|
|
Post by Lemon Bloody Cola on Aug 17, 2010 19:58:51 GMT
Lets discuss WHERE YOU DRAW THE LINE and also our attitudes to the concept of chivlary in general.
Here's a scinario based somewhat in my real experiences; a female friend is carrying a big heavy bag. Now even a sedentary weakling like me as a 6'whatever male is stronger physically than the majority of females (that I've met anyway! I've just opening myself up to get my ass whipped in arm wrestling challenges with that comment), so I offer to carry it. They get sniffy and refuse feeling patronised. Now this seems ILLOGICAL and REACTIONARY the simple fact that you might be physically stronger than someone based on biological factors neither of you have any choice over does not make the other person in anyway inferior; they're no doubt stronger and superior to you in other ways and if they're a pal or a good girlfriend they'll no doubt end up proping you up at least once thanks to those gifts. Though I respect the semi-hypothetical chick in questions choice and I wouldn't dream of giving her shit for it, deep inside I am peeved.
I think people who care about each other should just look out for each other and yeah as a man biologically the idea of taking care of your lady is a notion that feels agreeable.
Basically... I'm all for progressism and ending the stupid pressures on girls and boys to conform and live to certain ridiculous "one size fits all" gender standards and norms. But I think rejecting every norm simply because it IS an established norm is blinkered and reactionary as knee jerk opposition to change.
Sincere non-mainpulative gentlemanly behaviour is just dandy, as is chicks being soft, caring and vulnerable if that's what comes naturally to them or hell mix it up, flip-reverse.. whatever makes you happy. But lets not toss the baby out with the bath water in the process of social change.
|
|
|
|
Post by husbandwifeheroin on Aug 17, 2010 20:14:23 GMT
Sometimes I feel that people (both genders) misconstrue politeness such as helping with a package, or holding open a door, or offering to pay for something as sexist (Tara, this sounds like it's aimed at you; I assure you it isn't, it's just examples of such scenarios). If offered help by a person, regardless of gender, I take it as a show of philanthropy. Of course there's being polite and being patronising but that's a matter of being a female reproductive organs not if you have one or not.
Do any male members of this board feel like they can't do such an act for fear of being accused of misogyny?
|
|
|
|
Post by lastgoodbye on Aug 17, 2010 20:17:55 GMT
This is an interesting topic.
1. To take your bag-carrying example - It may be that you're stronger and more physically capable than her, yes. But let's say you and I lived together, and you were baking a cake, perhaps struggling a little, and I came into the FUCKING fdfghjkKITCHEn and said "Would you like me to just take over?", because I am much better at cake baking than you. How would you feel? Just because you are more capable than someone else at carrying out a task doesn't always mean that it makes sense for you to take over, or that they will want you to, or that they won't feel slightly offended/patronised by the offer.
2. Also, you've said she was carrying a big heavy bag, but you haven't actually said that she was struggling with it. Personally I find it a pretty thin line between feeling greatful for assistance and being patronised, and whether I actually need assistance is often the line. You being more able than somebody doesn't automatically = them being incapable, or even a little bit struggly /feeling like they need help.
