different (wink, nudge).

Do you really imagine you are helping anything lately?

[seabeyond]

140. i am pinned on a cross... meh. lol. nt

[redqueen]

146. Ugh, no. Framing. The framing is utterly, disgustingly dishonest. And that is a right wing tactic.

Reading comprehension.. it's really necessary.

Did you also infer from my post what your spouse inferred? Just checking. Obviously most people managed not to read a bunch of accusatory bullshit into it.

[theKed]

186. This

And everything you've posted before and after, are absolutely, 100%, spot on.

[Sheldon Cooper]

7. There are a lot of jock-strap snappers

who can't seem to do anything other than demean and ridicule women who don't behave in the way they expect them to. They are incapable of critical thought, and not just on feminist topics (as I've observed), plus they definitely don't do nuance. Once you've identified these children, it's easy to turn them off.

[marions ghost]

12. Thank you for viewing this rationally

and stating the issues so well.

[polly7]

13. I haven't seen ANY man here upset with the idea that treating women differently can promote

and teach sexism. Do you have a specific link?

I saw many men and women incredulous and dismissive of the 'opening doors' example given ..... but seriously, are you saying those of us who don't see doors as an issue shouldn't have the right to reply to it?

[boston bean]

14. Because on DU, you can only discuss the actual effect of sexism

Like, less pay and others controlling your body.

Don't try and discuss all the cultural ills that bring it about.

They take it too PERSONALLY!

[redqueen]

36. +1

[Whisp]

39. I think the low light of all that was when a poster

said that a feminist reply to him was really trying to say:

That opening doors = Condoning rape.

Or some such extraordinary nonsense.

[MattBaggins]

15. It boggles the mind doesn't it?

If people dismissed concepts of covert racism in the childish manner they do this topic, they would be booted in an instant.

[Orrex]

18. Who's dismissing it?

[MattBaggins]

23. Really?

[Orrex]

25. Yes.

I've seen people discussing the (perhaps?) poorly chosen example given for benevolent sexism, but I haven't seen anyone dismissing the concept outright.

I've also seen a few people take issue with the methodology (which is perfectly acceptable to do) and implications (which is also perfectly acceptable). Neither of these counts as "dismissing" anything.

It's possible that I've missed some posts on the subject, given the avalanche that's occurred in the past 24 hours or so. I'd appreciate any links you can provide to specific posts that dismiss benevolent sexism.

Thanks!

[99Forever]

19. Look up: "broadbrush accusations and generalizations"...

... and "brow beating."

[MattBaggins]

24. Look up

twisting someones words into a reducto ad absurdum argument, laughing dismissively at your own silly straw man creation and then having the audacity to play the victim when called on it.

[99Forever]

30. I ws working for Equal Rights...

... two fucking decades before the OP was born. Perhaps rather using alienating language to an honest reply, you might try understanding where it was coming from. If not, that's your problem and I don't give a damn.

[boston bean]

33. oooh....

[MattBaggins]

61. "Perhaps rather using alienating language"

look up"broadbrush accusations and generalizations"...... and "brow beating."

Right back at ya

[99Forever]

72. Thanks for joining a bunch...

... Delicate Flowers in Ignore. You are both on the same level. Good bye.

[MattBaggins]

118. I'll add it to my give a crap list

Post haste.

[Orrex]

34. Just so we're clear...

Does a direct and exact quote of someone's words count as "twisting someones words," in your view?

I want to make sure that I understand your rules.

[boston bean]

37. one simple response of one example in a boob subthread that discussed benevolent sexism, used to

minimize feminist issues, is what is really fucking laughable.

The gyrations of some was a riot.

[Orrex]

43. Link, please?

There have been over 1000 posts on the subject in the past day, and I haven't read all of them.

[boston bean]

50. You don't even know how it started?

I'm not going to dig up links for anyone.

Look in a boob thread, you'll find it.

[Orrex]

57. I know exactly how it started

It started with this post:

benevolent sexism would be holding the door open, pulling out a chair, ect...

HERE

I don't understand how a direct quotation of someone's exact words counts as "twisting someones words," so I asked for clarification.


And which boob thread?

[seabeyond]

65. amazing you, every man that started thread on doors about feminist outrage leaves out the definition

provided in that post.

where is the feminist outrage? where did any feminist say they refuse a door held open?

the very next reply i made

seabeyond (84,180 posts)
26. i hold the door open for others, others hold the door for me, and yes, lots of friendly exchange

and i perfectly understand your intent to be disruptive. not playing your stupid ass game.

i ma not seeing that fabricated outrage men have been harping on for the last two days.

[Orrex]

73. Are you willing to own your words or not?

I see that you attack anyone who doesn't immediately and fully embrace any concept that you put forth, and I see that you immediately posture yourself as a victim of "fabricated outrage" by "po boys" and "those men."

You are certainly willing to take people to task for their word choice. Is it wrong to hold you to the same standard?

[seabeyond]

80. you think you have a gotcha moment? i put an example and definition. then the men start OPs saying

we feminist are outraged.

by a definition. no opinion. no expression. an example and definition.

am i going to call this fabricated accusation of outrage a lie? damn straight.

[Orrex]

86. Who said that feminists are outraged? And where? And who are "we feminists" anyway?

In this very thread I count at least three feminists who don't march lock-step with you.


I'm sorry if you don't like it when "the men" disagree with you. You don't seem to like it much when "the women" disagree with you, either.

Is it just possible that others have valid perspectives that differ from yours? Or must we all feel exactly as you do about all issues?

[seabeyond]

89. post after post. thread after thread. you havent read any? fine.

[Orrex]

94. Links, please

I want to see where "the men" are calling feminists "outraged." You accuse "the men" and "those men" and "po boys" of being "outraged" at least several times per thread. Why are you permitted to use that label while "the men" are not?

[seabeyond]

101. no. because at this point, i gotta figure you are playin in that game also.

actually i came to the conclusion yesterday.

yours to do.

i have learned not to participate.

[Orrex]

103. So, you are free to declare my intent for me, but no one else is allowed to infer your intent?

Must be nice.

And, given your many dozens of posts in these threads, you have a very strange idea of what means "not to participate."

[seabeyond]

111. i am allowed to have an opinion. and i clearly put it up as my opinion. again,

what we do on a discussion board. yes, i gotta figure you are playin' here.

you may be, or not. but, i cannot believe that this is so far beyond for you. clever dude you are.

[Orrex]

119. Similarly, I can't believe that you're really the absurd caricature that you paint yourself to be

Do you go through real life hunting for signs of outrage where it doesn't exist, the way you do here? How do you make it from your porch to your car every morning?

