Is "being a gentleman" sexist?

[spartan]

So yeah is being a gentleman (i.e. holding doors open for Women and allowing them to do things first) sexist or just good morals?

For me it relies on the subconscious belief that women should be looked after by men and is thus sexist (Albeit with those doing it not knowing).

Thoughts?

[jake williams]

Well that depends on a lot of things. Generally it's basic civility that you hold doors open for people where it's appropriate, regardless of sex. If this is what you're doing and a women gets upset because it's "sexist" then that in itself is absurd. But if you make a grand display of explicitly gendered "civility", then yes, it is sexist, and though this is a different argument, it's something I don't think we should do.

That said, heterosexuality on its own is going to lead to some subjective gender distinctions which might be called "sexist" but certainly shouldn't be. Like it's not sexist to only ever ask women out and not men.

An important idea to consider is how much sexuality we should allow in different life situations, in the workplace, in community organizations, in schools, in public wandering about, in social situations and so on.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

So yeah is being a gentleman (i.e. holding doors open for Women and allowing them to do things first) sexist or just good morals?

I try to hold open doors for everybody or nobody.

[Holden Caulfield]

So yeah is being a gentleman (i.e. holding doors open for Women and allowing them to do things first)

this is true;

but things like the fact i walk my gf home everynight, she doesnt walk me home i think is more the debate here and i think that this is because there is a more real danger of women being attacked more than males not just as they are (no offence at all please dont give me abuse) physically weaker but as males are usually the offenders and are more likely to commit a 'real' crime attack a member of the opposit sex, whereas again another male it is just 'whos cock is bigger agression' (this is proven by psychological research into criminology)

[Luís Henrique]

I am a gentleman, and I don't get offended if the ladies act to me like gentlewomen.

Luís Henrique

[jaffe]

So yeah is being a gentleman (i.e. holding doors open for Women and allowing them to do things first) sexist or just good morals?

For me it relies on the subconscious belief that women should be looked after by men and is thus sexist (Albeit with those doing it not knowing).

Thoughts?

stop smoking

[Redmau5]

stop smoking

What? spartan's question is quite legitimate.

[mykittyhasaboner]

i dont think its sexist, as far as opening a door-well its just opening a door nobody should make a big deal out of someone opening a door for you. i guess you could consider it a moral standard, but again its quite an insignificant action to call sexist. perhaps we should consider that the women who take advantage of men because their gentlemen is sexist, or vice versa. since the people know these moral standards its quite easy to take advantage of people, so i think that being a gentlemen or whatever isnt sexist at all its just being nice. :lol:

[spartan]

Wouldnt you say though that the men being gentlemen sub-consciously (Without knowing themselves) view women as vulnerable who need to be looked after by them (Almost like a knight in shining armour theme)?

I think that an arguement can be made that being a gentleman is part of societies teaching of men and women to reinforce gender roles and perhaps even misogyny?

[Entrails Konfetti]

One time I pulled a chair out for a woman.
She missed the chair and fell on the ground.
She was mad at me.
I just said that "I was being a gentleman".

So yeah, it just doesn't do anyone any good.
Just open the door for everyone, watch where you're standing, and don't act like you're after a females genitals. Most likely, people will think you're pleasant.

[Bilan]

I open doors for people. I used to walk my girlfriend home, or put her on my handle bars and ride her home (bikes > you).
I regularly shout my friends things.
I also happily give people my coat, sweater, scarf, etc. when they're cold, even I am too.

To me, being a "gentlemen" is just being kind. It's not a 'misogynist' action.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Wouldnt you say though that the men being gentlemen sub-consciously (Without knowing themselves) view women as vulnerable who need to be looked after by them (Almost like a knight in shining armour theme)?

I think that an arguement can be made that being a gentleman is part of societies teaching of men and women to reinforce gender roles and perhaps even misogyny?
im not saying that it is wrong for men to look after women, i think everybody should look out for everyone else, not just the opposite sex, i just think there shouldnt be a social standard, but there is, and its viewed as rude, or disrespectful if you dont meet the standard of being a "gentleman".

[Partisano]

That's pretty much my view on it. I really don't care much for chivalry or anything, but I think general kindness is a great policy. I like treating others well, and really it is out of self-pleasure as much as anything. I like how I feel when I treat others well. Its good for me, and and its good for others. I seriously hate prick people who act like they are the only ones in existence.


I open doors for people. I used to walk my girlfriend home, or put her on my handle bars and ride her home (bikes > you).
I regularly shout my friends things.
I also happily give people my coat, sweater, scarf, etc. when they're cold, even I am too.

To me, being a "gentlemen" is just being kind. It's not a 'misogynist' action.

[AGITprop]

I' try to be polite with anyone I'm with, man or woman. I'll almost always go to open doors for people If I can, with women as well. I don't think it is sexist, but the idea of opening doors for women and being chivalrous is a misogynistic trend. I've encountered many 'feminists' who were insulted if I opened the door for them. I found this very disturbing as it reflects the bankruptcy of petit-bourgeois feminism. I can't even be polite without them thinking I'm trying to get into their pants. If someone opens the doors for you, you say thank you and walk through the God-damned door.

[Partisano]

Yeah, some forms of feminism are just another repackaged elitism, although its not entirely undue because women have been historically mistreated and still are by men. I think that opening doors for others is just being comradely.

[spartan]

Yeah i can see what you all mean when you talk about just being generally kind to other people (Man or woman).

I suppose i didnt think about that when i first posted this.

I do however still believe that there are those who do it because sub-consciously (Without them even knowing) society has drilled it into them that women are vulnerable things that need "looking after" by men.

But then again there are those who will simply do it as a nice gesture to someone without implying anything in their action.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I open doors for people. I used to walk my girlfriend home, or put her on my handle bars and ride her home (bikes > you).
I regularly shout my friends things.
I also happily give people my coat, sweater, scarf, etc. when they're cold, even I am too.

To me, being a "gentlemen" is just being kind. It's not a 'misogynist' action.

My thoughts exactly. :)

[Mujer Libre]

My thoughts exactly. :)
It all depends on motivation. I mean, if like PTiT said, you're just doing these things because you're nice (and are polite to men or women), then no probs. Actual "gentlemanly" (in the sense of chivalry) behaviour is however based on the assumption that women are incapable of doing a whole range of everyday activities, and must be protected. Alternatively, especially these days, being nice to women is a prelude to an attempt to get in her pants.

If either of the latter motivates you, then you quite possibly are a sexist pig.

If you're just nice and polite, you're nice and we like you. :)

[AGITprop]

To be fair and perfectly honest. If the action is misogynistic, I condemn it, but there is nothing wrong with trying to seduce someone. We all have needs and urges and there is nothing wrong with wanting to have sex. Acting kindly to woo someone is perfectly fine in my eyes as long as it is not consciously done because you consider women inferior.

[bezdomni]

I open doors for all people, unless I just don't like the look of em.

[Os Cangaceiros]

It all depends on motivation. I mean, if like PTiT said, you're just doing these things because you're nice (and are polite to men or women), then no probs. Actual "gentlemanly" (in the sense of chivalry) behaviour is however based on the assumption that women are incapable of doing a whole range of everyday activities, and must be protected. Alternatively, especially these days, being nice to women is a prelude to an attempt to get in her pants.

If either of the latter motivates you, then you quite possibly are a sexist pig.

If you're just nice and polite, you're nice and we like you. :)

I don't know; I mean, I've given my jacket to my girlfriend once or twice when she's been cold. I didn't think that that was misogynist at the time, I just thought that I was being nice. I think that's what PTIT's point was.

[Mujer Libre]

I don't know; I mean, I've given my jacket to my girlfriend once or twice when she's been cold. I didn't think that that was misogynist at the time, I just thought that I was being nice. I think that's what PTIT's point was.
Yeah definitely I don't have a problem with stuff like that.

You did it because you cared about her, not because you thought she was less capable of handling the cold.

[Holden Caulfield]

im not saying that it is wrong for men to look after women, i think everybody should look out for everyone else, not just the opposite sex, i just think there shouldnt be a social standard, but there is, and its viewed as rude, or disrespectful if you dont meet the standard of being a "gentleman".


well what about if your female friend is walking home alone on the night would you walk her home = yes

what about if your male is walking home alone on a night would you walk them home = nope

this is what im on about not we should all hold doors open for all sexes and be be kind to all sexes as that should be done regardless of even looking behind you to see what sex of person you are holding the door for,

is this sexist? is my motivation for doing it because i feel superior to women or is being a 'gentleman' still relevant and applicable to modern society

[Laurie]

The thing is this hun,
I do not call myself a femnist, but then if my husband is tired or something just needs doing and I know I can do it just as well as him then I go ahead and do it.
I for instance would never take my dog food to the bin(100 lb bags I can pick up handily), if his friends are over. BUT if he is not home or busy I do it.
Women need to learn to appreciate the male ego not emmascularte !.
men as a rule I have found are a pretty accomadfating lot and truly appreciate being allowed to assume traditional roles while still knowing the woman they are with can take care of themselves when they are not there.
Laurie

[RHIZOMES]

I personally think having men be gentlemen to you if you're female seems to be one of the ONLY perks about being a woman in the patriarchal society we live in today.