3. If your physically weaker male friend was walking next to you, carrying a big heavy bag, then would you offer to carry it for him? Honestly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lemon Bloody Cola on Aug 17, 2010 20:21:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sarah on Aug 17, 2010 20:24:16 GMT
i think you've summed it up josh, it makes sense for someone stronger to offer help to someone having a hard time carrying something, doesn't matter the gender. WHAT ABOUT PAYING BILLS, if a male offered to pay the bill in a restaurant would you be offended
|
|
|
|
Post by husbandwifeheroin on Aug 17, 2010 20:27:43 GMT
I've always been brought up with 'you pay for your meal unless it's your birthday/you've graduated/something special'. I wouldn't be offended, I'd just say I'll pay for myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lemon Bloody Cola on Aug 17, 2010 20:35:13 GMT
This is an interesting topic. 1. To take your bag-carrying example - It may be that you're stronger and more physically capable than her, yes. But let's say you and I lived together, and you were baking a cake, perhaps struggling a little, and I came into the FUCKING fdfghjkKITCHEn and said "Would you like me to just take over?", because I am much better at cake baking than you. How would you feel? Just because you are more capable than someone else at carrying out a task doesn't always mean that it makes sense for you to take over, or that they will want you to, or that they won't feel slightly offended/patronised by the offer. Good point! Well you're my best friend so you're well aware of my problems with simple day to day tasks due to my dyspraxia/aspegers etc and I'd be glad of you helping me in theory. Though I conceed it's really all about how the help is offered. As a person considered "disabled" by society being patronised is something I'm well aware of. I feel dead shitty when my Mum and step Dad are discussing food and they're all "what's Josh going to have?" like I'm not there ala a retard or five year old... and I'm like.. yeah I can't cook but I'm perfectly capable of going to the co-op and buying something to heat up or going to the chippie, man. So yeah.. it's all about how you approach it. I don't want to feel I'm taking advantage of people by not pulling my weight in my areas of difficulity so try and do my share. But communicated corretly I think I'd be aware of division of labour, for each to his ability/need etc. So in short I'd stick to the washing up.. 2. Also, you've said she was carrying a big heavy bag, but you haven't actually said that she was struggling with it. Personally I find it a pretty thin line between feeling greatful for assistance and being patronised, and whether I actually need assistance is often the line. You being more able than somebody doesn't automatically = them being incapable, or even a little bit struggly /feeling like they need help. Another good point  [/QUOTE]3. If your physically weaker male friend was walking next to you, carrying a big heavy bag, then would you offer to carry it for him? Honestly.[/quote] Well I don't know many males weaker than me but yeah.. when I worked in autism support some of the people I worked with had even worse motor/social skills than me.. and I'd give them a hand with practical stuff like shifting things. Yeah I was getting paid but I'd like to think.. yes if I see a male pal in difficuilty I'd give them a hand. |
|
|
|
Post by lastgoodbye on Aug 17, 2010 20:44:12 GMT
but the sort of really upsetting hassle women get on the street that I hear about on here just wouldn't happen if boys were brought up with a sense of chivalry these days. as a man, you're born with testorone and a sex drive a potential cocktail for aggressive, and managing those things honourablly in regards women is part of what being a man/adult is about. I don't buy this kind of talk at ALLLLLLL. In fact it offends me, a lot. As a women you're born with a sex drive too (shocking though this thought is...), but it doesn't drive women to 'hassle' men - and your 'potential cocktail for aggro' is not what drives men to hassle women, either. (Also, note how we're using hassle instead of attack, abuse, rape, degrade, control and so forth). In a nutshell, you're insinuating that this kind of negative behaviour in men is caused by their biology, and can be controlled by their socialisation (in your eyes, by men being taught to be chivalrous). I think that it has very little to do with biology, and that it's male socialisation as it currently stands which causes these kinds of (common) behaviours, men 'hassling' women. I also think that it's only a complete change in the way boys – in fact, all genders - are socialised (essentially a shift in our culture, also in the way women are viewed and portrayed, and yes, perhaps even the destruction of the patriarchy) which can bring an end to the routing 'hassling' of women, as we are politely putting it. Teaching men to be chivalrous... I can see where you're coming from, but it's so completely and utterly barking up the wrong tree. |
|
|
|
Post by lastgoodbye on Aug 17, 2010 20:45:20 GMT
Also SHIT, I'm sorry Josh, I accidentally deleted the rest of your reply to Anna, due to absent minded use of the quote/modify buttons  |
|
|
|
Post by irrelevant on Aug 17, 2010 20:51:17 GMT
ideally, in all troublesome carrying scenarios, the other person is holding two bags.