[seabeyond]

128. ah, all the ready name calling posters on this thread have for us. bye.

[Orrex]

131. Oh, please

You've been throwing names & insults around for 24 hours straight, as well as in the post to which I replied.


So you're free to assign labels as you see fit, but when someone else does it, it's "all the ready name calling." Must be nice.

[div="excerpt"]all the ready name calling posters on this thread have for us.
And who is "us," by the way? I'm addressing you specifically. I'd be interested to know who "us" is, in your view.

[txwhitedove]

174. BRAVO!!!!!!!!!

[seabeyond]

54. i already provided the info for you in your very long thread you deleted about doors. here is a link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2511317

[Orrex]

64. That's not my thread

If anything, that's your thread. You know, the one in which you asserted that benevolent sexism would be holding the door open, pulling out a chair, ect... so perhaps it's worth mentioning here after all.

[seabeyond]

68. i gave examples and definition. no opinion. no outrage. the problem? nt

[Orrex]

81. You offered several examples; were those not your opinion?

i perfectly understand your intent to be disruptive. not playing your stupid ass game.

from HERE

I don't know if that's outrage, but it was a surprisingly sharp response to the rather mild post that preceded it.

[boston bean]

84. Was your thread like the 4th or the 5th or the 10th on the subject

of that subthread?

Let's look at things in totality here.

[seabeyond]

85. people can read it. i stand by it. ya, a game. two days of a fuckin game. i stand

with this OP also.

[Orrex]

92. So you own your words, but no one is allowed to cite them?

Instead, you post your opinion and then demand that people address only the article that you cited while overlooking your examples? Must be nice.

[seabeyond]

104. i did not post an opinion. i posted examples and a definition. and i did not tell anyone they

could not site them

i did site my opinion in the follow up reply that i just posted for you. you know.... i hold doors open, others hold them open for me, we have lots of friendly exchanges.

OMG... the fuckin outrage.

[Orrex]

108. Who's outraged? Me? You set a very low bar for what qualifies as "outraged."

So you posted examples, and now no one is allowed to refer to them? Why, then, did you post them?

[seabeyond]

116. no. i didnt set the bar. others did toward any woman that tried to bring reason to the conversation

now. i will end this with...

i will have to agree to disagree with you.

[Orrex]

123. Well, I'm glad that we can still agree on something.

[lumberjack_jeff]

145. I think we all (including the person who said it) would agree that it was an reductionist example.

The people who latched onto that example, and keep regurgitating it, are doing so to avoid examining the concept.

[seabeyond]

20. thank you... so much, for quiet, gentle, reason.

and welcome to du

[Little Star]

31. Yep. You hit the nail on the head. Thanks for this OP. k&r

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. My women studies instructor back in the 1980s

Put it this way. "Focus on trivial issues at your peril. They are nice distractions."

Regardless, where I live it's pretty much gender independent.

So shall we concentrate on the issues that require real work? You know, opening doors to occupations, the ERA, equal pay...or keep playing with the piddly stuff that is empty and really is sound signifying fury?

Or perhaps we all should stamp our collective feet when a man opens a door for a women, (like happens often pushing a stroller) or a man, using a walker...or the myriad of other examples. (And I expect to be told I don't get it, or it was never said, or it was not meant that way or a myriad of other semi and full fledged attacks)

As to the originator of the kerfunkle, bad frame, really bad frame...own it and move on.

And these posters you are talking about are not your enemies, nor per the frame of some here, feel threatened either. That is also an extremely damaging frame, and alienates allies, which that prof warned about.

I am a feminist, by actions not words, at this time in my life I could not do the job I did at one time, which opened doors to a whole profession. And I find your OP damaging to a movement, and it is one extremely bad frame defending one that is equally insulting.

Now, I am prepared for the personal attacks to come, as they have.

Oh and for clarity, not denying the concept...it exists, like racism...learn how AA dealt with the use of the N word...that is how you deal with this if this is such an insult. I would even offer, that since opening doors has become quite frankly gender independent, that has in effect gone that way still.

[boston bean]

38. oh, god, tell me again who was focusing on it?

This is how things get way twisted out of control.

Thanks for playing though.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Go on and play along

If you do not like my perception of it, or find it threatening...might I suggest the ignore button? That way you won't have to read my insulting stuff.

[boston bean]

48. i don't use ignore, thank you.

I'll continue reading your "stuff", if I like.

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. Good...that is nice, I guess

[seabeyond]

40. yes, these men on du focused on the doors to trivialize feminism. you got it just right.

[polly7]

41. It wasn't just the men who found your doors example ridiculous. nt.

[boston bean]

44. so you found it ridiculous. so?

What I found ridiculous was the freaking response to it.

And not only ridiculous, but mean spirited and oh wait, I'll say it SEXIST!

[polly7]

52. So? I have a right to respond, as a woman .... to anything that

I'm being told I 'should' find sexist. No??? It seems that only some women's opinions should count here.

The response was expected. When you see something so ridiculous put out there, people are going to respond. The hostile, OTT, insulting replies to those who found the whole door example even just odd, were pathetic.

LOL SEXIST! for not agreeing that holding open a door for a woman is sexist.

[boston bean]

55. And I speak for me! AS a WOMAN! I'm one too! Whoop dee doo!

The response to it was SEXIST.

[polly7]

58. Nah ......... the response to it wasn't sexist at all.

In fact, most of the responses were well-thought out, courteous replies and reasoning people gave for showing kindness, ie holding open a door, to any human being.

[boston bean]

70. To you. Not to me.

To me, they were a freakin laugh riot in a not good way. Taking small subthread turning it into a GD flamefest, men taking it personal, women defending men from a simple feminist idea, was SEXIST.

People who hold feminism in such low regard, I assume to be not feminists and possibly sexist, man or woman.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. I will compare creds here

How many doors to male dominated fields have you personally busted?

[boston bean]

82. many, god damnit, but I'm on an anonymous board and i don't discuss

in detail my private life.

Go, compare you creds with someone else. I think you're wrong, ok. No big deal.

[nadinbrzezinski]

87. I think you are alienating allies

Or potential allies.

[boston bean]

96. I certainly get the feeling some are trying to alienate democrats from feminists.

That's for sure.

[nadinbrzezinski]

102. So now we switch into victim mode?

That's a cool story there.

No dear, that is you. If somebody even slighty disagrees with you, you gals go on the attack. When tables turn you do what you are doing right now.

Yup, my prof (a feminist) warned us back then that the movement was splintering due to these tactics.

Congrats.