And as hewhocontrolstheyouth, a lot of times being gentlemanly means protecting women from the more aggressive, brutish men. Such as walking women home so they don't get raped. This is really all a matter of the capitalist, patriarchal society we find ourselves living in.

[Rosa Provokateur]

It's all a trap that I've never been able to win, either I hold the door and get called a sexist pig or I dont hold the door and get called a bum. I gotta stop dating political chicks.

[Module]

I personally think having men be gentlemen to you if you're female seems to be one of the ONLY perks about being a woman in the patriarchal society we live in today.

And as hewhocontrolstheyouth, a lot of times being gentlemanly means protecting women from the more aggressive, brutish men. Such as walking women home so they don't get raped. This is really all a matter of the capitalist, patriarchal society we find ourselves living in.

It's the idea that men have to do that, walking women home so they don't get hurt that supports the notion that women need men's protection.
Chances are she won't get raped on the way home, just like chances are you won't mugged on the way home.
The fact you think that she needs your protection from an attacker, or "brutish men" indicates to me that you don't respect her ability to defend herself.

[Kitskits]

I don't think that being a gentleman is sexist. Sexism is one thing and realising the materal conditions about todays society and the dangers that women face today and the barbaric way that most men treat them and trying to be different, to be gentle is another thing.

[SittingBull47]

I don't think it's sexist at all...I hold doors open for both men and women as often as I can, and in my opinion it's a question of courtesy, not sex. I could see how one may potentially label it a sexist gesture, but there's really no chauvinism involved when all that most people are trying to do is do a nice thing for somebody else.

[Cencus]

Treating your fellow human beings with a little respect is not sexist, but doing it because someone is of a specific gender is.

[Bastable]

i don't think that being a 'gentleman' is necessarily sexist even if it is for a specific sex. to walk a female friend home at night is necessary in this world we live in. because as has previously been mentioned a woman is more likely to be attacked than a man. i accept that if it's out of a feeling of superiority over a woman it is sexist, but not if it is otherwise.

[Jazzratt]

Being a gentleman isn't holding doors open for people or that kind of thing - doing that is just being a pleasent human being. Gentlemanly behaviour is a strict set of rules for how to patronise women in day to day life.

On the whole "holding doors open" conundrum, the sensible and technocratic answer is, of course, automatic doors.

[Bilan]

Being a gentleman isn't holding doors open for people or that kind of thing - doing that is just being a pleasent human being. Gentlemanly behaviour is a strict set of rules for how to patronise women in day to day life.


I don't follow. Explain?




On the whole "holding doors open" conundrum, the sensible and technocratic answer is, of course, automatic doors.

:lol:

You fuckers have an answer for everything, don't you!

[Dystisis]

It's the idea that men have to do that, walking women home so they don't get hurt that supports the notion that women need men's protection.
Chances are she won't get raped on the way home, just like chances are you won't mugged on the way home.
The fact you think that she needs your protection from an attacker, or "brutish men" indicates to me that you don't respect her ability to defend herself.
You've got a point, but take a look (if you can) on the statistics on how many women are being raped while they are alone compared to while they are with someone. Or just think about it logically.

[Marsella]

You've got a point, but take a look (if you can) on the statistics on how many women are being raped while they are alone compared to while they are with someone. Or just think about it logically.

Actually, statistics indicate that around 70% of victims know their rapists.

Would having another person present reduce the crime?

Of course, but that goes for all crimes.

Trying to regulate one-on-one social relations would be very difficult indeed and cause more problems than solve. How can you 'regulate' a relationship between a man and a woman? It would involve drastic state intervention in households.

The poor lonely woman being raped in a dark alley is not the average rape scenario.

***

And I agree with Jazzratt.

I am able to stand on a train/bus, open a door by myself, carry my shopping...being polite is one thing. Doing those things so that you can live up to a definition of what it means to be a 'gentleman' is another.

And its probably better to be thought of as rude than a sexist ass. :ohmy:

[Holden Caulfield]

i disagree, it makes me feel better walking my gf home and even if it gives her company and nothing else then it dont make me a sexist just because i worry about her,

[Jazzratt]

I don't follow. Explain?

"Gentlemany" are a set of rules in which you treat women as if they much weaker than you - that is what being a "gentleman" is.

[Bilan]

It's the idea that men have to do that, walking women home so they don't get hurt that supports the notion that women need men's protection.

That's not uncommon within or outside of genders, either.



Chances are she won't get raped on the way home, just like chances are you won't mugged on the way home.

So?
Hell, it was not long ago that my ex started being followed by some creepy motherfuckers asking her to get into their car in the middle of the night...and she lives a block away.
Just because its uncommon doesn't mean its not going to happen.

And furthermore, in alot of cases, women are more likely to be targets, especially of sexual assault.

Hence, they don't 'have' to be walked home, but its at least a kind thing to do. It's watching out for your friends.



The fact you think that she needs your protection from an attacker, or "brutish men" indicates to me that you don't respect her ability to defend herself.

...or that you wouldn't want anything to happen to them, as you obviously care about them a lot.

It thoroughly shits me that looking out for people, especially in this circumstance, is treated as sexist.

And finally, if you ever have been mugged, or threatened on the street, having someone with you is one thing that makes you feel alot more fucking secure, and makes it a lot easier to defend yourself.

[Bilan]

"Gentlemany" are a set of rules in which you treat women as if they much weaker than you - that is what being a "gentleman" is.

I don't know if I entirely agree, but in any case, I did a quick search on wiki about what it is and where it came from.

But in modern usage it states:



...being a gentleman means treating others, especially women (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women), in a respectful manner, and not taking advantage or pushing others into doing things they choose not to do. The exception, of course, is to push one into something they need to do for their own good, as in a visit to the hospital, or pursuing a dream one has suppressed.The original meaning is more classist than sexist, see here:


To a degree, "gentleman" signified a man with an income derived from property, a legacy or some other source, and was thus independently wealthy and did not need to work. The term was particularly used of those who could not claim nobility or even the rank of esquire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquire). Widening further, it became a politeness for all men, as in the phrase "Ladies and Gentlemen,..." and this was then used (often with the abbreviation Gents) to indicate where men could find a lavatory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavatory), without the need to indicate precisely what was being described.Gentlemen are bourgeois!

source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentleman#Modern_usage) :ohmy:

[Module]

That's not uncommon within or outside of genders, either.
Far less common, in this type of situation.
A man is far less likely to think that his male friend needs to be walked home than if his friend is a woman, and likewise, a woman is far less likely to think that her female friend needs to be walked home than if she was a man.
It is far less common for two friends of the same gender to have one consider that the other needs their protection, to walk them to their house and then themselves walking back by themselves.
And why is that? Because they're more likely to see eachother as equals.


So?
Hell, it was not long ago that my ex started being followed by some creepy motherfuckers asking her to get into their car in the middle of the night...and she lives a block away.
Just because its uncommon doesn't mean its not going to happen.So?
How many men do you think get mugged every night? Just because it's uncommon doesn't mean it's not going to happen.
That can go both ways, so it's no justification.


And furthermore, in alot of cases, women are more likely to be targets, especially of sexual assault. As I'm a Tiger said, the majority of sexual assaults occour with people the victim knows, as well as the fact that the majority of sexual assaults occour within the victim or the attacker's home.
There is a very low chance of a women being sexually assaulted on the way home.
Men are far more likely to be involved in car accidents - does that mean that women have an obligation to hold a man's hand when he's crossing the road, or to drive him home?


Hence, they don't 'have' to be walked home, but its at least a kind thing to do. It's watching out for your friends.So why do you walk them home and not the other way around?
If you walk them home, then you will have to walk back to where you're supposed to be, alone.
Unless you don't respect their ability to defend themselves to the extent that you will put yourself in the exact same danger otherwise, it's pointless.


...or that you wouldn't want anything to happen to them, as you obviously care about them a lot.There doesn't have to be an 'or', and most of the time, I'd bet there isn't.


It thoroughly shits me that looking out for people, especially in this circumstance, is treated as sexist.It's not just a case of 'looking out for people'. You're simplifying it.
It's about feeling the need to walk women home, because they won't be safe without a male presence.


And finally, if you ever have been mugged, or threatened on the street, having someone with you is one thing that makes you feel alot more fucking secure, and makes it a lot easier to defend yourself.So if you feel that way then why aren't they walking you home?

[Le Libérer]

If I come to a door the same time a man does, I just stop and glare at him, as to say, "open it MFer." They usually do, and quickly. :D

[Marsella]

:scared:

[Bilan]

Far less common, in this type of situation.
A man is far less likely to think that his male friend needs to be walked home than if his friend is a woman, and likewise, a woman is far less likely to think that her female friend needs to be walked home than if she was a man.

Yes, indeed, but that doesn't make being a gentlemen sexist, that means some view some of their female friends as either targets or not as strong, by others.




It is far less common for two friends of the same gender to have one consider that the other needs their protection, to walk them to their house and then themselves walking back by themselves.

Nonsense. That is completely contextual and falls into an individual basis.







Men are far more likely to be involved in car accidents - does that mean that women have an obligation to hold a man's hand when he's crossing the road, or to drive him home?

