4 ms·

Hmm, to me the problem is the question of _why_ a man would do that "nice gesture" for the woman. To me, if you don't have reason to be doing it besides "she's

by vzidex 6y ago

Hmm, to me the problem is the question of _why_ a man would do that "nice gesture" for the woman. To me, if you don't have reason to be doing it besides "she's a woman", it smacks that the gesture is being done because she's inferior based on her gender (or at least, that's what's being implied).

mpfundstein 6y ago
come on. dont be stupid. i jist wanted tk be nicr. btw i just confirmed with my wife. being a gentleman scored me a lot of points she says.. so call me sexist as much as you want :-) i already won . jk
wreath 6y ago
You're reading too much into it I'm afraid.
cgriswald 6y ago
It could also imply she’s thought superior based on gender and the man is showing submission. The problem is the interpretation of an action to automatically imply a certain mode of thought. None of us have access to the thoughts of others and holding a door open or saying “ladies first” is not ipso facto indicative of a misogynist view; especially among people who were taught it is good manners.
- mmsimanga 6y ago
  Good catch. Parent brought in the word inferior.
- vzidex 6y ago
  > it could also imply she's thought superior based on gender From talking to the women in my life, that would also be bad. They've told me that being treated as "superior" for their gender makes them feel that the rest of who they are - their accomplishments, knowledge, skills, etc. - is invalidated. > saying "ladies first" is not ipso facto indicative of a misogynist view You're right, but saying "ladies first" makes many women feel patronized - not a good thing. > especially among people who were taught it is good manners I'd say to those people: even if you learned that "ladies first" is good manners, that doesn't mean it still is. It's important to listen to the people around you to hear how they want to be treated, and what we're arguing in this thread is that women these days don't want to hear "ladies first" because - as stated before - it makes them feel patronized.
  - cgriswald 6y ago
    > They've told me that being treated as "superior"... You've mistaken an example for the concept. I chose the example to show that we have so much choice in how we interpret actions that can easily make the same action imply intentions that are polar opposites. I didn't choose it as an example of a positive interpretation. The point is that the interpretation of an action is separate from the action which itself is separate from the intention behind the action. > You're right, but saying "ladies first" makes many women feel patronized - not a good thing. Do you think I don't also talk to women about their feelings? Your comment comes across as patronizing. It suggests women lack emotional maturity and they need you to speak for them. Object to an action on its merits, not on your perceived view of how women feel. > I'd say to those people: even if you learned that "ladies first" is good manners, that doesn't mean it still is. This is how some types of abusive relationships play out: 1. Interpret a behavior in the worst possible way. 2. Feel badly about it. 3. Blame the other person. 4. Demand some type of behavior from the other person so you don't feel badly. I think there would be some merit in objecting to "ladies first" as sexist. It is inherently sexist, although not necessarily misogynistic. (Holding a door open, on the other hand, is not sexist per se.) But objecting to "ladies first" based on third hand accounts of someone's interpretation of another person's intent is weak, convoluted, and utterly unconvincing. Edit: List formatting.
    - mpfundstein 6y ago
      if ladies first is sexist, i would like to ask you: is affirmative action policy inherently racist?

by vzidex 6y ago

mpfundstein 6y ago

come on. dont be stupid. i jist wanted tk be nicr. btw i just confirmed with my wife. being a gentleman scored me a lot of points she says.. so call me sexist as much as you want :-) i already won . jk

wreath 6y ago

You're reading too much into it I'm afraid.

cgriswald 6y ago

It could also imply she’s thought superior based on gender and the man is showing submission. The problem is the interpretation of an action to automatically imply a certain mode of thought. None of us have access to the thoughts of others and holding a door open or saying “ladies first” is not ipso facto indicative of a misogynist view; especially among people who were taught it is good manners.

mmsimanga 6y ago
Good catch. Parent brought in the word inferior.
vzidex 6y ago
> it could also imply she's thought superior based on gender From talking to the women in my life, that would also be bad. They've told me that being treated as "superior" for their gender makes them feel that the rest of who they are - their accomplishments, knowledge, skills, etc. - is invalidated. > saying "ladies first" is not ipso facto indicative of a misogynist view You're right, but saying "ladies first" makes many women feel patronized - not a good thing. > especially among people who were taught it is good manners I'd say to those people: even if you learned that "ladies first" is good manners, that doesn't mean it still is. It's important to listen to the people around you to hear how they want to be treated, and what we're arguing in this thread is that women these days don't want to hear "ladies first" because - as stated before - it makes them feel patronized.
- cgriswald 6y ago
  > They've told me that being treated as "superior"... You've mistaken an example for the concept. I chose the example to show that we have so much choice in how we interpret actions that can easily make the same action imply intentions that are polar opposites. I didn't choose it as an example of a positive interpretation. The point is that the interpretation of an action is separate from the action which itself is separate from the intention behind the action. > You're right, but saying "ladies first" makes many women feel patronized - not a good thing. Do you think I don't also talk to women about their feelings? Your comment comes across as patronizing. It suggests women lack emotional maturity and they need you to speak for them. Object to an action on its merits, not on your perceived view of how women feel. > I'd say to those people: even if you learned that "ladies first" is good manners, that doesn't mean it still is. This is how some types of abusive relationships play out: 1. Interpret a behavior in the worst possible way. 2. Feel badly about it. 3. Blame the other person. 4. Demand some type of behavior from the other person so you don't feel badly. I think there would be some merit in objecting to "ladies first" as sexist. It is inherently sexist, although not necessarily misogynistic. (Holding a door open, on the other hand, is not sexist per se.) But objecting to "ladies first" based on third hand accounts of someone's interpretation of another person's intent is weak, convoluted, and utterly unconvincing. Edit: List formatting.
  - mpfundstein 6y ago
    if ladies first is sexist, i would like to ask you: is affirmative action policy inherently racist?