[boston bean]

110. You just said I was making you one by alienating you.

I'm not into victimhood, my responses should show you that.

I don't find any splintering of any feminists who understand the damned ideas. This is simply a case of a strawman being created to tar and feather feminists.

It was an abstract. It wasn't the end all be all of feminists alienating all you good feminists here on DU who would like to tar and feather anyone who dare broach the subject in any way, and twist and turn, every little thing to make feminists out to be the bad ones.

I'm not victim, consider me one of the bad ones. I don't give a crap.

[nadinbrzezinski]

120. We are not talking ideas anymore

But what you gals do when anybody slightly disagrees.

Have an excellent day.

I see any criticism will go onto a black hole. Quite brutally honest, don't feel like wasting my time, but do consider this...alienating allies is never good.

And assuming people are ignorant of a concept because they disagree with your frame is a good, even excellent way, to shut down debate and push allies away. It's scary when you see paragraphs in dusty old textbooks come alive in front of you.

They have...

Wow!!!

Good bye.

[boston bean]

125. You were never talking about the idea.

You along with others, like to make it about a door.

[ljm2002]

213. "We are not talking ideas anymore"...

..."But what you gals do when anybody slightly disagrees".

Do you not recognize that your language here is divisive, at the same time you accuse the women you disagree with on this issue to be splintering the feminist cause?

Oh, and also, condescending.

[nadinbrzezinski]

216. Comes after being accused and their use of divisive language

I called attention to it, since yes...they are alienating people.

To the point that I would not walk the streets with them. And that has been done by them.

[boston bean]

217. I'd walk down the street with you for liberal causes.

Of which feminism is one.

[nadinbrzezinski]

219. Well that is nice

As my instructor put it, careful of alienating potential allies

[boston bean]

221. Your thoughts on this are anathema to how I feel about this whole debacle.

However, I wouldn't hold it against you in fighting the good fight.

Difference I guess. Who, again, is the one doing the alienating?

[nadinbrzezinski]

226. You misunderstand, I will continue to fight for things like the ERA

Just not with people who do turn on a dime on allies on the slightest of disagreements and will attack and when called on it...

So that is that.

And no, I am not alone. If this was just me...ok...it happens. But you gals are alienating more than a few of us. Chew on that.

[boston bean]

228. Ok, I think it's clear that it is you who is alienating potential allies.

Going as far as they wouldn't be welcomed to protest with you for the ERA... I am laughing my butt off!

There really isn't much more to say is there?

[nadinbrzezinski]

230. Really...re-read the thread

And I am not saying you are not welcomed...interpret this as you will...but the movement fractured as early as the 1980s...this thread is textbook as to why.

I am actually telling you, that you gals are doing it...not us. A couple of us even tried...but I guess it is a dark hole. It absorbs all info, which I guess in this case is destroyed at the event horizon.

This reminds me, used to lurk in the forum, will not bother any longer.

[boston bean]

231. LOL. this is almost too much.

Not even worth a response. Everyone can read your words.

[ljm2002]

233. Well feminists have always been accused...

...of "alienating people". As were the civil rights activists and the LGBT activists, etc. In fact anyone to whom a particular issue is important, is likely to alienate some people.

You seem to think the idea of "benevolent sexism" is a side issue, not a "real" issue. Others (myself included) believe that the socially accepted and imposed attitudes are at the very root of sexism and cause many of the "real" issues.

I have not followed all these discussions over the last two days, just catching up now. But in this thread I did not see you being "accused", and I note your own use of divisive language, to wit:

"and their use of divisive language"

"they are alienating people"

"I would not walk the streets with them"

"that has been done by them"

How is the above not divisive language? pot. kettle. black.

[nadinbrzezinski]

239. You seem to think

Any other stupid statements? It's real...PBS this morning had a very relevant, a few of them actually, examples.

As to the movement...it broke, splintered as early as the 1980s...that's a fact jack, you can take it to the bank.

You are doing the classics as to why.

You seem to think, ergo you are not one of us...well som of us have been kicking doors open.

You are accusing us...core activists have been fracturing and alienating allies, once again since the 1980s, at least, and purity purges have been ongoing.

So finally, some of us had it. The slightest of disagreements are followed with personal attacks, and when called on it, turn on a dime, look at poor me.

Well, these tactics have become very counter productive. So sorry to say it...all feminism boards, that I used to lurk at, into my trash board they go...no need.

Have fun and continue to attack and alienate allies. This whole thing has been textbook, not surreal, text book.

[boston bean]

240. We believe in the same basic goals. If you are going to allow that

to prevent you from accepting allies who believe in the same goals as you. It's your problem.

[nadinbrzezinski]

242. Ah feels so good to trash all three groups

To think I once voted to form one.

[boston bean]

243. you splinterist! LOL nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

247. Not at all

Have a good day.

[boston bean]

248. bub bye! is it for real this time? nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

250. Keep dreaming on that

But keep attacking



At this point it is highly entertaining, and part of the tactics that have been backfiring

[boston bean]

252. You got an odd definition of "attack". I'm highly entertained as well.

Thanks for the laughs!

[nadinbrzezinski]

256. I am sure you do

Next you will turn this on the dime...that is the mo every time.

Chuckles.

[polly7]

251. LMFAO.

Do you think some of us don't remember what you 'feminists' did to one of our own? All of the ugly, sickening, disgusting crap you put her through to keep control of a fucking internet group? And here you are lecturing 'anyone' about allies?!? God, the irony is some of your posts is beyond hilarious .... it's freaky.

[boston bean]

261. Seems you've missed the point, yet again.

And derailing tactics are now again at play.

Your accusations aren't going to shut me up or put me in fear of speaking out. I have made amends as best I can with those involved. The apology in the feminists group was even meant for you. It's obvious that it was sufficient for you. I don't know what more I can do.

But one thing I won't do is not discuss feminist issues because you stalk me around DU with this same mantra to try to score some points.

[polly7]

265. Your year later apology so that you could play victim when someone reminded you of the

crap you dished out? Sorry, some of us didn't fall for it. It was waaaay too little, too late to make up for the damage you did, imo.

Who's trying to shut you up, and why are you always crying that someone is? You're insulting a woman who's stated she's been an activist much of her life as not valuing her allies. How DARE you.

Nobody stalks you, believe me. Sometimes the hypocrisy is just too much though, ya know???

[boston bean]

270. You stalk me with this in every single thread you and I have a discussion in.

it's always your last resort.

Good luck with it. It's old hat, it's over... Ok, it's over....