No, it means that being an irresponsible fuck is detrimental to yourself, and those around you.
The two are completely different.
The first is an act beyond your control, the latter is a symptom of your ego and stupidity.



So why do you walk them home and not the other way around?
If you walk them home, then you will have to walk back to where you're supposed to be, alone.

Because I'd rather put myself in danger than one of my friends.



Unless you don't respect their ability to defend themselves to the extent that you will put yourself in the exact same danger otherwise, it's pointless.


Nonsense. Your assigning a motive based on nothing but speculation.



There doesn't have to be an 'or', and most of the time, I'd bet there isn't.


Bet there isn't a what? An 'or'?
Or what I actually said?



It's not just a case of 'looking out for people'. You're simplifying it.
It's about feeling the need to walk women home, because they won't be safe without a male presence.

No, it's not. Read the quote I posted again on being a 'gentleman', it's an emphasis on women, but not exclusive to women, and its how and why its carried out that determines that, not the action itself.



So if you feel that way then why aren't they walking you home?

Because either people don't offer - because they're either to lazy, don't want too, or whatever - or because I don't want it.
The same rule applies in the latters case for everyone, if someone doesn't want to be walked to the station, or home, it's their choice, and you accept it -- unless there's in fact a really good reason for it --- But you don't force them to be walked.

[Bilan]

If I come to a door the same time a man does, I just stop and glare at him, as to say, "open it MFer." They usually do, and quickly. :D

:lol:

[Lector Malibu]

If I come to a door the same time a man does, I just stop and glare at him, as to say, "open it MFer." They usually do, and quickly. :D


Actually I make it a point not to open doors for women, or let them walk right in front of me in lines at the super market or any of that stuff.

[Module]

Yes, indeed, but that doesn't make being a gentlemen sexist, that means some view some of their female friends as either targets or not as strong, by others.
You're trying to excuse it by saying "some of their female friends", and acting like it's purely on an individual level, involving individuals which just so happen to be female, when this is clearly not the case.
The sort of 'gentlemanly behavior' being referenced in this thread is chivalrous behavior primarily towards women. You've admitted yourself that it is an emphasis towards women.
The fact you're denying then that this is a sexist thing is curious, to me.

The act of holding a door open for somebody isn't sexist in itself, nor is the act of walking somebody home. But clearly, in the case of 'being a gentleman', these things don't just occour as one off acts that just happen to be directed primarily at women. Feeling the need to do these things at best demonstrates a cultural education towards acting in a chivalrous manner, and at worst a paternalistic attitude towards women. And I'm not going to say it's usually the former.


No, it means that being an irresponsible fuck is detrimental to yourself, and those around you.
The two are completely different.
The first is an act beyond your control, the latter is a symptom of your ego and stupidity.You've missed my point. The fact that women are more likely than men to be sexually assaulted does not mean that men have a duty to protect women from sexual assault.


Because I'd rather put myself in danger than one of my friends.I'm not talking about you as an individual, I'm talking about the relationship between two people. Why is it one way and not the other way around?
Are you telling me that men just happen to be more selfless than women?


Nonsense. Your assigning a motive based on nothing but speculation.No, I assign a motive based on the rationalisation of the situation. Unless you believe this, acting this way serves no purpose.


Bet there isn't a what? An 'or'?
Or what I actually said?There isn't an 'or'.


No, it's not. Read the quote I posted again on being a 'gentleman', it's an emphasis on women, but not exclusive to women, and its how and why its carried out that determines that, not the action itself.I read the quote.
If you recognise that this isn't specifically about an act being exclusive to women, but the reason why the man does it in the first place, and why it happens to be mostly towards women, then why don't you try to recognise those reasons why, instead of treating it as an individual act of being gentlemanly?


Because either people don't offer - because they're either to lazy, don't want too, or whatever - or because I don't want it.
The same rule applies in the latters case for everyone, if someone doesn't want to be walked to the station, or home, it's their choice, and you accept it -- unless there's in fact a really good reason for it --- But you don't force them to be walked.Well I've hardly claimed anybody's forcing anything on anybody.
But still,
You honestly believe that the reason women don't walk men home is simply because they're too lazy, or just 'don't want to'?
Again, you're taking it on an individual basis, and ignoring the attitudes behind it.

[Bilan]

You're trying to excuse it by saying "some of their female friends", and acting like it's purely on an individual level, involving individuals which just so happen to be female, when this is clearly not the case.

That's because the motivation is can only be determined on an individual basis. It's not obligatory, it's curtious.



The sort of 'gentlemanly behavior' being referenced in this thread is chivalrous behavior primarily towards women.The initial question was "Is being a gentleman sexist?" at which point most men who responded said that they did it for both men and women.

Again, it's the motivation, not the action, which determines whether it is. What you're doing is assigning a motivation to it, as Jazzratt did, to why some men are 'gentleman'.
A motivation that generalizes motivation, and thus makes it void of any general accuracy.

It can be true on an individual basis.

To quote what the article again,


... ...being a gentleman means treating others, especially women (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women), in a respectful manner, and not taking advantage or pushing others into doing things they choose not to do. The exception, of course, is to push one into something they need to do for their own good, as in a visit to the hospital, or pursuing a dream one has suppressed. The exception, of course, is to push one into something they need to do for their own good, as in a visit to the hospital, or pursuing a dream one has suppressed.My italics.
That is what being a 'gentleman' entails - the problem is entirely the motivation for an action.
To treat anyone who acts 'gentlemanly' as 'sexist' is ridiculous.




You've admitted yourself that it is an emphasis towards women.
The fact you're denying then that this is a sexist thing is curious, to me.Because an emphasis doesn't make it sexist, but it can.



The act of holding a door open for somebody isn't sexist in itself, nor is the act of walking somebody home. But clearly, in the case of 'being a gentleman', these things don't just occour as one off acts that just happen to be directed primarily at women. Feeling the need to do these things at best demonstrates a cultural education towards acting in a chivalrous manner, and at worst a paternalistic attitude towards women. And I'm not going to say it's usually the former.Nonsense, the statements contradict themselves.
Things like 'holding a door open for someone' or walking someone home are what make a man a gentleman - it's being curtius , polite, or respectful to someone.

For example, I gave a friend of mine my umbrella when it was raining on the way home, and I walked home in the rain.
The fact that she was a girl had not-a-fucking-thing to do with it, but the fact that she was my friend did.




You've missed my point. The fact that women are more likely than men to be sexually assaulted does not mean that men have a duty to protect women from sexual assault.And consequently you missed mine.
No one said its a duty.
I don't have a duty to stand up for my friends, but I do it, because they are my friends, and I give a shit about them.



I'm not talking about you as an individual, I'm talking about the relationship between two people. Why is it one way and not the other way around?
Are you telling me that men just happen to be more selfless than women?You don't have to be talking about 'me', but I'm using myself as an example.
And it is the other way around? It differs between people - which is the crux of my point.



No, I assign a motive based on the rationalisation of the situation. Unless you believe this, acting this way serves no purpose.No, you're assiging it on pure speculation because you know not squat about the motivations for each individuals reasons for being a 'gentlemen' and are assigning them a motivation to prove a point, but the point loses it's merit because, as quoted before, "being a gentleman means treating others in a respectful manner, and not taking advantage or pushing others into doing things they choose not to do".

The motivation for that is not assigned, nor stated; it's situational.



There isn't an 'or'.Which means? What? That they don't care about their friends?



I read the quote.
If you recognise that this isn't specifically about an act being exclusive to women, but the reason why the man does it in the first place, and why it happens to be mostly towards women, then why don't you try to recognise those reasons why, instead of treating it as an individual act of being gentlemanly?Because it is entirely situational, and that it's not inherently sexist, nor is it inherently not-sexist.



Well I've hardly claimed anybody's forcing anything on anybody.
But still,
You honestly believe that the reason women don't walk men home is simply because they're too lazy, or just 'don't want to'?I don't remember saying 'women', I think I said "people", but in any case, no, it's not the reason, which I also made clear that there was no reason by giving more than one, I said that it is a reason.



Again, you're taking it on an individual basis, and ignoring the attitudes behind it.Because the attitude comes back to the individual.

[Module]

That's because the motivation is can only be determined on an individual basis. It's not obligatory, it's curtious.
That's just simply not true.
Individual motivation in any social situation can be, and is, probably the vast majority of the time, influenced by wider attitudes.
That's why some white people get nervous when they see a black man walking down the street, for instance. Chances are it's not just because they don't like the look of him, as an individual. Same thing goes for treating women in a certain way. Why exactly do you think gender roles exist? Individual motivation to treat men and women a certain largely similar way? Come on.


The initial question was "Is being a gentleman sexist?" at which point most men who responded said that they did it for both men and women.

Again, it's the motivation, not the action, which determines whether it is. What you're doing is assigning a motivation to it, as Jazzratt did, to why some men are 'gentleman'.
A motivation that generalizes motivation, and thus makes it void of any general accuracy.

It can be true on an individual basis.