|
|
|
|
Post by helwin tins on Aug 17, 2010 20:57:58 GMT
but the sort of really upsetting hassle women get on the street that I hear about on here just wouldn't happen if boys were brought up with a sense of chivalry these days. as a man, you're born with testorone and a sex drive a potential cocktail for aggressive, and managing those things honourablly in regards women is part of what being a man/adult is about. I don't buy this kind of talk at ALLLLLLL. In fact it offends me, a lot. As a women you're born with a sex drive too (shocking though this thought is...), but it doesn't drive women to 'hassle' men - and your 'potential cocktail for aggro' is not what drives men to hassle women, either. (Also, note how we're using hassle instead of attack, abuse, rape, degrade, control and so forth). In a nutshell, you're insinuating that this kind of negative behaviour in men is caused by their biology, and can be controlled by their socialisation (in your eyes, by men being taught to be chivalrous). I think that it has very little to do with biology, and that it's male socialisation as it currently stands which causes these kinds of (common) behaviours, men 'hassling' women. I also think that it's only a complete change in the way boys – in fact, all genders - are socialised (essentially a shift in our culture, also in the way women are viewed and portrayed, and yes, perhaps even the destruction of the patriarchy) which can bring an end to the routing 'hassling' of women, as we are politely putting it. Teaching men to be chivalrous... I can see where you're coming from, but it's so completely and utterly barking up the wrong tree. perfect post florence. exa... oh wait. |
|
|
|
Post by lastgoodbye on Aug 17, 2010 21:09:06 GMT
Also also, in response to your most recent post - I think you're kind of confusing the debate by bringing disabilities into it. I know I can't exactly say 'imagine you didn't have dyspraxia!', so it's hard to give an example... Imagine you were writing a poem for a friend, and I, superior poem writer that I am (  ), walked in and said "Ah, look at you, shall I do it for you?" But these examples are getting further away from the original scenario, I know. I'm just trying to transmit the sense of being... belittled, patronised, when offered help for no good reason apart from 'I'm a man and I'm physically more capable and here to protect you from exertion and harm!" You see, me offering you help baking cos you're my best friend and you're dyspraxic is quite a valid reason (so shit example). Also, you helping a bloke to carry something... because they have worse motor skills than you (and you have been employed to help them out) is another completely valid reason. What I was meaning to imply with that example is that one of your male mates might have their pride hurt by you highlighting the fact that you're bigger and better at bag carrying at them, and they would think "does he think I'm so weak I can't carry my own bag!?" Well, girls can think that, too. Quite simply, someone being 'more able' than me to do a task is NOT a reason for them to offer to take over, as it implies that I myself am not capable – flawed logic. This applies for the meal-paying, too. Personally I would never let a boyfriend pay for my meal unless we had a "you pay it all this week, I pay it next week" thing mapped out. Men paying for their gf's meals stems directly from the idea of men being The Breadwinner, and women being economically helpless (and subsequently, economically controlled). Even if you ARE richer than me, Mr..... it doesn't mean that I'm so poor I can't afford my own meal. That doesn't = that, it doesn't mean I need your aid. You see? Also, don't even get me started on things like men pulling chairs out for women. If anyone ever pulled my chair out for me as we sat down for dinner I would run a mile. |
|
|
|
Post by Lemon Bloody Cola on Aug 17, 2010 21:15:45 GMT