[polly7]

313. Last resort??

What are you yammering about? I'll call you on your hypocrisy every time I see it. My memory doesn't end when you want it to.

[nadinbrzezinski]

267. Well, at least you will be safe from me in the feminism group

I watched some of that, one reason I decided to just lurk.

Now they are in the trash bin, with gun nut central. I find that ironic.

[boston bean]

274. why would I need to be kept safe from you? nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

278. You made the comment on stalking

Not me...but that...that was ugly.

And what you are doing here, over really a very small disagreement, what frame to use...it is really, really, teeny...kind f use more or less vanilla...serious, you have been on the attack.

You guys really are bad about any criticism.

If you get that defensive over more or less vanilla, don't want to see how bad things will get over cinnamon or vanilla. (I expect accusations of sexism for using a cooking paradigm, but hey, I have that in my mind right now...it's gotta have to do with almond extract)

[boston bean]

282. Have you been stalking me and I didn't know it? LOL

[nadinbrzezinski]

284. Whoosh

Missed by a light year.

[boston bean]

285. woosh..

[zappaman]

286. "You guys really are bad about any criticism."

Says you?

[ljm2002]

255. "well som of us have been kicking doors open"...

...Why yes, many of us have done that, myself included. So please get off your high horse on that score.

Yes, some activists are pains. It seems to go with the territory. But that does not mean the issues are not real.

I take you at your word that you have been in the movement and experienced people who seemed intent on alienating their allies. At the same time, I will repeat: all of the progressive movements in this country have, at one time or another, been accused of alienating their allies, usually because they insist on pushing issues that those "natural allies" consider irrelevant.

[nadinbrzezinski]

257. Well, this thread is textbook

And I will leave it at that.

It's been textbook

[polly7]

130. 'Victim mode'. Always !!!! nt.

[boston bean]

135. That is a right wing framing of feminism. nt

[polly7]

136. No, it's just the truth.

Sometimes things are what they are.

[boston bean]

137. Nope, it is a right wing framing of feminism. nt

[polly7]

77. lmao. You can talk about flamefests.

People were discussing something that was brought up. You disapprove. Big deal. And why would anyone here care what you assume them to be?

[boston bean]

79. I don't disapprove of discussion taking place.

Are you disapproving of my discussion on the subject?

I thought it was ridiculous and sexist. I don't run or own DU.

[polly7]

88. Could'a fooled me! lol. nt.

[boston bean]

91. I suppose that was pretty easy to do. nt

[polly7]

95. Oh, ZING!!!!! nt.

[boston bean]

97. BAM! nt

[seabeyond]

124. kapow? lol. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

142. The reason men and women latched onto the door example is to avoid the point.

For many men and women, the definition of "benevolent sexism" is how they envision feminism.

[polly7]

143. You don't know that at all.

Many who 'latched onto' / 'chose to discuss' the door example were obviously genuine in their confusion it could even be an example of any sort of sexism, and were eloquent in providing their own reasons they would do as they stated. As much as some here are trying so hard to imply the whole door thing wasn't used as an example ........... it was! People replied.

Yes, I know perfectly well how many men and women envision feminism.

[lumberjack_jeff]

153. That strains credibility.

The studies, concepts, definitions and ramifications of benevolent sexism have been offered several times, yet the proliferation of "My mom raised me right... to pull out the chair for women, therefore I'm a feminist." threads spread like kudzu.

Here's the original offhand comment ACCOMPANIED BY A LONG EXCERPT FROM SCIENCE DAILY which included a very good explanation of the concept.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2511386

People are actively missing the point as if they had a large degree of privilege at stake.

[polly7]

157. There were hundreds of posts responding to the concept that holding

open a door was sexist that were genuine and well-meaning. People were questioning why it was even an issue. That doesn't strain credibility at all, and makes a hell of a lot more sense than using it as an example in the first place.

[lumberjack_jeff]

162. The posters collectively were responding to a concept of their own invention.

This whole thing has been a strawman, from the get-go.

THEY ALL WERE QUESTIONING WHY IT WAS EVEN AN ISSUE because "the issue" was ALWAYS expressed in exactly those terms.

We don't have any room to bitch about "the war on Christmas" because we have our own sacred cow that we're protecting from the straw-infidels.

[polly7]

218. Bullshit.

seabeyond (84,199 posts)
19. benevolent sexism would be holding the door open, pulling out a chair, ect...

Last edited Fri Mar 15, 2013, 09:39 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

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

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

Cross-national comparisons show that hostile and benevolent sexism go hand-in-hand (that is, nations that endorse hostile sexism also endorse benevolent sexism). The beliefs work together because benevolent sexism "rewards" women when they fulfill traditional roles whereas hostile sexism punishes women who do not toe the line, thereby working together to maintain traditional relations. In other words, act sweet and they'll pat you on the head; assert yourself and they'll put you in your place.

Numerous studies by various researchers document benevolent sexism's insidious effects. For example, when led to expect benevolently sexist help in a masculine workplace, women became unsure of themselves, got distracted, and consequently performed poorly.


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

[lumberjack_jeff]

260. Welcome to short attention span theater.

You just posted the full text of the link I gave you about an hour ago.

[polly7]

314. Eh ....... seeing the same old lies about what actually did or didn't start all of this

bored me. Did you include seabeyond's examples? I can't be bothered to go back and check, but I'm assuming .... no? I bolded it so it wouldn't be so easy to dismiss/ignore/lie about.

[Little Star]

203. yep

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. No they did not, it was such a bad frame

That me, a woman, found it beyond piddly and trivial.

It was a bad frame, own it and damn it...move on. We all do that from time to time.

[boston bean]

49. What I found piddly and trivial

was the trivialization of 'benevolent sexism'.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. Show me proof that the concept was trivialized

What was laughed out of the house was the frame used with it.

As my prof put it, sometimes hard core activist can be their own worst enemies, and attack allies...which your group has.

This has been textbook.

[boston bean]

63. oh my... hard core activist is someone giving a well known example

of benevolent sexism.

Is the idea of it RADICAL?!

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. A concept that is gender neutral

What part of gender neutral are you having an issue comprehending.

I open doors for anybody who needs a hand, so do the rest of my neighbors.

A generation ago you could still, somewhat, make that case.

Societies my dear do this thing called evolving.

[boston bean]

76. The idea that a woman only needs the door held for them, is sexist.

That they are the weaker sex and need assistance and help in every day things, is sexist.

Try to extrapolate a little bit.. why don't ya.

Not every single time a door is held, is it sexist. Mostly it is a courtesy, and it was a freaking example. Did feminists and feminism on DU deserve the flame fest created by that simple statement. Well, maybe you think so. But I think that is when it truly turned sexist.