To quote what the article again,

My italics.
That is what being a 'gentleman' entails - the problem is entirely the motivation for an action.
To treat anyone who acts 'gentlemanly' as 'sexist' is ridiculous.You are failing to see the bigger picture. As I mentioned in my previous post, why is it that men offer to walk women home, and not the other way around? Why do men hold the door for women, or do any other 'gentlemanly' act, which is specifically directed towards somebody, as a woman? You're simplifying it into "They care about their friends," and you're ignoring the attitudes which make men feel like they should do these things.
You keep quoting that article which ultimately goes against your point. The gentlemanly attitude involves an attitude towards women, but you ignore this, saying that "It's not always towards women." Like somehow the attitude must therefore not exist. There is a reason it is 'especially women'. It's not just chance, in each individual act.
As I have already mentioned, the act of holding the door for somebody, or walking somebody home is not sexist, but that has never been what we're arguing, and it is, as stated in that Wikipedia article you keep quoting, not specifically what makes somebody a 'gentleman'!


Because an emphasis doesn't make it sexist, but it can.An emphasis towards a particular sex is sexist. There is a specific discrimination towards women, which does not exist towards men, which creates this emphasis.

Nonsense, the statements contradict themselves.
Things like 'holding a door open for someone' or walking someone home are what make a man a gentleman - it's being curtius , polite, or respectful to someone.

For example, I gave a friend of mine my umbrella when it was raining on the way home, and I walked home in the rain.
The fact that she was a girl had not-a-fucking-thing to do with it, but the fact that she was my friend did.There is a difference between being polite and being a gentleman. The same goes for there being a difference between being polite and being a 'lady'. The terms refer to specific traditional and more formal ettiquite, especially, as mentioned in the article, towards women.
If being a gentleman just meant being polite, then why would there be an emphasis on women at all?
You constantly repeat all these things you've done which are so-not-sexist-in-any-way, like that somehow proves me wrong. What you do as an individual is irrelevant, as well as the fact that I highly doubt that the fact she was a girl had not-a-fucking-thing to do with it, because everybody treats people differently on the basis on gender, including you, whether consciously or not, or whether or not you care to admit it.
It was made clear by the original poster that he's referring to being 'gentlemanly', in the way of acting this specific way to women. People said they held doors open for everybody, and that's fine, but that doesn't escape what being a gentleman is, by the original poster's implied definition, and that one given in your article.
Like I said, being 'gentlemanly' does not simply translate to being polite..


And consequently you missed mine.
No one said its a duty.
I don't have a duty to stand up for my friends, but I do it, because they are my friends, and I give a shit about them.Right. So your point by saying " No, it means that being an irresponsible fuck is detrimental to yourself, and those around you. The two are completely different. The first is an act beyond your control, the latter is a symptom of your ego and stupidity." was that "I don't have a duty to stand up for my friends, but I do it, because they are my friends, and I give a shit about them."?
That really is a bit of a leap, to say the least.

You don't have to be talking about 'me', but I'm using myself as an example.
And it is the other way around? It differs between people - which is the crux of my point.So you consider yourself a gentleman, do you? You place emphasis on being polite to women, do you? I should hope that you didn't.
Are you denying that men offer to walk women home far more often that the other way around? Or open doors for them, or let them enter a room first, or generally go out of their way to do things like that for women far more often than the other way around? You'd be fooling yourself if you did.

No, you're assiging it on pure speculation because you know not squat about the motivations for each individuals reasons for being a 'gentlemen' and are assigning them a motivation to prove a point, but the point loses it's merit because, as quoted before, "being a gentleman means treating others in a respectful manner, and not taking advantage or pushing others into doing things they choose not to do".

The motivation for that is not assigned, nor stated; it's situational.If you feel the need to walk somebody to their house, being prepared to walk back by yourself, so they have company on the way there, you do not trust that they will be safe without your protection, whilst trusting that you will be safer on your own, then there is no genuine point to walking somebody home from a 'safety' point of view.
Why would I feel the need to prove this point, when I've been making it from the beginning anyway?
On the contrary, you're ignoring attitudes towards gender completely to prove your point, and I think the reason for that is, combined with your constant examples of things you do, you act this way, and don't want to think of yourself as doing anything wrong.

Which means? What? That they don't care about their friends?...No. You said "...or that you wouldn't want anything to happen to them, as you obviously care about them a lot." in reply to my "you don't respect her ability to defend herself.". I'm saying that, chances are, there is no "or" between them.

Because it is entirely situational, and that it's not inherently sexist, nor is it inherently not-sexist.As I've previously mentioned, this just is not true. It is not entirely 'situational'. How you act in a social situation is dependant on your social values. How can you think that it just so happens that these situations involve men acting in certain ways towards women, and gender attitudes have nothing to do with it? That just doesn't make sense.

I don't remember saying 'women', I think I said "people", but in any case, no, it's not the reason, which I also made clear that there was no reason by giving more than one, I said that it is a reason.Well given that we were referring to women, and the relationship between men and women pretty much the whole time I'd hope that's what you were thinking when you made that point.
If you don't think it's the reason then you didn't adaquetly answer my question in the first place.

Because the attitude comes back to the individual.And despite what you seem to think, an individual is not an island.

[Bilan]

That's just simply not true.
Individual motivation in any social situation can be, and is, probably the vast majority of the time, influenced by wider attitudes.

Missed the point.




...That's why some white people get nervous when they see a black man walking down the street, for instance.

...um...



Chances are it's not just because they don't like the look of him, as an individual. Same thing goes for treating women in a certain way. Why exactly do you think gender roles exist?

Gender roles and 'gentlemanly' behavior are completely different, and to treat them as equivalents is insane. They can be, as it as 'gentlemanly' behavior can be considered good etiquette, but it's not in anyway an equivalent because what is defined as gentlemanly is defined by particular actions and the motivations differ from individuals.



Individual motivation to treat men and women a certain largely similar way? Come on.

It's not uncommon, just because you're blanketing motivations doesn't make it right.




You are failing to see the bigger picture. As I mentioned in my previous post, why is it that men offer to walk women home, and not the other way around?

No, I'm not, I'm saying that the act of being a 'gentleman' is not inherently sexist, but that it can be, and that it differs between people.

But lets establish some possible reasons:

-it's considered polite. That is true, it's a nice thing to do. Why? Some people enjoy company on a walk home (Especially at night); it symbolizes care for that person, etc.

- or, because they are vulnerable - either they see themselves that way, or you do - and in which case, the offer has a basis in that reason, and can either be a view of that person as weaker, or because you care.

- because you see women as inherently weaker. Reasons that apply to gender, etc.

Obviously the latter has its basis in sexism, but the point is that there is no one motivation for it, and to assume it as sexist is stupid and ignores that.

And thanks, but I've been walked home by both. :)



Why do men hold the door for women, or do any other 'gentlemanly' act, which is specifically directed towards somebody, as a woman?

are you trying to tell me women don't ever hold doors open for you?

And I somehow find it hard to believe that they do it because women can't open doors.



You're simplifying it into "They care about their friends," and you're ignoring the attitudes which make men feel like they should do these things.

No, you're creating them, and applying them, blanketly, to an entire genders actions of which can either be 'sexist' or out of kindness.



You keep quoting that article which ultimately goes against your point. The gentlemanly attitude involves an attitude towards women, but you ignore this, saying that "It's not always towards women." Like somehow the attitude must therefore not exist. There is a reason it is 'especially women'. It's not just chance, in each individual act.

...It doesn't go against my point, my point is that the motivations for the act of being 'gentlemanly' has its basis in more than one place, and especially, is not necessarily inherently sexist.




No, what I'm trying to make clear is that being a 'gentleman' has more than one motivation, and to blanketly apply 'sexism' to it is ridiculous.



An emphasis towards a particular sex is sexist. There is a specific discrimination towards women, which does not exist towards men, which creates this emphasis.

How?



There is a difference between being polite and being a gentleman.

The act of being polite is being a gentleman.



The same goes for there being a difference between being polite and being a 'lady'.

Except one comes back to bourgeois etiquette and the other one doesn't?



The terms refer to specific traditional and more formal ettiquite, especially, as mentioned in the article, towards women.

The traditional basis for it was in Nobility.



If being a gentleman just meant being polite, then why would there be an emphasis on women at all?



You constantly repeat all these things you've done which are so-not-sexist-in-any-way, like that somehow proves me wrong.

Yeah, it does.
Why? Becuase I'm trying to demonstrate that your blanket statements on why people are 'gentlemen' is baseless and a complete over generalization.



What you do as an individual is irrelevant, as well as the fact that I highly doubt that the fact she was a girl had not-a-fucking-thing to do with it, because everybody treats people differently on the basis on gender, including you, whether consciously or not, or whether or not you care to admit it.

Think what you like, you are, especially in this case, totally-fucking-wrong.
The fact that she was a girl meant nothing. The fact that she was my friend meant everything.




It was made clear by the original poster that he's referring to being 'gentlemanly', in the way of acting this specific way to women.

Myes, and then it was brought up by other posters that they act gentlemanly to everyone, saying:


I try to hold open doors for everybody or nobody.


I am a gentleman, and I don't get offended if the ladies act to me like gentlewomen.


I really don't care much for chivalry or anything, but I think general kindness is a great policy. I like treating others well, and really it is out of self-pleasure as much as anything. I like how I feel when I treat others well. Its good for me, and and its good for others. I seriously hate prick people who act like they are the only ones in existence.


