|
Post by admin on Aug 22, 2010 10:40:39 GMT
THAT counts as chivalry?! I always just thought that was genuine politeness, i.e. this is a friend we may see in the future, this is his name. And it's not like it oppressive cos the woman can't do it herself since she doesn't know the guy? Fair enough if you care about him, but it's only fair to introduce people, no?* *lots of question marks because i don't want to get flamed or anything, i just want to find out why this is bad conduct to a feminist. I'd introduce my male friends to 'randoms on the street', as I would pretty much any one else in my life! arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh no! I'm sorry Rhianne, I love you and everything but there is literally no part of me that wants to pick this apart and analyse it and explain to you my motives for putting it in the example. Can you at least defend it? Because I'm not an idiot, most of the electives on my essentially useless degree were centred around gender studies, and I'm really at a loss as to how introducing someone is against the basic rules of feminism. The examples of chivalry you used up there - helping someone with their coat, helping them onto the bus - I agree with, and I kind of wonder whether the examples we've been playing with have been the problem with this thread: holding doors open and introducing someone to your friends are, to me, just examples of Not Being A Douche. Cheerio, Michael. xxx
|
|
|
Post by helwin tins on Aug 22, 2010 13:08:02 GMT
i think this thread has mainly centred around the 'helping a woman with a bag' example.
i don't really see the issue with introducing people... obviously if you're a complete failure, a woman is perfectly capable of introducing herself, but i do think it's basic politeness and standard protocol to introduce any two (or more) people that don't know each other. i might be missing something obvious here though...
|
|
|
Post by Lawrence on Aug 22, 2010 13:13:00 GMT
Exactly Sibz. Being introduced to somebody you dont know is just standard protocol.
|
|
|
Post by lastgoodbye on Aug 22, 2010 17:01:58 GMT
Why I have even fucking bothered writing anything in this thread? I'm obviously just wrong, no matter how many endless hours of my fucking time I waste answering the same questions over and over again on a topic which I had absolutely no prior knowledge about or opinions on.
Firstly, I don't get to decide "the basic rules of feminism", Michael, and nor is it up to me to decide what's "bad conduct to a feminist", Rhianne, so please stop picking apart every little thing I say in an attempt to find at least something that reflects badly on feminism, as though I'm apparently now the pure personification of an entire movement. "Oh, why are you saying that? What are your motives? I introduce people to people all the time! What's wrong with you!? Ooh, I agree, she's wrong!" I googled 'acts of chivalry', and it was on the list, and I included it on the bottom of the list in my post. I'm so sorry for my slip up; I didn't realise it would be more worthy of discussion that everything else I said in that mile-long post which I didn't even want to write to begin with, but couldn't not write because that would make me look like I was bullying Joeb by ignoring his question.
It's hard to think up a reason for why that particular act was included when I CARE SO LITTLE.
|
|
|
Post by helwin tins on Aug 22, 2010 17:25:59 GMT
florence, no-one is making you reply. your responses are known for being well-explained, which is why people feel comfortable asking you questions, but there's nothing stopping you from writing a sentence long response, or just saying "i don't actually care". rhi's post came across to me as genuine, innocent confusion about it, and wasn't asking you specifically, but just for someone to clear it up- i can see why she assumed there would be some reason for it to be on the list, as we've just had nine pages about acts that people think are ok, but aren't really. i thought there might be something i was missing, so i offered my thoughts, but left space to be proven wrong, as rhi did. the fact people questioning these things should be a positive, all you needed to respond was "it was just in the list i copied from"
|
|
|
Post by Rhiflect on Aug 22, 2010 17:52:25 GMT
Apologies, Florence, it seems you've taken my post the wrong way. I in no way meant to imply you were the totem pole for feminism, i guess I just assumed as you take such an interest in the movement that you would be able, for my benefit, to either dismiss or justify the act in question. As Sibz said, it was genuinely a question towards the act and NOT your posts/feelings on the matter. Sorry once again xx
|
|
|
Post by tarantella on Aug 23, 2010 7:00:02 GMT
Florence, I want to say that I really appreciate everything you've written in this thread and how thoroughly and thoughtfully you've articulated your position. I know that frustration and anger -- during the time of 'Tara vs. the World,' as Josh put it, I was very dedicated to hating everything and everyone for nearly a month. So you have my empathy.
|
|
|
Post by lastgoodbye on Aug 23, 2010 8:46:21 GMT
I'm sorry for snapping guys, I was in a really bad mood yesterday. I had a "stop asking me things! I don't actually know what I'm talking about!" moment. I'm especially sorry to you, Rhi I hope this doesn't stop you from thinking you can ask me anything, because you genuinely can. I was just really... yeah, disproportionately bad mood. Eck. And the inclusion of the 'introduce her' thing; I think I considered it relevently negative because it was included on a list instructing men what they should always do when they're with a women, and like with everything else, if it's appropriate and polite to do it anyway, then that's okay, but if a man sets out to introduce his girlfriend to every single person they come across, that starts to seem like an assertion of ownership.
You've got to think of it in a context of an adult couple going about their business, rather than teenage friends where everyone gets to know everyone else and is on an equal footing. In my head I imagined it as, say at a formal party, men always offer a handshake and introduce themselves, but then they introduce the women on their arm. Back in the day, women wouldn't be expected or able to socialize on their own at all, because they couldn't go out into polite society if they didn't have a man or older women to introduce them (I think I've picked this up from Austen novels ) I don't know, it was a shit example though.
|
|
|
Post by irrelevant on Aug 23, 2010 9:01:57 GMT
on the bright side, between all the bag-carrying and mile-long posts i reckon it's given you quite the tone.
|
|
|
Post by helwin tins on Aug 23, 2010 12:21:06 GMT
thanks florence, i think those of us who have a tendency to get wrapped up in these big discussions all know what it's like to feel like people are being needlessly picky with you. trust me, i certainly do re: introducing... i'm not really keen on starting a big discussion on it, but i stand by my opinion that introducing in a casual environment is politeness, and as for formal events... i can only go on my own experience, and the example i'm thinking of is when i worked at the economist.. my boss had just had a book published and i was responsible for organising the book launch. when there were just a few people there, i was introduced to people via my boss (who knew i was interested in photography, so made a point of introducing me to the photojournalists etc.) or my dad. of course, the way people reacted to me when i was a pa and when i was a contributing journalist's daughter differed wildly, but that's a point for another day. anyway, it seems etiquette that when there's few people, common links introduce each other, but once there's a good mix, people are left to fend on their own, and everyone goes up to everyone else, regardless- although there are benefits to being introduced to people, such as the introducer knowing who works in a similar arena to you, so you can form new network links.
|
|
|
Post by mimicry on Aug 25, 2010 4:06:07 GMT
I think the introduction thing is left over from Victorian etiquette because a woman wasn't ~allowed~ to speak to someone she didn't know, thus she'd have to have a mutual friend (usually a man) introduce them. That's why in period plays there's a lot of, "oh you must introduce us" (but I think even then it was falling out of vogue).
Also I think using "douche" as an insult is okay, since douches of all sorts are bad for you.
|
|
|
Post by helwin tins on Aug 25, 2010 14:46:45 GMT
yes, i'm a fan of douche as a negative word. something that hurts women should be a bad thing/.
|
|
|
Post by mimicry on Aug 26, 2010 0:04:57 GMT
I'm also fond of 'asshole' since everyone has them.
|
|