[nadinbrzezinski]

83. Alas that is not the interpretation any longer

Since we pretty much open doors for those behind us, gender independent. Or am I demeaning a man when I do that?

Once again, societies do this thing called evolve. Yiu might want to read into it.

[boston bean]

90. Ah, it was a simple response.

And yes, someone men do it only for women, and that would be sexist.

I don't really give a shit if a man holds a door for me or not. Really, not that big of a fucking deal.

However, the response to the simple idea of it was way off the charts and became sexist.

[nadinbrzezinski]

93. Women do that to men

Could be seen as equally sexist.

Gender neutral, try to read into the concept.

[boston bean]

99. I suggest you open your mind to the concept

of benevolent sexism. Does the mere thought of anyone speaking of it really alienate you?

[nadinbrzezinski]

106. I suggest the problem is real, I know the concept,

The frame used for it sucks, since it has evolved into pretty much gender neutral.

I would also suggest it's time to move on...and perhaps find a better, albeit perhaps less obvious frame, including a few recent adds for a certain cell phone.

[boston bean]

117. It was a god damned comment in a subthread about womens boobs.

Really, were the feminists who were alienating all you those good feminists on DU?

No, the real issue was the strawman, the flames, the riling up of others against those who label themselves feminists on this site.

The discussion of the issue revolved around doors by others, not feminists. Still here, in this thread which speaks very nicely to the concept, you keep bringing it back to doors. Well, here is a door for you. Hope this will satisfy any further inclination you will have to discuss doors with me.



You have something to say about the concept, let's hear it please.

[nadinbrzezinski]

126. Have a good day

I have said my last on this

Suffice it to say, you want a textbook current frame, nexus add for their cell phone. Now that is dripping with stereotypes and the concept. It is actually a good add to deconstruct to explain it. Chiefly, it's running on your tv right now.

[zappaman]

205. 'I have said my last on this"

No...it seems you haven't.
Congrats on starting yet another thread about this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022523026

[MattBaggins]

235. Why are you being an ass about it?

It is not gender always gender neutral and that is the whole point. Asking people to examine the very evolution of door opening and other human interactions is not radical. Exploring historical reasons for things is not bad.

Not everyone always opens the door for others. Some people still have the idea of opening doors for women rather than other people. I live in redneck country and some men still teach the sons to "never hit a lady". They don't say don't hit other people, just ladies. In some cases it is implied or is a follow up, but I know may who teach exactly that it doesn't apply to other boys and they are free to get into fights.

As a man I have no problem with examining the cultural norms that were imposed on me that may be an act of kindness but still reinforce old gender roles so that i don't impose them on my daughters. I will defend Seabeyonds use of door opening as an example. It is in fact a good example out of many on cultural conditioning that show the evolution of certain societal norms.

I can still open the door for others and be kind to people.

[nadinbrzezinski]

244. I love the attacks

Keep them coming...keep alienating.



At this point all that is left is calling you on the behavior.

[MattBaggins]

253. You are as guilty

of the behavior as anyone else in here.

[nadinbrzezinski]

273. Hmm hmm

[ronnie624]

159. I find it exceedingly bizarre,

that liberals and progressives can't see that opening a door for a woman, because she is a woman, is a valid example of the benevolent sexism, that is subtly woven into the fabric of human society. It is obvious on its face (to anyone open to introspection and listening to the views of others), that the implication is that women are helpless and incapable. It is clearly a form of sexism that is reinforced by exposure to our culture.

[redqueen]

183. And to have a few DUers calling the people trying to clarify that fact 'trolls'...

and accusing them of being divisive ...

Truly odd goings on.

[nadinbrzezinski]

194. What art of gender neutral are you also having a problem understanding?

[ronnie624]

200. My understanding is complete.

From your post:

"What was laughed out of the house was the frame used with it."

That is what I responded to.

Opening a door for a woman, because she is a woman, is a perfectly valid example of benevolent sexism. Many posters were re-framing that example (perhaps a bit dishonestly), in order to ridicule the arguments of others. I don't think such posters are consciously sexist, necessarily. I just think many people, including some on the 'left' (I hate using the limited American vernacular in describing political philosophy), are highly resistant to changing the things they have been taught by the people they love, since birth.

[nadinbrzezinski]

202. Because the frame does not work any longer

I am sorry this seems so hard to understand. It's become everybody opens them for everybody regardless of gender. You know why? Women started opening doors over a generation ago...and back then it was shocking and stuff.

[MattBaggins]

249. You just went and made the point we are making

it is an example of a tradition that has changed over time thus making it worthy of examining as an example of gender roles.

Just.. what.. we.. have.. been.. saying..

[nadinbrzezinski]

254. And you kept using a frame that no longer exists or works

This is a bad frame. This is the point some of us have made, why use a bad frame that was laughed out of town? Better admit it is a bad frame, use a good one and move on.

Finally, hallelujah, there might be hope after all.

[MattBaggins]

299. Historical frame works are excellent for

examining historical frame works. At least in my world.

[nadinbrzezinski]

300. It worked so well it was laughed out of town

Your mileage might vary.

[nadinbrzezinski]

303. Ah, back to attack mode.

I can't say this is unexpected. The MO must have worked at some point.

[MattBaggins]

304. You are not as clever as you imagine

Attacking seabeyond and making trying to make fun of her off the cuff definition was an asshole move was it not?

[nadinbrzezinski]

305. Ah stage three

I actually called it what it was, hazing...

But going from attack mode to victim mode...this has to be a damn record.

I also suggested in another thread the same exact thing I told her n this thread...apologize for a bad frame, use one that works...NPR had a series of them this morning, by the bushel actually, and move on.

Use frames that work to explain a real problem.

But you going to victim is again part of the modus operandi...it most have worked at some point. Some of us just chuckle at this point.

It is not cleverness by the way.

It is what you gals do...it's gotten old and predictable. I expect this observation to be...once again, destroyed at the event horizon.

Mull on this though...you gals are alienating allies who are just going...thank god you are not the all there is for a movement that truly needs people who know how not to alienate allies or go for purity ritual cleansings.

[MattBaggins]

306. You do think your clever

and I'm not a gal. But you know that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

309. My apologies.

But I am not passive agressive either.

I am being serious as can be...you are not helping yourselves.

Have a good one

[zappaman]

307. "I expect this observation to be...once again, destroyed at the event horizon."

Huh?

[MattBaggins]

245. It is not always gender neutral

you know that.