Thus, gentlemanly behavior is not necessarily sexist, but can be defined on an individual basis.
I'm not arguing its never sexist, but that if you apply it as blanketly sexist, you are wrong, and the proof of it is here.



People said they held doors open for everybody, and that's fine, but that doesn't escape what being a gentleman is, by the original poster's implied definition, and that one given in your article.
Like I said, being 'gentlemanly' does not simply translate to being polite..

No, it 'translates' to being a kind, respectful human being, how that manifests, and why that manifests, is a different story.


Right. So your point by saying " No, it means that being an irresponsible fuck is detrimental to yourself, and those around you. The two are completely different. The first is an act beyond your control, the latter is a symptom of your ego and stupidity." was that "I don't have a duty to stand up for my friends, but I do it, because they are my friends, and I give a shit about them."?



That really is a bit of a leap, to say the least.
So you consider yourself a gentleman, do you?

I try. ;)



You place emphasis on being polite to women, do you? I should hope that you didn't.

I place emphasis on my friends. I place emphasis on human kindness. Not everyone falls into stract categorizations and definitions. :lol:




Are you denying that men offer to walk women home far more often that the other way around?

Have you a statistical basis for that? Or are you talking out of thin air?
Or are you trying to establish a motivation for it, purely because its done?
In which case, I must say, I'm confused to why an action, as such - the act of walking someone home - would make someone 'sexist', as you continually say, its not 'sexist', but being a 'gentleman' is, yet, the actions of gentleman are not 'sexist'.



or let them enter a room first,

Ahh. Sexism at its worst.


or generally go out of their way to do things like that for women far more often than the other way around? You'd be fooling yourself if you did.


:rolleyes:



If you feel the need to walk somebody to their house, being prepared to walk back by yourself, so they have company on the way there, you do not trust that they will be safe without your protection, whilst trusting that you will be safer on your own, then there is no genuine point to walking somebody home from a 'safety' point of view.

Ugh. I addressed this in my previous post.
Infact, you quoted me here!


I don't have a duty to stand up for my friends, but I do it, because they are my friends, and I give a shit about them.

Indeed, I'd rather put myself in danger than them.
Not everyone values themselves over others.



Why would I feel the need to prove this point, when I've been making it from the beginning anyway?
On the contrary, you're ignoring attitudes towards gender completely to prove your point, and I think the reason for that is, combined with your constant examples of things you do, you act this way, and don't want to think of yourself as doing anything wrong.

No, I'm trying to demonstrate to you that there is no single motivation for it, and to assume it as always sexist, is plain and simply wrong.



...No. You said "...or that you wouldn't want anything to happen to them, as you obviously care about them a lot." in reply to my "you don't respect her ability to defend herself.". I'm saying that, chances are, there is no "or" between them.



As I've previously mentioned, this just is not true. It is not entirely 'situational'. How you act in a social situation is dependant on your social values. How can you think that it just so happens that these situations involve men acting in certain ways towards women, and gender attitudes have nothing to do with it? That just doesn't make sense.

Tisk. Are you trying to tell me men only stick up for women?
I'm not saying they have nothing to do with it, I'm saying that it's completely contextual in what way they have something to do with it, if at all they do.




Well given that we were referring to women, and the relationship between men and women pretty much the whole time I'd hope that's what you were thinking when you made that point.
If you don't think it's the reason then you didn't adaquetly answer my question in the first place.

No, you were refering to just women, and I was trying to point out its not just women.
And you didn't respond to my point either.

[quote\
And despite what you seem to think, an individual is not an island.

And nor is it a swiveling mass of social hierarchies and opinions, which is completely unable to criticize its own actions and opinions, and that of societies an act upon those criticisms.

[Module]

Missed the point.
Oh, of course I have. :rolleyes:
How about, then, instead of just stating that, you explain how?
Because as far as I can see, you have written a straight forward sentence, that I called out as being incorrect. If I have missed the point besides that sentence, which I highly doubt that I have, that is because you haven't actually made one.



...um...What don't you understand?



Gender roles and 'gentlemanly' behavior are completely different, and to treat them as equivalents is insane. They can be, as it as 'gentlemanly' behavior can be considered good etiquette, but it's not in anyway an equivalent because what is defined as gentlemanly is defined by particular actions and the motivations differ from individuals.Gender roles and gentlemanly behaviour are very clearly related.
Consider, for a moment, I beg you, why is it considered good etiquette? You seem to think these things just arise on their own.
What is defined as gentlemanly is not defined by particular actions,
You said said this yourself already, by continually quoting that Wikipedia article which outlines a behaviour, not "particular actions"!



It's not uncommon, just because you're blanketing motivations doesn't make it right.Are you serious? Why do you think people have such a problem with gender roles? Where do you think they come from? Individuals are socialised within the society that they live in, and their social values come from the society that they live in, including gender roles. Gender roles are not individually rationalised by each human being. People do not have gender roles written in their DNA, they are informed of gender roles by what they see in the world around them, and they act accordingly.
I'm not saying that every man thinks that every woman should be in the kitchen, or that every woman thinks that men should impregnate them and go off and earn them a living, but I am saying that the attitudes towards genders are always different, and will reflect the current gender roles that exist in general society.



No, I'm not, I'm saying that the act of being a 'gentleman' is not inherently sexist, but that it can be, and that it differs between people.The acts are not sexist, as I have said a number of times, but the attitude behind men feeling the need to act politely specifically towards women, and it is that which makes somebody a 'gentleman', which is what we are discussing, comes from a condescending and paternalistic attitude towards women.
And as I have said, that is not always the case that it is an attitude that a man who tries to act 'gentlemanly' full heartedly shares, but they will share it to a degree, and it is that reason why they feel the need to act gentlemanly towards women! Otherwise, they wouldn't!
They just wouldn't! Why would anybody act in a gentlemanly way, which places emphasis on being 'polite' towards women, unless they did not have , at least to a degree if you will, traditional patriarchal attitudes towards women! That is where the gentlemanly attitude comes from. That is what defines it.
Being a gentleman is not just being polite!!


But lets establish some possible reasons:

-it's considered polite. That is true, it's a nice thing to do. Why? Some people enjoy company on a walk home (Especially at night); it symbolizes care for that person, etc.

- or, because they are vulnerable - either they see themselves that way, or you do - and in which case, the offer has a basis in that reason, and can either be a view of that person as weaker, or because you care.

- because you see women as inherently weaker. Reasons that apply to gender, etc.Yes, it's considered polite, but according to you, people have their own motivations, remember? So there will be a deeper or more specific reason as to why they think it's appropriate.
And that is the last two points, which for the most part will go hand in hand. If they're asking you to walk them home, that's something completely different, because the initiative is not from you, trying to be a gentleman.
Just because you don't consciously think in your mind "I'd better walk her home, because she is, after all, of the weaker sex," doesn't mean that this attitude just doesn't exist.


Obviously the latter has its basis in sexism, but the point is that there is no one motivation for it, and to assume it as sexist is stupid and ignores that.I'm not saying that there is one motivation for it, I'm saying that whatever the motivation for it, there will be a basis in a certain attitude towards women!



are you trying to tell me women don't ever hold doors open for you?

And I somehow find it hard to believe that they do it because women can't open doors.When a woman holds the door for me, or even when a man holds the door for me, it is completely different to a man holding the door in an effort to be a "gentleman".



No, you're creating them, and applying them, blanketly, to an entire genders actions of which can either be 'sexist' or out of kindness.I'm not talking about an entire gender, I'm talking about gentlemen!



...It doesn't go against my point, my point is that the motivations for the act of being 'gentlemanly' has its basis in more than one place, and especially, is not necessarily inherently sexist.Being a gentleman, as said in your article, involves an emphasis on being polite towards women, which is sexist.




How?What do you mean how? An emphasis on a particular sex is sexism. Why do you disagree?


The act of being polite is being a gentleman.No, it's not.



Except one comes back to bourgeois etiquette and the other one doesn't?No, they both do.



The traditional basis for it was in Nobility.Which is undoubtedly where it originally came from.

I'll repeat it, since you didn't reply to it,
If being a gentleman just meant being polite, then why would there be an emphasis on women at all?



Myes, and then it was brought up by other posters that they act gentlemanly to everyone, saying:
[...]
Thus, gentlemanly behavior is not necessarily sexist, but can be defined on an individual basis.
I'm not arguing its never sexist, but that if you apply it as blanketly sexist, you are wrong, and the proof of it is here.Only one poster used the world 'gentleman', the others described specific polite acts, which by themselves do not make somebody a gentleman, as I hope we've established.
Other posters recognised the difference between acting like a gentleman, and just being polite:
Actual "gentlemanly" (in the sense of chivalry) behaviour is however based on the assumption that women are incapable of doing a whole range of everyday activities, and must be protected. Including the original poster,
being a gentleman (i.e. holding doors open for Women and allowing them to do things first)



I try. ;)Well, you're a shocking example of one, then!



I place emphasis on my friends. I place emphasis on human kindness. Not everyone falls into stract categorizations and definitions. :lol:What categorisations am I making other than the definition of being a gentleman?
If what you do is not defined as gentlemanly then you simply are not a gentleman. I would've thought that was quite a simple concept to grasp.