I don't buy this kind of talk at ALLLLLLL. In fact it offends me, a lot. As a women you're born with a sex drive too (shocking though this thought is...), but it doesn't drive women to 'hassle' men - and your 'potential cocktail for aggro' is not what drives men to hassle women, either. (Also, note how we're using hassle instead of attack, abuse, rape, degrade, control and so forth). With all respect I think you're reading a little too much into my choice of words. I was thinking along the lines of wolf whistles/crude comment etc and while most of your choices of wording fit that perfectly. I just thought "hassle" was the best description to use lingustically, isn't the general term for such things "street hassle"? Of course women's sex drives are equal to that of men and women can be sexually aggressive too but biologically testoeone is a more likely to spark aggression than estrogen. As a man testoreone is relased in both sexual and violent situations, that has to have some significance. Statistics show that overwhelming men are more likely to be commit sexually abusive acts that females... though we may disagree on the reasons behind that, leading neatly to.. In a nutshell, you're insinuating that this kind of negative behaviour in men is caused by their biology, and can be controlled by their socialisation (in your eyes, by men being taught to be chivalrous). Indeed I am. in fact, all genders - are socialised You state this like a fact, when in reality it's just a theory. I believe the field of sociology supports this. But sociology like psychologically is not an emperical science but a theoretical one, and a popular theory is still just that. Personally while I believe socialisation has an important role to play in the gender conventions and expectations that exist. I'm personally in agreement with the "men and women have inate biological and neurological differences. Seperate but equal" lobby, though I don't think it's as ridged and black and white as that sounds. Gender and sexuality is a broad spectrum. Teaching men to be chivalrous... I can see where you're coming from, but it's so completely and utterly barking up the wrong tree. What's your solution? To change the mechanics of the society and therefore the process of socialisation? A noble goal and one I support but it'll take generations of striving for, mean while in the "now" of day to day street and houses thousands of women are abused and mistreated by men. If stressing the values of chivlary helps prevent that at all, I don't see how it could be a bad thing. |
|
|
|
Post by sarah on Aug 17, 2010 21:22:51 GMT
explain the last thing florence? granted it is a bit cheesey but like, they're just doing a nice gesture. if a girl did it would it matter? don't waiters do that in general in fairly "upmarket" places? i don't know, i understand about the patronising YOU CANNOT DO THIS SO I WILL DO IT FOR YOU thing but generally that's not the reason people do that kind of thing. people don't buy other people presents because YOU HAVE NO MONEY YOU CANNOT AFFORD IT SO I HAVE TO DO IT FOR YOU, you do it because it's a nice thing to do for someone.
also on chivalry, i think sometimes that gives girls the impression they don't have to do anything ever and want everything handed to them on a plate and be treated like princesses for no reason, that they shouldn't be the ones that ever do any "kind gestures" or whatever (not just for guys, but anyone) if that makes sense. just teach EVERYONE to be polite and down to earth, and not be a dick, problem solved.
|
|
|
|
Post by helwin tins on Aug 17, 2010 21:24:50 GMT
i refuse to get involved in this because there's just too much ridiculousness and offensiveness coming from josh's posts, and florence is holding the corner very well. i just wanted to register my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by irrelevant on Aug 17, 2010 21:25:30 GMT
in the scenario from the original post, would it be expected that she'd refuse help picking things up had she dropped the bag and all the contents spilled all over the street? or would she expect help, and consequently get mad if none was given? all help is not created equal?
what if the person in question is your still-able-bodied mother? have any of you ever convinced her to carry less/would you entertain the thought? do the rules still apply? any double standards to be aware?
does this require a lot of thinking? i've never had a particular thought process about this in real life, only going with what felt natural so i can't say i don't find most of this a bit groan-inducing. also, florence, i don't really know if most people would be comfortable with the degree of tact your example questions exhibit when offering help, not 'taking over'.
