Ladies First: A sexist comment?

[Lost In Translation]

I believe all Revleft members have heard, or used the phrase "ladies first" at least once. However, to some of my female classmates, it seems offensive. To others, they're fine with it. What do you think?

[Foldered]

I can see both sides to it. On one hand, many people who say "ladies first" and act by it are ignorant to its implications, on the other hand, "ladies first" implies that women should go first before men which seems to enforce a prejudice against women.
Why should women be first? They're weaker and need a man to be behind them, etc. etc.

All in all, yes, I would consider it sexist.

[Module]

I can see both sides to it. On one hand, many people who say "ladies first" and act by it are ignorant to its implications, on the other hand, "ladies first" implies that women should go first before men which seems to enforce a prejudice against women.
Why should women be first? They're weaker and need a man to be behind them, etc. etc.

All in all, yes, I would consider it sexist.
This.

[bcbm]

"ladies first" implies that women should go first before men which seems to enforce a prejudice against women.
Why should women be first? They're weaker and need a man to be behind them, etc. etc.

I think its more a sign of respect, not anything about needing men behind them.

[Module]

I think its more a sign of respect, not anything about needing men behind them.
Yeah (sorry I didn't properly read the last post, really, though I essentially still agree with it :p)
It's not necessarily about women being weaker, but it's not a sign of 'respect' so much as it is patronisingly raising women on a pedestal under the guise of 'respect' in a sort of 'I love women, they deserve to go before me!' sort of way.
It's not respecting women as equals, it's almost sort of a patronising mockery of women's social subservience.

[Foldered]

Yeah (sorry I didn't properly read the last post, really, though I essentially still agree with it :p)
It's not necessarily about women being weaker, but it's not a sign of 'respect' so much as it is patronisingly raising women on a pedestal under the guise of 'respect' in a sort of 'I love women, they deserve to go before me!' sort of way.
It's not respecting women as equals, it's almost sort of a patronising mockery of women's social subservience.
Kind of what I was trying to say, but more coherently stated.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I don't think it's sexist.

[Foldered]

I don't think it's sexist.
Why not?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Why not?
Why should I? It wouldn't do to presume that everything relating to women is sexist, so I don't think something is sexist unless I have good reason to, for example, if it involves a violation of the rights of women or is degrading to them. I don't think allowing a woman to walk ahead of you out of courtesy fulfils any of those criteria.

[Foldered]

Why should I? It wouldn't do to presume that everything relating to women is sexist, so I don't think something is sexist unless I have good reason to, for example, if it involves a violation of the rights of women or is degrading to them. I don't think allowing a woman to walk ahead of you out of courtesy fulfils any of those criteria.
I was just asking because everyone else said why the think it's sexist or not. I think that if it can be considered not respecting women as equals, it is degrading. I don't think that puts me in the position of presuming that everything relating to women is sexist, either.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I was just asking because everyone else said why the think it's sexist or not. I think that if it can be considered not respecting women as equals, it is degrading. I don't think that puts me in the position of presuming that everything relating to women is sexist, either.
Well no, you think the way you do for a reason. What I was saying is that I think the onus would be on the people who claim that is is sexist to prove their case - so my reason for thinking that it's not sexist would be that I'm not convinced. And I'm still not convinced, it may be different treatment but first of all I don't think it's significant enough to constitute unequal treatment in any meaningful sense of the word - that is, I don't think men let women walk ahead of them because they hold them to be inferior. I think it's just a custom, it might not make sense but then customs don't have to. I don't think it harms women or their status in society in any way.

[Lost In Translation]

Well no, you think the way you do for a reason. What I was saying is that I think the onus would be on the people who claim that is is sexist to prove their case - so my reason for thinking that it's not sexist would be that I'm not convinced. And I'm still not convinced, it may be different treatment but first of all I don't think it's significant enough to constitute unequal treatment in any meaningful sense of the word - that is, I don't think men let women walk ahead of them because they hold them to be inferior. I think it's just a custom, it might not make sense but then customs don't have to. I don't think it harms women or their status in society in any way.

Yes, I do have to agree with you on this point. However, there are some extremely touchy "feminists" who believe that women are independent, and do not need to receive "special treatment" (aka "ladies first"). It's a case where the situation is not serious enough to warrant any hard feelings, but significant enough to raise some eyebrows. However, all in all, I really don't believe that it's a sexist phrase, seeing as the women are divided on this topic. I just wanted to know what the Revleft members thought.

[Foldered]

Most "customs" have roots somewhere. Passing it off as just a custom seems like a sort of cop-out to me. This sort of "tradition" is something that should be questioned, I think.