Have you a statistical basis for that? Or are you talking out of thin air?A statistical basis...? How the heck does one gather statistics on people walking eachother home?
It's cultural knowledge.


Or are you trying to establish a motivation for it, purely because its done?So you admit it's done. Clearly statistics weren't necessary.

In which case, I must say, I'm confused to why an action, as such - the act of walking someone home - would make someone 'sexist', as you continually say, its not 'sexist', but being a 'gentleman' is, yet, the actions of gentleman are not 'sexist'.See your article on 'Gentlemen' for my obvious answer to this.



Ahh. Sexism at its worst.I'm sorry if you don't recognise a patronising attitude on the behalf of 'gentlemanly' men towards women may have a basis in sexism, but I'm even more sorry if you don't see anything wrong with that.



:rolleyes:Why even bother replying to a point at all?



Ugh. I addressed this in my previous post.
Infact, you quoted me here!That quote is hardly you addressing the point so much as it is you excusing yourself of a rational reply with an emotive individual experience of how great a friend you are!


Indeed, I'd rather put myself in danger than them.
Not everyone values themselves over others.It's not a case of equal danger, which was the point I was making.


No, I'm trying to demonstrate to you that there is no single motivation for it, and to assume it as always sexist, is plain and simply wrong.Well then you are failing, by ignoring my point.



Tisk. Are you trying to tell me men only stick up for women?
I'm not saying they have nothing to do with it, I'm saying that it's completely contextual in what way they have something to do with it, if at all they do.No, I'm not trying to say that. You are, again, trying to simplify my argument to prove a point.
We are talking about the act of being 'gentlemanly', where gender attitudes do have something to do with it. You're saying that the 'individual situation' is the only thing that is important, and you are ignoring the attitudes behind it which would motivate somebody to act in a certain way during the situation, a way which is not restricted to the situation.



No, you were refering to just women, and I was trying to point out its not just women.
And you didn't respond to my point either.What point that I haven't already responded to? There's no point in responding to an answer to a question which you've misunderstood.



And nor is it a swiveling mass of social hierarchies and opinions, which is completely unable to criticize its own actions and opinions, and that of societies an act upon those criticisms.The individual is created from it's environment. Of course it's not unable to criticise it's actions and opinions. 1. That's not what I've said, 2. Regardless, it doesn't tend to, unless forced.

[Bilan]

Oh, of course I have. :rolleyes:

:lol:




How about, then, instead of just stating that, you explain how?


It's outlined in the rest of the post.

[quote]
Because as far as I can see, you have written a straight forward sentence, that I called out as being incorrect. If I have missed the point besides that sentence, which I highly doubt that I have, that is because you haven't actually made one.

Again, if you read the post, it was answered again, and again.



What don't you understand?

I love how you asked me on msn what this meant, got the answer, but decided to ask again, as if some attempt to insult me.



Gender roles and gentlemanly behaviour are very clearly related.
Consider, for a moment, I beg you, why is it considered good etiquette? You seem to think these things just arise on their own.
What is defined as gentlemanly is not defined by particular actions,
You said said this yourself already, by continually quoting that Wikipedia article which outlines a behaviour, not "particular actions"!

What is behavior (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/behaviour)?

1. the action or reaction of something (as a machine or substance) under specified circumstances; "the behavior of small particles can be studied in experiments" [syn: behavior (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/behavior)] 2. (behavioral attributes) the way a person behaves toward other people [syn: demeanor (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/demeanor)] 3. (psychology) the aggregate of the responses or reactions or movements made by an organism in any situation [syn: behavior (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/behavior)] 4. manner of acting or controlling yourself
And why is it good ettiquete?
Because its an action of kindness? It's polite? Respectful?




Are you serious? Why do you think people have such a problem with gender roles? Where do you think they come from? Individuals are socialised within the society that they live in, and their social values come from the society that they live in, including gender roles. Gender roles are not individually rationalised by each human being. People do not have gender roles written in their DNA, they are informed of gender roles by what they see in the world around them, and they act accordingly.

Humans are not entities void of criticism and thought.
Humans are socialized, but they are able to understand, interpret, criticize, and change their environment and actions.

Their are social values which are set out as good and bad, and whether one conforms to those is determined by alot more than the fact that they're conscious.
Furthermore, the way people are socialised in to a society is determined by more than their gender, it's determined by their class (and within those classes), and even within that in changes between family and family, and the social values held by particular families, their politics, etc. etc.

The point being: that the reason people act is far more complex than what you're making it out to be.



I'm not saying that every man thinks that every woman should be in the kitchen, or that every woman thinks that men should impregnate them and go off and earn them a living, but I am saying that the attitudes towards genders are always different, and will reflect the current gender roles that exist in general society.

Yes, they are always different, and yes, they will reflect them to some degree.
Are you trying to tell me that, because of the current gender roles, and attitudes, individuals are unable to criticise, or understand, or change their behavior?




The acts are not sexist, as I have said a number of times, but the attitude behind men feeling the need to act politely specifically towards women, and it is that which makes somebody a 'gentleman', which is what we are discussing, comes from a condescending and paternalistic attitude towards women.

No, it's not, it can be, but it's not necessarily, and to assume it as, as I have said over, and over again, to assign it a motivation - paternalism and condescending - is wrong. There is no blanket motivation. Even if there is a common one, which could well be paternalistic attitude or what-have-you, that doesn't mean it always is, or that its even the governing behavior of someone who acts gentlemanly.

[quote]
And as I have said, that is not always the case that it is an attitude that a man who tries to act 'gentlemanly' full heartedly shares, but they will share it to a degree, and it is that reason why they feel the need to act gentlemanly towards women! Otherwise, they wouldn't!

The complexities of human behavior is well beyond that.



They just wouldn't! Why would anybody act in a gentlemanly way, which places emphasis on being 'polite' towards women,

Kindness.



Being a gentleman is not just being polite!!

No, it's not. Its being polite, respectful, kind.



Yes, it's considered polite, but according to you, people have their own motivations, remember? So there will be a deeper or more specific reason as to why they think it's appropriate.
And that is the last two points, which for the most part will go hand in hand. If they're asking you to walk them home, that's something completely different, because the initiative is not from you, trying to be a gentleman.
Just because you don't consciously think in your mind "I'd better walk her home, because she is, after all, of the weaker sex," doesn't mean that this attitude just doesn't exist.

Yeah, it doesn't mean that, but it also doesn't mean that either. And you're again assuming that its true, when undoubtedly, in plenty of cases, it's not.



I'm not saying that there is one motivation for it, I'm saying that whatever the motivation for it, there will be a basis in a certain attitude towards women!

[quote]
When a woman holds the door for me, or even when a man holds the door for me, it is completely different to a man holding the door in an effort to be a "gentleman".

So, if someones making a effort to be kind to you, you're insulted, offended, or feel patronised?



Being a gentleman, as said in your article, involves an emphasis on being polite towards women, which is sexist.

How? An emphasis is not a defined motivation.



What do you mean how? An emphasis on a particular sex is sexism. Why do you disagree?

^^^



No, it's not.



How about, then, instead of just stating that, you explain how?
Because as far as I can see, you have written a straight forward sentence, that I called out as being incorrect. If I have missed the point besides that sentence, which I highly doubt that I have, that is because you haven't actually made one.




No, they both do.

No, no, they don't. The former can, but isn't necessarily, whilst the latter explicitly is.



Only one poster used the world 'gentleman', the others described specific polite acts, which by themselves do not make somebody a gentleman, as I hope we've established.
Other posters recognised the difference between acting like a gentleman, and just being polite: Including the original poster,

The original poster asked whether it was sexist, but assumed they were kind anyway.
And as for the others, they responded whether they thought being a 'gentleman' was sexist, outlined by their own behaviour and acts of kindness, etc. Actions which they, or are, considered gentlemanly.




Well, you're a shocking example of one, then!

Haha



What categorisations am I making other than the definition of being a gentleman?

Because your definition assumes its basis in patriachy and sexism, which, the point I was making was that it's not necessarily true, and that and being 'gentelmanly' is defined by actions, and not motivations.
So...

Another definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gentleman)

1.a man of good family, breeding, or social position. 2.(used as a polite term) a man: Do you know that gentleman over there? 3.gentlemen, (used as a form of address): Gentlemen, please come this way. 4.a civilized, educated, sensitive, or well-mannered man: He behaved like a true gentleman. 5.a male personal servant, esp. of a man of social position; valet. 6.a male attendant upon a king, queen, or other royal person, who is himself of high birth or rank. 7.a man of good social standing, as a noble or an armigerous commoner. 8.a man with an independent income who does not work for a living. 9.a male member of the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives: The chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.




If what you do is not defined as gentlemanly then you simply are not a gentleman. I would've thought that was quite a simple concept to grasp.

Evidently.




A statistical basis...?

I was being sarcastic. Pointing out that its an assumption.



So you admit it's done. Clearly statistics weren't necessary.
See your article on 'Gentlemen' for my obvious answer to this.

Done meant that people walked each other home, not that its more common.



I'm sorry if you don't recognise a patronising attitude on the behalf of 'gentlemanly' men towards women may have a basis in sexism, but I'm even more sorry if you don't see anything wrong with that.

Sorry, how is it patronising to allow someone to enter a room first? Allow them through a door first?