[lumberjack_jeff]

167. Easy.

Please link to a post in which you express your opinion about it, not about "holding doors" but about the phenomenon of benevolent sexism.

Surely you wouldn't demonstrate through action that you prefer to talk about the straw man instead of the real issue, would you?

[Little Star]

204. +1

[seabeyond]

51. it was examples and a definition. the reaction played many. you participate. i stand with the OP

i can agree to disagree on this. but, it is a mere examples and definition. no more. and no outrage. and no woman saying men should not hold doors open. all that was a lie. but, you do not have an issue with that.

[redqueen]

60. Yep. And that says it all, right there. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. Move on...at this point that is what you should do

And yes, I found it down right trivial and funny, not the concept, your example.

Why? Like many others have pointed out...it is pretty gender independent these days.

[seabeyond]

98. some people are willing to sit in a lie. i have never been willing to do that.

so, at this point, we will agree to disagree.

[redqueen]

134. What other progressive issues do we have to frame just so for other DUers?

Disagreement is one thing. People read the links which discussed the strong correlation between benevolent sexism and victim blaming and said they just disagree and that's understandable.

But since when did we start expecting other DUers to not read beyond a subject line, and to pretend ignorance after repeated explanations?

It's one thing to expect framing to affect a mostly unaware audience who can't be counted on to care about much beyond teevee and drinking and sex and buying more stuff.

But DUers? We are supposed to treat them like people we have to persuade to care about sexism?

[redqueen]

78. That's a very good question.

I'm sure you won't be surprised to get mostly denial, defensiveness, distraction, and blame shifting (if people don't understand, its obviously the feminists' fault)... despite these issues having been discussed by feminists for years, despite no one making this personal except those getting defensive, and despite repeated explanations.

At this point it is hard to believe that anyone could be honestly confused by any of this. Unless they just stumbled into a latter, silly game playing thread. But as we've seen, some persist with the point missing despite repeated explanations... so your question really is a good one.

I would direct it at both men and women, though. Plenty of women are also hostile to feminism.

[Z_I_Peevey]

121. It is an excellent question, and bears some relationship, I suspect,

to the thing that made Fred Phelps start Westboro Baptist Church and its gay-hating ministry.

Some things hit the mark so perfectly...well, to see them would be unthinkable.

[Little Star]

127. bingo

[Iggo]

144. I don't know why just acknowledging that it exists...

...gets treated as if it's an accusation. Interestingly enough, a similar thing happened during the recent discussions about white privilege. Anyway, I've got no answers. But it is fascinating watching it happen. I bet first year psych students would have a field day in this place.

[redqueen]

154. "a similar thing happened during the recent discussions about white privilege"

Heh, yes, what an utterly unsurprising similarity.

[marions ghost]

114. Why the outrage from progressive men?

Maybe the anger and resentment here stems from the mixed messages--ie. women want to have doors opened for them but they insist on other forms of equality. It causes some dissonance. There is less tolerance for ambiguity and contradictions maybe? Men DO know when they are being sexist. I assume (hope) most men around here don't perpetrate a lot of overt, blatant sexist behavior. So why be so defensive when subtle forms of sexism are pointed out?

How about the angry guy below--"Chivalry = the act of a self-deluded sucker." Should we adhere to old mores that cause resentment on the part of some women (and some men)? Can men be merely nice without adhering to notions of chivalry?

How about the last entry? Many travesties of justice, self-destruction, and the concealment and promotion of evil have come from the chivalry of fools. I think of the BFEE. Do progressive men NOT get the connection?

-----------------

From Urban Dictionary
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chivalry

chivalry

something that's dead and should stay dead.
Son: Daddy, why do I have to let her go first? she's a creep to everybody.

Dad: Because, when somebody has a certain chemical called estrogen in their body, they automatically deserve more respect than you. It's called chauvinism, I mean chivalry.

Son: BULLCRAP!!
buy chivalry mugs & shirts

2. chivalry

Something that people always say is dead, but no one seams to know what the hell died..
"Sarah likes Big Macs!"
"And they say Chivalry is dead.."

3. Chivalry

Something women complain is dead even though it cannot logically exist in an equal society, which is something women wanted. It's one or the other.

Jesse lamented about the death of chivalry while she lambasted the days when men oppressed women which was a time when chivalry was common. Makes perfect sense.
buy chivalry mugs & shirts
men women equality doublethink cognitive dissonance white knight

4. Chivalry

women killed it... they don't like when we are nice to them anymore (so fuck opening the doors, taking their jacket, or telling them they are beautiful)

haha, yes !
"Would you like to go to dinner?"
-later that evening while she is chillin with her girls-
"this guy asked me to dinner, i am just gonna say i am busy."

buy chivalry mugs & shirts
date dating girls chivalry nice bitch dick asshole slut

5. chivalry

Choosing to not rape a woman, just because you want to.
Me: "Hey, Jonathan, that bitch is fine."
Jonathan: "Yeah, but in the name of chivalry, we probably shouldn't rape her."
Me: "Yeah, you're right. Damn it."

buy chivalry mugs & shirts
rape women kindness courtesy appeal

6. chivalry

The act of a self-deluded sucker. Self-destructive self-sacrifice in favor of those seeking to exploit or destroy the practioner. Self-debasement to those seeking exploitive profit and lack of due recriprocation. Often stupidly misconstrued by those practicing as honorable or altuistic.

Many travesties of justice, self-destruction, and the concealment and promotion of evil have come from the chivalry of fools.
buy chivalry mugs & shirts
stupid self-destructive idiot moron sucker dupe con fool deluded evil

[lumberjack_jeff]

133. For some men, feminism is simply another name for chivalry.

"I'm doing what the nice lady wants, see?"

In a work crew of one man and one woman, chivalry dictates that you (as the supervisor) send him into the septic tank with the shovel. If your brand of feminism leads you to the same conclusion, a) it's not feminism and b) the benevolent sexism you're applying to the situation is indistinguishable from hostile sexism you're applying to the person you handed the shovel to.

And the woman in question? "I appreciate the "nice gesture' but this phenomenon shouldn't have anything to do with equal pay."

[Zorra]

138. Thanks, it's always refreshing when men express puzzlement over the same things we

are shaking our heads in disbelief about.

Sometimes it feels like we are trying to get the concepts of the components of gender equality through to Archie Bunker, the main character from an old TV show called "All in the Family".

[Ian David]

156. I think it crosses the line between fighting for a cause, and fighting just because.

Once someone starts to see male oppression every time someone holds a door open for them, they are no longer someone to be taken seriously.