[feminist dyke whore]

I try to let others go before me and hold a door open for them because it is the polite thing to do. I appreciate it when others show me the same courtesy, however I think it's more respectful as a gracious gesture to a fellow human being and not as a "chivalric" deed of "ladies first".
Just on the topic i have a friend who finds feminists hypercritical, "If women want equal treatment they should treat men equally. When was the last time you saw a woman open a door for a man?" I think he feels "ladies first" rectifies thousands of years of womens oppression.:confused::laugh::confused:

[Foldered]

I try to let others go before me and hold a door open for them because it is the polite thing to do. I appreciate it when others show me the same courtesy, however I think it's more respectful as a gracious gesture to a fellow human being and not as a "chivalric" deed of "ladies first".
Just on the topic i have a friend who finds feminists hypercritical, "If women want equal treatment they should treat men equally. When was the last time you saw a woman open a door for a man?" I think he feels "ladies first" rectifies thousands of years of womens oppression.:confused::laugh::confused:
That's a good story. :lol:

Anyway, I do generally open the door first, but I do it for men and women alike.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

I prefer "age before beauty". That way, however, I always go last.

Seriously, I would agree it is a bit sexist, but so many little things in our culture are. I say focus on the larger and more blatant sexist practices (not hiring women/men for jobs not traditionally in their sexual role, equal pay, spousal abuse, etc.), and the insignificant ones can wait (in many cases might phase out altogether.)

That said, if you're a woman and someone says "ladies first" to you in a derogatory way, go ahead and rip them a new asshole.

[Decolonize The Left]

It seems to me that "ladies first" is most certainly a sexist phrase, though relatively speaking it is not as drastic as the pay gap, etc... But none-the-less, the fact that it is relatively innocuous in comparison does not make it any more acceptable. I find it sexist on two accounts:
1) The term "ladies" was derived to refer to a specific, often incapable of simple tasks, type of woman. Hence it has a connotation of weakness and servility to it.
2) Putting women before men may seem polite and courteous (and it may be in some cases), but it stems from the notion that women deserve partial treatment due to their gender.

- August

[BobKKKindle$]

Even if the practice of allowing women to go first is not in itself a violation of anyone's rights or an affront to personal dignity (although obviously this is something which depends on the individual woman and how she perceives the action) it perpetuates and legitimizes the idea that women should not be treated in the same way as men - and this could potentially maintain sexism in other areas such as perceptions of intellectual ability etc.

However, allowing people to go first in general (regardless of sex) is an admirable act of courtesy.

[Module]

Even if the practice of allowing women to go first is not in itself a violation of anyone's rights or an affront to personal dignity (although obviously this is something which depends on the individual woman and how she perceives the action) it perpetuates and legitimizes the idea that women should not be treated in the same way as men - and this could potentially maintain sexism in other areas such as perceptions of intellectual ability etc.

However, allowing people to go first in general (regardless of sex) is an admirable act of courtesy.
This is exactly right.

To say that something which doesn't directly and consciously hurt a group in society cannot be discriminatory is very simplistic, and ignores the many ways in which certain social attitudes are perpetuated in regular social situations.
Behaviors towards certain social groups, such as in this case, letting women go before men in lines and through doorways and so on, don't simply exist as isolated pieces of our culture - they are directly linked to the social status of these groups within our entire society, and serve to perpetuate certain social attitudes towards these groups.
Just because something is not specifically negative treatment does not mean it is isolated from wider social attitudes towards these groups and it does not mean that it doesn't reinforce them.
Indeed, gender roles are glorified and supported in themselves; it makes sense that actions stemming from these gender roles will not be objective generalised effects, such as in the case of women, treating them specifically as inferior.
Besides, as I mentioned in my post earlier on, the negative social attitudes can still be seen within these so-called 'positive' or 'polite' behaviours.
Discrimination within society effects it on a number of different levels and it's important not to disregard the effects of some discriminatory behaviour because it's not specifically negative towards the targeted groups.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

1) The term "ladies" was derived to refer to a specific, often incapable of simple tasks, type of woman. Hence it has a connotation of weakness and servility to it.
Actually, "lady" comes from the Old Enlish "hlǣfdige", a word made up from "hlāf" (loaf or bread) and "hlāford" (lord).

Not to say that using the word to refer to a "bread-maker" isn't derogatory in itself, but the term "lady" wasn't derived for the purpose of implying women were incapable. That connotation was adopted after the denotation was already established.

[Lost In Translation]

Actually, "lady" comes from the Old Enlish "hlǣfdige", a word made up from "hlāf" (loaf or bread) and "hlāford" (lord).

Not to say that using the word to refer to a "bread-maker" isn't derogatory in itself, but the term "lady" wasn't derived for the purpose of implying women were incapable. That connotation was adopted after the denotation was already established.

Yes, the connotation was adopted long after. There were such phrases as "dress like a lady", "behave like a lady", circulating for many centuries that the word itself was created to put down women. However, how do you argue with a "feminist" that thinks "ladies first" is an extremely sexist action?

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Yes, the connotation was adopted long after. There were such phrases as "dress like a lady", "behave like a lady", circulating for many centuries that the word itself was created to put down women. However, how do you argue with a "feminist" that thinks "ladies first" is an extremely sexist action?
I don't.

Feminists (including myself) have differing opinions on what is mildly, moderately, and severely sexist; each opinion is as valid as the next (a principle I feel is a basic pillar for all of feminism.)