That quote is hardly you addressing the point so much as it is you excusing yourself of a rational reply with an emotive individual experience of how great a friend you are!

It's neither irrational not 'emotive', its merely pointing out that not everyone who rejects 'gentelmanly' behavior is a closed off, cold asshole, and that human kindness, which can manifest itself in what is considered as 'gentlemanly behavior', has many motivations.
And indeed, that friends are supposed to care about each other, and be there for each other.



It's not a case of equal danger, which was the point I was making.

Indeed, and the point is that you don't necessarily want them to be in as much danger as you, but less.



Well then you are failing, by ignoring my point.

I'm not ignoring your points.



No, I'm not trying to say that. You are, again, trying to simplify my argument to prove a point.
We are talking about the act of being 'gentlemanly', where gender attitudes do have something to do with it. You're saying that the 'individual situation' is the only thing that is important, and you are ignoring the attitudes behind it which would motivate somebody to act in a certain way during the situation, a way which is not restricted to the situation.

No, I'm not ignoring it, it's the crux of my point: the motivations.

What point that I haven't already responded to? There's no point in responding to an answer to a question which you've misunderstood.



The individual is created from it's environment.

The individual is shaped by its environment, and also shapes its environment.



Of course it's not unable to criticize it's actions and opinions. 1. That's not what I've said,

That's what you've ignored about the basis for it.

[Module]

Again, if you read the post, it was answered again, and again.It was answered again and again? You're referring to a specific sentence which, as I have explained, is incorrect. Repeating it does nothing.



I love how you asked me on msn what this meant, got the answer, but decided to ask again, as if some attempt to insult me.You wouldn't have acknowledged a point unless you were forced to.
No doubt you'll still not acknowledge it now.


What is behavior (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/behaviour)?

1. the action or reaction of something (as a machine or substance) under specified circumstances; "the behavior of small particles can be studied in experiments" [syn: behavior (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/behavior)] 2. (behavioral attributes) the way a person behaves toward other people [syn: demeanor (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/demeanor)] 3. (psychology) the aggregate of the responses or reactions or movements made by an organism in any situation [syn: behavior (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/behavior)] 4. manner of acting or controlling yourself Please don't attempt to patronise me. You know precisely that I mean a general behavior, you can figure that out pretty easily from the grammatical context.


And why is it good ettiquete?
Because its an action of kindness? It's polite? Respectful?It's respectful to put emphasis on acting a certain way towards a particular sex?
You're reasoning it with itself, and not actually answering the question.


Humans are not entities void of criticism and thought.
Humans are socialized, but they are able to understand, interpret, criticize, and change their environment and actions.Since I've already said that I don't think they're void of criticism and thought, I wonder why you're repeating that to me?
People have the ability to criticise and change their actions, but as I said, they generally won't do it unless they're given some direct reason as to why they should.
Regardless, as I already said, the way people act in certain situations is dependent on their social values. Social values do not equate to rigid instructions, so I don't know why you're trying to reject the idea of their influence, in favour of pure independent though, when it is a known fact.

As you'll remember something else I told you on MSN, gender roles, despite what you apparently thought in terms of racial stereotypes, do not only exist on television. They are real, their effect is real, and their effect is great.


Their are social values which are set out as good and bad, and whether one conforms to those is determined by alot more than the fact that they're conscious.It's not a case of somebody conforming or not conforming to social values. That is just a misunderstanding of their very nature, and the nature of the socialisation process. An individual's identity is forged through patterned relationships with their peers, on the basis of an endless amount of distinctions, or divisions, be it race, gender, body type, you name it. An individual doesn't somehow decide which social values he or she is going to conform to. They become sub-conscious, part of the individual's very perspective, as well as their perspective also being moulded by their own role in their society, and as well as it being moulded by their own free thinking mind.
You seem to think that every aspect of a person's beliefs, opinions, and social values are individually and consciously considered, when this is not the case. Most people do not even think about most of them until they are challenged in some way.

Furthermore, the way people are socialised in to a society is determined by more than their gender, it's determined by their class (and within those classes), and even within that in changes between family and family, and the social values held by particular families, their politics, etc. etc.Yeah, you got it! ;) Now if only you could apply that understanding to what you're actually saying ... you'd see that the motivation for somebody feeling the need to act in a 'gentlemanly' manner is not simply decided by the individual situation!


The point being: that the reason people act is far more complex than what you're making it out to be.Than I'm making it out to be? You're practically ignoring the entire influence of an individual's social environment, and you're saying that I'm simplifying it?
You are, either subconsciously for the sake of this thread, or because of an inability to comprehend, exaggerating my argument to the extreme.


Yes, they are always different, and yes, they will reflect them to some degree.
Are you trying to tell me that, because of the current gender roles, and attitudes, individuals are unable to criticise, or understand, or change their behavior? No, I have already said this in the very post you're replying to.
Again, you are trying to exaggerate my argument.



No, it's not, it can be, but it's not necessarily, and to assume it as, as I have said over, and over again, to assign it a motivation - paternalism and condescending - is wrong. There is no blanket motivation. Even if there is a common one, which could well be paternalistic attitude or what-have-you, that doesn't mean it always is, or that its even the governing behavior of someone who acts gentlemanly.You have indeed repeated your sentiments towards 'assigning a motivation' again and again, and so I will have to remind you, again, that I am not assigning a specific motivation, I am saying that the motivation is influenced by wider attitudes.
All people, unless they live under a rock, are influenced by gender roles.
I have also already said that not all 'gentlemen' have paternalistic view of women, but that which makes men feel the need to act gentlemanly comes from a traditional paternalistic attitude towards women within society, which as I also referred to, could come from the traditional culture of 'nobility', from which the term 'gentleman' itself originally comes from.



The complexities of human behavior is well beyond that.It's a pity you don't seem to understand a thing about them other than that they exist.



Kindness. How can you be so simple as to say that it's just kind to be specifically polite towards women?
If I was to hand everybody in a room full of people a cupcake, but then give the people with the palest skin two cupcakes, would you give an answer as simple as that, as to say it's just because I was a kind person?
That's just daft.


No, it's not. Its being polite, respectful, kind.Funny, you admitted this wasn't the case on MSN, why can't you do it here?



Yeah, it doesn't mean that, but it also doesn't mean that either. And you're again assuming that its true, when undoubtedly, in plenty of cases, it's not.No, undoubtedly in many cases, especially when a man is doing it for the cause of being a gentleman, [I]it is.
I'm sorry, but it is just plain cultural knowledge that in a lot of cases, a man will walk a woman home because she is a woman, no matter if it is a conscious decision, they will walk a woman home in the way, and with the motivation, that which I have just outlined, that they will not walk a man home.
I just do not understand how, after years of being alive, you haven't yet picked this up.


So, if someones making a effort to be kind to you, you're insulted, offended, or feel patronised?I don't even know how to reply to this, because you've just completely misunderstood, or misread that sentence.


How? An emphasis is not a defined motivation.I never said an emphasis is a motivation, I said it is caused by a specific attitude, and the emphasis plays itself out in the situation.



^^^In no way, shape or form did the above sentence answer that question.



No, no, they don't. The former can, but isn't necessarily, whilst the latter explicitly is.In preparation for the upcoming Dictionary.com entry on 'Gentleman', (As I presume your original definition didn't support your argument enough so you had to go find another one?), here is the Dictionary.com entry on 'Lady'.;)

–noun 1.a woman who is refined, polite, and well-spoken: 2.a woman of high social position or economic class: 3.any woman; female (sometimes used in combination): 4.(Used in direct address: often offensive in the singular): 5.wife:
The conversational meaning of 'lady' is different to, for instance, the Wikipedia definition, since we've been using that so far, which still considers it "the counterpart of a gentleman."
Whatever the multiple meanings of these words may be, however, there is only one meaning that has been used throughout this entire thread, so regardless of temptation, I ask that you stick with that one.
So, yes. It's both.


The original poster asked whether it was sexist, but assumed they were kind anyway.
And as for the others, they responded whether they thought being a 'gentleman' was sexist, outlined by their own behaviour and acts of kindness, etc. Actions which they, or are, considered gentlemanly.The original poster asked whether it was sexist to act in a certain way specifically towards women, referring to 'chivarly' type behaviour.
As for the others, they responded saying that they performed acts of kindness to people regardless of gender, and that it should not be mistaken for chivalry.



Because your definition assumes its basis in patriachy and sexism, which, the point I was making was that it's not necessarily true, and that and being 'gentlemanly' is defined by actions, and not motivations.
So...The meaning of the term being used for the original purpose of this thread was that which has a basis in patriarchy and sexism.


I was being sarcastic. Pointing out that its an assumption.It is public cultural knowledge, not an assumption.



Sorry, how is it patronising to allow someone to enter a room first? Allow them through a door first?It becomes patronising when you do it specifically to women.
By doing it in a conscious effort to be polite, and feeling the need to do it towards women, as a conscious effort to be respectful towards them, you practically patronise the inequality between the sexes.