[lumberjack_jeff]

160. That would be a good observation, IF there were a single person here that holds that view.

Reductio ad absurdum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

[Ian David]

172. Don't make me name names. n/t

[NaturalHigh]

220. Home run!

[TheBlackAdder]

161. Sexism trolling posts like this one show a gross level of immaturity.

There is a difference between men and women.

Men and women think differently and behave differently, on the whole.

I would like one person here to say that they always behave in a similar manner when they are 'with the guys' as they do when they are 'with the gals'. (The person who says "yes" is the same one who denies masturbation.) Even the slightest behavioral change disproves your case as you are changing behavior for the audience you are with. Changes could be your vocabulary, inflections, physical contact, comments, vulgarity, etc. Heck, you dress differently because of sexism.

Perhaps I am old school, but I have noticed with my most independent and feminist women friends, they still like to be treated like women and adorned most of the times. Having a few daughters, I am raising them to be independent (not dependent on any male), though no matter how I instill on them to be independent... they still are young adult women - gravitating to jewelry, cute things and feminine looks when going out. Regarding holding the door, a small subset of women might not like it... I have never had that feeling expressed to me in any form other than a smile and a "Thank you".

If there weren't sexual differences in this world, then things as simple as gender neutral clothing would be the norm.

===

Now, let's move onto the real issues regarding the sexes, such as equal pay, equal rights, equality of parenting time for divorced parents, giving women the same rights over their bodies as what is expected of a man's body, etc.

[whatchamacallit]

182. +1

[MadrasT]

209. "Sexism trolling posts like this one show a gross level of immaturity."

Pot. Kettle.

[TheBlackAdder]

225. "Pot. Kettle." is the pinnacle of childish.

What's next, a bunch of LOLZ?

[boston bean]

232. LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL. nt

was that too many, or just enough!?

LOL

[TheBlackAdder]

236. About the right amount. :-) nt

[Notafraidtoo]

325. You totally miss the point.

You are seeing what you want to see in my post,and not the point, I was trying to make statement about examining possible social teaching's that can have negative effects for the real issues you mentioned,Why close your mind and not challenge and discuss cultural beliefs?

Do you think everything is perfect culturally when it comes to how women are treated and viewed? should we not discuss all issues of feminism on a discussion board? or only the ones you find appropriate?


Its ok to say you don't agree but you are rather hostile and dismissive which really doesn't add to the discussion.

[TheBlackAdder]

327. I get your point, and I HAVE YOUR NUMBER! nt

[Apophis]

170. Some people like drama.

I've been trashing the threads because I don't want to see 4579 threads on the topic anymore.

My GD experience has been better for it.

[leeroysphitz]

171. Why are some feminists so upset with the reality that there are differences between sexes and

that this walking on eggshells is getting tiresome?

[whathehell]

175. Fail.

It's not what we're upset about.

Try again.

[leeroysphitz]

192. I hadn't realized you were the elected spokesperson. n/t

[whathehell]

258. Well, you learn something new everyday, don't you?

LOL.

[NaturalHigh]

178. Now you're in trouble.

Do you have an asbestos suit?

[treestar]

193. The sexes have a lot more in common than they do differences

The differences are only for reproductive purposes. So why do sexists focus only on that?

We are all people and all have ambition, desire to accomplish things, desire to be independent and strong, etc. We all want to create, live a full life. We can all be practice any profession or art, and contribute to any human endeavor. We all eat, exercise, breathe.

All of our bodily functions other than reproductive ones are the same. We have tow hands, ten fingers, two lungs, etc.

Why does only the one thing that is different (and it is different only for the same purpose, reproduction) have so much more importance that all of the commonalities?

[leeroysphitz]

196. Our differences go well beyond plumbing and are at least as important as

our similarities.

[treestar]

198. They do not

No other body parts are different.

It has been proven women want to do all the things men said they didn't want to do, from professions, to arts, to going up into space.

So men can't pop out babies. They can still take care of them after they are born.

[leeroysphitz]

206. They do.

And pretending that the things that make us unique do not exist is not going to help us achieve equality.

[boston bean]

212. Your type of reasoning is what will prevent it from happening. nt

[bettyellen]

179. Tks! But your reasonable post is addressed to those who just love making fun of this

They pretend all day long if you just used another example or explain things in a nicer way - then they'd have an open mind and discuss it civilly.
It's bullshit- they enjoy venting at feminists and derailing their discussions with nonsense. Many have hilarious personal anecdotes about an individual woman that pissed them off. One was actually harboring a grudge over a "no thanks" about opening a door! Many others at women choosing "alphas" instead of them. Their personal issues with women are largely the root of their contentious behavior. And their contentious behavior is surely not improving things. After you've heard their complaints, seem like wounded children. Angry they didn't get the approval or affection they felt was due them.

[madmom]

184. So what do we call women who treat other women differently? We

all know the type. Women who go out of their way to denigrate other women, just for sport, or even to get ahead. Some even treat them differently because they see them as weaker. What do we call them?

[TheBlackAdder]

187. The 'Working Mom' versus 'Stay At Home Mom' rivalry comes to mind. nt

[treestar]

191. Equal opportunity jerks

They see other women as competition, just like men.

[MadrasT]

210. Also sexist.

"Sexism" doesn't require that it be applied to a gender other than your own.

[treestar]

188. Great post

I think we can pull out our own chairs and open our own doors. I can get into the car myself, and even drive it.

IMO women could come a long way by taking auto care courses - they have auto tech in schools, and girls should be encouraged to learn to change tires and do the basics. It's silly to allow that to be an opening for claims of female weakness. I admit I don't change tires myself but really should learn or should have learned. I own the car, why not be able to do the basics?

We got rid of the bustle and the long skirts - we need to get rid of the high heels. They end up an excuse - they make us weaker.

[Comrade Grumpy]

215. I miss Meta.

[zappaman]

223. +1

How many more of these threads about the same topic are gonna clog up GD?

[darkangel218]

227. Im a woman and i cant do everything a guy does.

I welcome help if offered. It's not sexism. Just like women are better at nurturing. Both sexes have their atributes and things they excel at.

[boston bean]

229. Where did you learn this?

Serious question...

[darkangel218]

234. How about life experience??

I weigh $110 lbs. I need a man's help to lift stuff up. Im useless when it comes to fixing cars, home improvements, etc. It's nothing wrong with accepting we are different. We need each other, and that's all.

[boston bean]

237. Are you saying that you couldn't do these things if you chose to? nt

[darkangel218]

269. No i couldnt.

I'm too small to lift heavy things. It's a reality that needs to be embraced rather than called sexism. Differences are not sexism.