|
|
|
|
Post by sarah on Aug 17, 2010 21:30:49 GMT
joeb is right, it's just a case of being nice, if someone is having trouble with something i would automatically want to help and give a solution for it, if they tell me to back off i would back off. no need to over think things
|
|
|
|
Post by Lemon Bloody Cola on Aug 17, 2010 21:40:12 GMT
I'm going to post my inital responce to Anna that Florence accidently deleted in order to keep my full argument in context. Sometimes I feel that people (both genders) misconstrue politeness such as helping with a package, or holding open a door, or offering to pay for something as sexist (Tara, this sounds like it's aimed at you; I assure you it isn't, it's just examples of such scenarios). If offered help by a person, regardless of gender, I take it as a show of philanthropy. Of course there's being polite and being patronising but that's a matter of being a female reproductive organs not if you have one or not. Do any male members of this board feel like they can't do such an act for fear of being accused of misogyny? I wouldn't go that far, but I'd more be worried that she'd think I was hitting her or something and be like... oh get away you freak. There's a general feeling that all of the answers to the day to day discrimination women face come in looking to the future and most of them do. However I believe the sort of really up setting hassle/abuse I hear about on here (women being wolf whistled at, leered at on the street etc) wouldn't happen quite as often if chivlary was still installed in men at a young age. You might say "hey.. why not just teaching people, male or female not to be complete c-units?" well.. the difference is men have a sex drive and testoreone, which can be a cocktail for aggression and an important part of being a man/adult is learning to handle that honourably in regards the opposite (or perhaps the same) sex. |
|
|
|
Post by wanderer on Aug 17, 2010 21:51:16 GMT
I skim-read this thread and decided I was going to post my weird theories of sexism…bearing in mind I am knocked into tomorrow by caffeine, chocolate & alcohol. I will also add that some of my wording may not be ‘politically correct’ but I don’t mean it in any offensive way…the only person I have hard feelings to is myself!
I think the world is a bit mixed up at the moment. It’s coming out of being sexist and hasn’t really got to grips with equality yet. We can’t blame it, it’s confused.
I kinda believe males are supreme in some departments….I think that is because I hate being female. I would accept an offer for someone to carry my bag, not because I think he is superior but because I am lazy. Although I would hate to feel patronised…but that is because I am stubborn, not because I feel I am equally capable than another person.
I think each person’s individuality should be considered…and physical/mental illness’s/disabilities…if ANYONE is struggling I will give them a hand but never underrate them. I have worked with and known many people with a whole range of the above and I (personally) see it as a scale; some people obviously struggle and DO need a hand from others…and then there are some that also need a hand but the world sees as ‘perfectly fine’. Nobody else can see what goes on inside somebody’s head other than themselves…and can they say if they are ‘normal’? I cannot be perfect. I cannot do some things other girls can. I cannot do things some men do. I will never be so stuck up I will refuse someone’s help. Sometimes you have to do things just to prove to yourself you can do it. I will just add I live in a female-only household. We do everything ourselves.
Of course this occurs the other way around to. Say you, as a ‘normal’ or ‘un-diagnosed’ human being and you muck up something by accident for yourself & others…they will give you a hard time because they assume you are perfectly capable of doing it! How on earth do that know that you are? - I think what I’m trying to say is that everything needs leniency.
|
|
|
|
Post by lastgoodbye on Aug 17, 2010 21:56:31 GMT
explain the last thing florence? granted it is a bit cheesey but like, they're just doing a nice gesture. if a girl did it would it matter? don't waiters do that in general in fairly "upmarket" places? I can only really explain it in terms of 'that's how I feel', and why. If I was out with a man in a restraunt and I pulled out his chair for him, then he would be embarrased, and the people in the restraunt would think it was weiiird. Social taboo. All I can say's that it's one social norm slash tradtional 'ritual' which makes me personally embarrased and uncomfortable, and which, as a feminist, I wouldn't want performed for me - because of where the act of pulling out a womens chair for her (and other similar acts of chivalry) originate from. The position of women in society has evolved almost beyond recognition since the days when these chivalric acts first became commonplace. There's a reason why no new acts of chivalry have emerged and collectively become habits in oh, say, the last 100 years. They're just not meant for a modern female, ie. a female who is 'equal'. It's like a (less extreme form) of being offended by certain words. Some people think 'dude, it's just a word, who cares?' and some people are offended by words because of their cultural connotations and origins. I would be - not offended by - but made uncomfortable by the act, through much the same reasoning. But if other women don't feel that way, then I don't mind at all. I agree with your last point about teaching everyone to be polite and not-dicks. The day I could stand behind my (hypothetical) man and gently assist him while he sits down at the dinnertable, without getting funny looks from fellow diners, is the day I will let a man do it back to me. And obviously, I am all for non-patronising, non-gender-specific acts of kindness (and assistance-carrying-luggage, where it is needed). |
|