I don't deny that language is sexist (terms such as "woman" or "female", for example). However, what would one propose we do; change hundreds of years of linguistic evolution?

You can change the language, but the mentality will remain long after, and the newer terms will likely take on new sexist connotations anyway.

I feel the mentality or act of "ladies first" is more sexist then the language. I consider the language mildly sexist, but the act moderately sexist. I feel the mentality must be challenged before language is addressed.

[Decolonize The Left]

krazyrabidsheep:

I feel the mentality or act of "ladies first" is more sexist then the language. I consider the language mildly sexist, but the act moderately sexist. I feel the mentality must be challenged before language is addressed.

I fully agree with you here, though I would like to offer the possibility that these two things (mentality and language) are not so separate after all. Perhaps the language which we use directly influences our mentality - for certainly the converse is true (mentality directly influences language), no?

- August

[BIG BROTHER]

I consider the "lady's first" a sexist concept. But one must consider that not all women take as an offense(obiosly) and in fact see it as a sing of respect. Also this is probably one of the most harmless forms of sexism and we should focus or more grave issues.

[Foldered]

krazyrabidsheep:


I fully agree with you here, though I would like to offer the possibility that these two things (mentality and language) are not so separate after all. Perhaps the language which we use directly influences our mentality - for certainly the converse is true (mentality directly influences language), no?

- August
I would argue that by getting rid of the language the mentality would go away sooner than if we relied on the mentality to change first.

So, indeed, the language we use directly influences the mentality.

[Module]

I consider the "lady's first" a sexist concept. But one must consider that not all women take as an offense(obiosly) and in fact see it as a sing of respect. Also this is probably one of the most harmless forms of sexism and we should focus or more grave issues.
Of course this isn't something to focus on, but that does not mean that we can't discuss, or even personally recognise the variety of different ways sexism manifests itself throughout our culture.
I'm not surprised that not all women take offense at 'ladies first', indeed there must be as many women who see nothing wrong with it as there are men who practice it, nowadays.
As I said before (and this is not a criticism, I agree with your post, I'm just discussing), seemingly 'harmless' forms of sexism are not separated from harmful sexism - indeed the entire plethora of effects of patriarchy vary and reach farther through our social structure than most people care to recognise.


I would argue that by getting rid of the language the mentality would go away sooner than if we relied on the mentality to change first.

So, indeed, the language we use directly influences the mentality.
Language makes up a big part of one's culture - though it is not the sound, the syllables that give a word it's meaning within our culture, rather the connotations that surround these words and how these words are used.
Women being called 'womyn', for instance, does nothing to reverse patriarchy, but it serves to bring attention to aspects of our language and our culture, generally, that we never really care to think about or question, such as how we refer to certain social groups, and the structure of our society as a whole.
Words evolve over time through different meanings given to these words - an example of this is the term 'nigger', which is nowadays within black communities used as a casual reference to others (as 'nigga', I mean), as well as the term 'dyke', which was originally a homophobic slur which has to a large extent been adopted by LGBT communities, (for example 'Dykes on Bikes' and 'Dyke March' and so on).
While it is true that the language we use is a reflection upon our society and culture, it is simplistic to say that it has a direct and specific effect upon these things. On the contrary, language informs culture and vice versa, as a certain part of culture, and it changes with change.
If I was to refer to something, for instance, as ‘gay’ because I thought it was lame or whatever I would be using a homophobic term. However it’s not because ‘gay’ is a homophobic word, but because of the connotations of the word outside of its context mean homosexual, which creates negative connotations for that word as a whole.
And also, the reason why ‘gay’ has become to be used as synonymous with ‘bad’ is because of homophobia.
Basically what I’m saying is that what make a word harmful are its context and the connotations behind those words. No average person knows where ‘lady’ comes from, they’re not even going to bother thinking about it because the only thing of relevance to their use of it, and it’s modern definition.
To avoid using words that you know are discriminatory, and have a direct effect upon a certain social group is just to be respectful, to support equality. But language is one part of an entire culture, an entire social structure – and it’s more important to combat the direct discrimination against certain social groups, and these attitudes as whole rather than specifically one part of a discriminatory culture.
(I am aware, a slightly long winded response to two sentences :lol: but no part before seemed a good place to stop!)

[Decolonize The Left]

To avoid using words that you know are discriminatory, and have a direct effect upon a certain social group is just to be respectful, to support equality. But language is one part of an entire culture, an entire social structure – and it’s more important to combat the direct discrimination against certain social groups, and these attitudes as whole rather than specifically one part of a discriminatory culture.

Indeed, and while I agree with pretty much your entire post, I would like to propose that some people may not feel comfortable 'directly confronting discrimination against certain social groups' for whatever reasons. I believe that rather than guide individuals into the 'best' fight against discrimination, the most comprehensive solution is to address discrimination within yourself. I find that it is most beneficial to take note when one uses discriminatory language, or engages in discriminatory behavior, and to work to diffuse that within oneself. This simply removes one more player from the game of antagonism and conflict, thereby bringing us one step closer to 'equality.'

- August