[boston bean]

272. How about women that choose to?

When one states these differences are innate they are limiting women's choices.

[darkangel218]

277. Thats up to them, but they dont speak for everyone.

Most women are just fine with guys helping with physical chores. It's not fuking sexism! As a matter of fact I would be pissed if a guy didn't help around the house and said, hey , you can do it yourself.

You're taking things to exteme, IMOHO.

[boston bean]

280. In essence though you are speaking for all women

when you state that there are biological reasons for this. And you are in a way keeping women in identifiable traditional roles.

That's the thing, you can be you it's great.

But with the argument you are making, you are including all women and are limiting them to certain roles.

[darkangel218]

287. Im not including all women, you are.

I say to each their own. I just find it over the top to call sexism if a man holds the door for you.

I've been hurt by men many times. I've been raped, cheated on, let down. But I don't hate men because of that. My dad was and is a wonderful human. Him and my mom have been married for over 40 years now. I will never judge or hold down the whole gender because of what happened to me. No gender is better than another, we are just different.

[boston bean]

290. I'm sorry darkangel, you spoke very broadly

Just like women are better at nurturing. Both sexes have their atributes and things they excel at.

You started off with a premise that there were wired differences re: nurturing and other things they excel at.

I see it different. If men were taught to be more nurturing, they would also be excellent nurturers. Many men are nurturing. It's not just the roles of women, but the roles of men as well, that need to be examined. And broad brush statements that it's basically something we are innately better at, is not helping equality, it is keeping inequality in place.

Just some food for thought. I am saying all this with respect.

[darkangel218]

292. If men were taught to nurture..

Of course anyone can change. I'm just speaking of how things are right now in our society.

I wasn't born here so excuse my mistakes. I grew up in Europe, and there was never a discussing I'd sexism or discrimination, when it came to a man helping out a woman. I don't know if you have traveled in Europe but most euro women are on the petit side. I don't know if this discussion pertains only to US women.. but even if it does, US is such a diverse country, it shouldn't matter.

Bottom line is both genders are different. Both genders can be trained to achive what the other gender is ( born with ) skills(ed). There is no need to call out sexism in this situation.

IMOHO.

[seabeyond]

318. interesting. i did not realize

you were from europe. and yes, it is addressed differently.

the thing about nurturing is girls from day one are also taught. no more instinctual. they are taught with dolls and examples from mothers, older sisters, friends and society as a whole.

whereas men are taught they are not nurturers from day one from lack of dolls, role play, example of fathers and brothers, society as a whole.

the more we get away from societal conditioning, the more we see men are equally nurturing.

this lesson was not hard for me. i have two brothers that always lived in an environment of non gender roles with this issue growing up. and they are bother very nurturing. they also both raised their kids because of issues with mothers that were disconnected with the kids. lack of nurturing.

there was a study of women that did not have the same upper body strength doing jobs that required strength. it found that women became equal to peer male employees because they were clever enough to come up with unique ways to handle the challenge. so though they may not have had the upper body strength, they implemented the brain that allowed them to accomplish the job just as successfully.

[lumberjack_jeff]

266. They make pink wrenches and hammers.

Just sayin'.

[darkangel218]

275. Yah i know. i got one for xmas :/

[IMG][/IMG]

[lumberjack_jeff]

263. "... It's not sexism. Just like women are better at nurturing..."

[JI7]

320. i'm a woman and i can't do everything some other women can do , there are things i can do that guys

can do also.

[MoclipsHumptulips]

238. Ever been to the Men's forums here?

be prepared...

[polly7]

241. For what? nt.

[lumberjack_jeff]

262. Please educate us.

None of your eight posts have been in the men's group (of which there is only one).

[opiate69]

289. but I have been to Moclips/Humptulips though.. recently even.. got some nice razor clams last weeken

Not exactly an area that I would imagine being full of any type of feminists or progressives though...

[lumberjack_jeff]

293. Good for you, wasn't last weekend the last clam tide of the year?

I thought the only open beaches this year were south of Westport.

Moclips/Humptulips is what I think of when I hear the word "rural".

[opiate69]

294. thanks.. made an awesome white sauce with them..

I read in the paper that the State has tentatively scheduled another dig for the last weekend in March.. 4 days north of the harbor and I think just Friday and Saturday down by Grayland... but that`s also my anniversary weekend (yes we got married on April fools day lol) so I`m not sure if I`ll be making it down... beautiful area though.. if I ever come into some money I would buy a place out there in a heartbeat.

[lumberjack_jeff]

297. Property is pretty cheap, but you gotta BYOE (bring your own employment)

I know of 8 acres with a cabin and a steelhead river running through the middle of it for about $110k.

[opiate69]

302. Holy shit! Dont tell my wife about that.. she`ll be making it happen hell or highwater lol

[Rex]

246. You know, some people don't like you to hold the door for them.

Nice story bro!

[Vinnie From Indy]

264. I propose that we all fight to get Congress to pass

"The Automatic Door Opener Authorization Act of 2013" .

Cheers!

[NaturalHigh]

283. Maybe after the sequester is over.

[lumberjack_jeff]

271. There is a very good case to be made that treating the genders differently IS sexism. n/t

[NaturalHigh]

291. In a thread that said that men who like big boobs are sexist...

a reply said that opening doors for women is "benevolent sexism." Of course jokes were made about it. Can you blame anyone for joking about two ridiculous concepts?

[NaturalHigh]

310. I haven't seen that...

but I can't say it surprises me. Sort of makes all the "you men" comments look silly.

[dogknob]

316. I live in Orange County and I definitely do not like how I am treated and viewed culturally here.

Does that mean I can start 10,000 "discussions" where all viewpoints that differ from my own are met with open hostility and abusive language?

Cool.

[McDiggy]

326. Its just the 2010s...a transitionary period...

Men are confused. As they should be. Feminism did a great thing for increasing opportunity for women, but an egalitarian movement needs to emerge from it that now addresses increasing female responsibility. When men are the only ones that legally have to sign up for the draft, it sends a signal that their lives aren't as important and that they are disposable. When men are still expected to display an act of submission when proposing marriage, it sends a signal they they need to beg for a mate. These discrepancies are still at the forefront of society and sending mixed signals.

In the post feminist world, young men just do not know their role in it. It why only 40% of college degrees go to men now. Feminism has neglected them and only a true egalitarian movement can help them find the empowerment to go their own way away from the mores of Victorian/chauvinist behavior. I know that mocking the mens rights movement is en vouge on here, but at some point, you have to look at the low male college degree rate and realize that some of their points may have merit. And that young men today need help in finding their own self actualization.