It's neither irrational not 'emotive', its merely pointing out that not everyone who rejects 'gentelmanly' behavior is a closed off, cold asshole,[quote]
That is almost the complete opposite point that you demonstrated.
[quote]and that human kindness, which can manifest itself in what is considered as 'gentlemanly behavior', has many motivations.
And indeed, that friends are supposed to care about each other, and be there for each other.But we're not talking specifically about human kindness, we're talking specifically about 'gentlemanly behaviour'.
So if that was the point you're making, it was an irrelevant one to make.
This brings me back to the point I said about there 'not being an 'or''. I've already covered 'human kindness'.



I'm not ignoring your points.And yet you still accuse me of arguing things that I'm not even arguing.
I don't think I have to repeat, again, that I didn't say there was a 'single motivation'.



No, I'm not ignoring it, it's the crux of my point: the motivations.Gender roles are the crux of your point? Please don't tell me you're trying to claim that, now. :D



The individual is shaped by its environment, and also shapes its environment. Society shapes it's environment, and an individual is a part of society.


That's what you've ignored about the basis for it.No, that's what you've managed to miss by exaggerating my arguments, which to a small degree, I've corrected in [2.], which you have ignored.
Surprise, surprise.

[Azraelscross]

I once had a girl actually become violent with me when i held the door open for the 2 guys ahead of her as well as her. She started yelling and physically pushed me spouting out stuff like, "what? you think i couldn't do it myself?" Took the piss right out of me

i don't see it as particularly sexist in anyway. its just regular politeness IMO

[Awful Reality]

So yeah is being a gentleman (i.e. holding doors open for Women and allowing them to do things first) sexist or just good morals?

For me it relies on the subconscious belief that women should be looked after by men and is thus sexist (Albeit with those doing it not knowing).

Thoughts?

It implies that women are unable to do so themselves. So yes, it is sexist.
But I generally do the same things for men too, so I think I'm just being polite.

[Kami]

Here's the thing. Holding a door open for a woman is not sexist. Holding a door open because they're a woman is.

[Bilan]

Being chivalrous in the sense that the original post was actually referring to, that is, opening the door for women, carrying their shit for them, whatever, doing those things specifically for women is objectively (and obviously) sexist.
There's nothing simplistic about that, it's just a fact.

It's not 'just a fact'. It is not black and white, and wont be just because you state it.You are being simplistic.



People seem to be ignoring the difference between 'politeness' and 'chivalry', in this thread. It's quite obvious the sense the OP was using it in, it's really just making the way you're taking the conversation into a total nuisance.

No, you're enforcing a useless dichotomy.



As such I'm trashing SoB's little Wiki quote.

Sorry, but you can't just trash things as you wish. The OP said it was 'derived from sexism'. The quote proves that that is utter crap. It's derived from nobility, and even the term itself, as it proved, was not consistently defined. So please put it back, or I will.



A decent response to the OP's query is not "Being chivalrous is not being sexist because I open doors for both men and women". If anything it's avoiding the point completely.

No, it isn't. And if you're referring to me, I didn't say that. That's from a different thread.

[Module]

It's not 'just a fact'. It is not black and white, and wont be just because you state it.You are being simplistic. Erm, let's be clear. Acting in a certain way specifically towards women, as women, is definitively sexist. This is not in any way a personal analysis, just an application of terms on the basis of their definition.


No, you're enforcing a useless dichotomy.Useless? From Wikipedia article (I can't believe I have to go over this obvious point, again)

Today, the terms chivalry and chivalrous are used to describe courteous behavior, especially that of men towards women.This is the sense that the OP is using it in. The sense of men being 'courteous' towards women, as women. This is not the same as being polite, that is, having good manners, as it involves specific ettiquite directed specifically towards women. This ettiquite is what the OP was referring to. Pointing out the difference between this traditional male-to-female ettiquite and simply being 'polite' is not at all "useless", it is, in fact, central to the point of this thread.


Sorry, but you can't just trash things as you wish. The OP said it was 'derived from sexism'. The quote proves that that is utter crap. It's derived from nobility, and even the term itself, as it proved, was not consistently defined. So please put it back, or I will. No, you're not going to derail this thread with your moronic semantics. I'm not even quite sure why or what you're arguing, either way, the meaning of the OP has been clearly lost on you.
Is doesn't matter if the term 'chivalry' has a somewhat vague definition (not that it does to any meaningful sense in terms of it's modern use). It was not vague, for anybody with even a sliver of common sense, what he meant by it, so if you for whatever reason need to understand the eptymology of the term to comprehend the OP's meaning please research it privately and don't assume the rest of us feel any need to do the same.


No, it isn't. And if you're referring to me, I didn't say that. That's from a different thread.Yes it is. The OP isn't talking about opening doors for both men and women. But no, I'm not referring specifically to you, but generally the kinds of responses this thread has received from certain members, including yourself. Apparently more concerned with excusing the term 'chivalry', and their own supposed behaviour than actually answering the original question.
If you want to respond to this post you can start a new thread, otherwise I'll split it, if possible.

[Module]

Previous two posts split from 'Is chivalry sexist? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/chivilary-sexisti-t101383/index2.html)'

[Bilan]

Erm, let's be clear. Acting in a certain way specifically towards women, as women, is definitively sexist. This is not in any way a personal analysis, just an application of terms on the basis of their definition.

sex⋅ism

  http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/S03/S0388600)  /ˈsɛkhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngsɪzhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) [sek-siz-uhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngm] Show IPA Pronunciation http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html)
–noun 1. attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles. 2. discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; esp., such discrimination directed against women.
The former can be interpreted loosely to fit in, but again, is contextual on this point.



Useless?Yes, useless.



From Wikipedia article (I can't believe I have to go over this obvious point, again)
This is the sense that the OP is using it in. The sense of men being 'courteous' towards women, as women. This is not the same as being polite, that is, having good manners, as it involves specific ettiquite directed specifically towards women. This ettiquite is what the OP was referring to. Pointing out the difference between this traditional male-to-female ettiquite and simply being 'polite' is not at all "useless", it is, in fact, central to the point of this thread.no, it's not. Isolating it from general behaviour abstracts it, and makes any criticism of it utterly stupid, because it pin points it without locating it in a general scheme of behavioral patterns, particularly of individuals (because when push comes to shove, thats what it comes down too).
The OP can choose to isolate it, in the same way a poster can isolate racism from class, that still makes their isolation useless because of its very isolation from the general structures.
In the same way that you generalise all of it to be of a particular type, by generalising within the social structures of a society - in this case, patriarchal - and then label it all sexist. You isolate particular circumstance by blurring over the entire thing with one brush.
Things need to be understoon in context, and as they are, for what they are within that. Not absracted, or generalised, because it means nothing.

By the very same general logic of generalising, one could interpret all actions between different nationalisties as nationalist or racist, without understanding them at all, and thereby ignoring what they actually are simply because they are generalised, and thus, not accurately understood.

Behaviour relates to this entirely. To generalise behaviour and interaction is stupid because behavioural patterns, though interrelated, are also individual.

With chivalry, already identified as being vague and inconsistent in its very definition, to generalise this doesn't even make sense, considering it barely has a real definition in a modern context, aside from vague definitions, which constitute a treatment of people in one way, in some cases as 'specifically toward women'.

And even within that, the general "codes" of it outlined were toward a partner, rather than generally towards women (even specifically outlined in the article mentioned), and in practice, that is sometimes done in the complete opposite fashion, or generally.
So, no.



No, you're not going to derail this thread with your moronic semantics.Keep your petty insults to yourself. I don't care for them, and it doesn't make your case anymore reasonable.



I'm not even quite sure why or what you're arguing, either way, the meaning of the OP has been clearly lost on you.
And I'm aware manners are lost on you. There is no need to tarnish this thread with such crap.



Is doesn't matter if the term 'chivalry' has a somewhat vague definition (not that it does to any meaningful sense in terms of it's modern use).I think that really pin points the (absence) of your (consistent) argument. It doesn't have a consistent definition, it is vague, but by god is it sexist...whatever it is!



It was not vague, for anybody with even a sliver of common sense, what he meant by it, so if you for whatever reason need to understand the eptymology of the term to comprehend the OP's meaning please research it privately and don't assume the rest of us feel any need to do the same.The OP is wrong. If they're going to argue something is something else, then they best know what it is - if they're going to say its origin is sexist, and then they're wrong, then they are wrong. This is reality.
Please spare the crap.



Yes it is. The OP isn't talking about opening doors for both men and women.I don't care, nor is that particularly relevant or interesting.



But no, I'm not referring specifically to you, but generally the kinds of responses this thread has received from certain members, including yourself. Apparently more concerned with excusing the term 'chivalry', and their own supposed behaviour than actually answering the original question.
If you want to respond to this post you can start a new thread, otherwise I'll split it, if possible.No reason to split it, as its entirely relevant, but I frankly don't give a shit.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I hold the door open for anyone who is behind me. I sometimes hate the fact I care about this very scenario, because there's apparently a "time slot" for how long you can hold a door open for another person without looking like an arse. One thing I've noticed is that younger folks hold the doors open all the time, but "old timers" don't unless it conforms to the gentlemanly approach.

There are better ways of getting laid, guys. ;)

[brigadista]

You've got a point, but take a look (if you can) on the statistics on how many women are being raped while they are alone compared to while they are with someone. Or just think about it logically.


i think that statistics show that women are mostly raped by men they know,not anonymous strangers