NationStates Jolt Archive


Sexist, me?

Peepelonia
22-05-2008, 13:53
So I was on my way to work this morning on the second tube of three, crammed in like the preverbial sardines when a whole slew of fellow cattle debarked at Victoria Station.

Great an avaliable seat, rigth there just two shuffling steps to my left. I make the move and am just about to sit down when I notice a very, very attractive woman a mere step away from the seat, looking me straight in the eyes and smiling such a beautiful smile it made my little heart go thud.

So what could I do? Thats right I shrugged my applogy and took my well won seat. Boy I have never seen an angel turn into a demon so quick, the look of anger taht now apperred put my in mindof the look my dad used to get just prior to administering a beating.

So I think she was angry that her femanine whiles did not work.

But what do you think, and what would you have done if you was me, or indeed her?
Dundee-Fienn
22-05-2008, 13:55
Personally I would probably have let her have the seat as it's almost a reflex reaction from my upbringing. I don't think you did anything wrong though
Neo Bretonnia
22-05-2008, 13:55
I'd have given up the seat whether it was an attractive woman or not. It doesn't hurt to stand and a little kindness is always a good thing.

She probably smiled at you because she thought you were a gentleman.

Not sexist either way.
Pirated Corsairs
22-05-2008, 14:00
I ride the bus every day to and from campus. I only ever give up a seat if it's an older person, somebody with crutches, or basically anybody that seems like they need the seat much more than I do. I won't give a seat I've already taken to somebody just because she has a vagina; women and men are equally capable of standing. Now, if somebody and I arrive at a seat at the same time, I typically offer it to them and just stand myself.

Of course, the buses I usually ride tend to have plenty of available seats anyway, so it doesn't often come up.
Rambhutan
22-05-2008, 14:03
surely you would have got a better view of her cleavage if you had given up the seat?
DaWoad
22-05-2008, 14:04
not sexist maybe not to bright in this case though .. . you could have had something there lol
Smunkeeville
22-05-2008, 14:16
In general I only give up my seat if someone needs it more, like if they are old and frail or pregnant or have a child they are holding. It's your seat, if she's mad it's her fault.

You shouldn't have to give up your seat for anyone, and I don't know why you would choose to unless you were being polite.

Women can stand around just as well as men.
Extreme Ironing
22-05-2008, 14:27
surely you would have got a better view of her cleavage if you had given up the seat?

Shirley, this is the Real Man's choice :p

Anyway, I generally would let someone else have the seat, regardless of gender. I'm quite happy to stand and am more inclined to let others have the comfort in place of me.
Amor Pulchritudo
22-05-2008, 14:30
So I was on my way to work this morning on the second tube of three, crammed in like the preverbial sardines when a whole slew of fellow cattle debarked at Victoria Station.

Great an avaliable seat, rigth there just two shuffling steps to my left. I make the move and am just about to sit down when I notice a very, very attractive woman a mere step away from the seat, looking me straight in the eyes and smiling such a beautiful smile it made my little heart go thud.

So what could I do? Thats right I shrugged my applogy and took my well won seat. Boy I have never seen an angel turn into a demon so quick, the look of anger taht now apperred put my in mindof the look my dad used to get just prior to administering a beating.

So I think she was angry that her femanine whiles did not work.

But what do you think, and what would you have done if you was me, or indeed her?

1. Feminine, not femanine.
2. She wasn't trying to use her femininity to win a sit. I'm not quite sure how you assumed she was doing so.
3. If I were male, or the woman was older than me or carrying a child, I would have given her the seat.
4. I'm sorry your dad was an ass?
Dragons Bay
22-05-2008, 14:36
Nope. In the rush hour grab for seats on the Tube (especially at Victoria), the best person wins!:D

Perhaps she would write thelondonpaper and complain. Wait and see.
The Great Eustania
22-05-2008, 14:46
No way would I have given my seat. Anyone is entitled to that seat and so you made the right choice. I could not care if she gave me a feminine look because I would have smiled back too and taken the seat as well.
Cabra West
22-05-2008, 14:47
No. I might give up my seat for someone who obviously has a hard time standing (old, pregnant, or with lots and lots of shopping bags), but if I got a seat on a bus it's my seat.
Why would anybody else have more rights to it than me???
Kamsaki-Myu
22-05-2008, 15:00
Snip
Your exchanges with Bottle in the past have served to put a bit of a question mark over your ideas about gender. Maybe that's just my interpretation of it, but I think you should generally tread pretty lightly on this subject for a while.

That said, I don't think this necessarily has anything to do with sexism. I think it's just someone expecting charity and being offended when she didn't get it. I would have given the seat up myself, but that's more due to the fact that I choose to do so on empathetic principle, rather than because it's a charming young lady or because it's somehow expected of me. I don't think it's fair for anyone to expect to have everything given to them.
Dyakovo
22-05-2008, 15:21
1. Feminine, not femanine.
2. She wasn't trying to use her femininity to win a sit. I'm not quite sure how you assumed she was doing so.
3. If I were male, or the woman was older than me or carrying a child, I would have given her the seat.
4. I'm sorry your dad was an ass?

How do you know?

I'd say that based on the fact that she apparently got pissed when he didn't give the seat up to her, that that was indeed what she was trying to do.
Ad Nihilo
22-05-2008, 16:00
So I was on my way to work this morning on the second tube of three, crammed in like the preverbial sardines when a whole slew of fellow cattle debarked at Victoria Station.

Great an avaliable seat, rigth there just two shuffling steps to my left. I make the move and am just about to sit down when I notice a very, very attractive woman a mere step away from the seat, looking me straight in the eyes and smiling such a beautiful smile it made my little heart go thud.

So what could I do? Thats right I shrugged my applogy and took my well won seat. Boy I have never seen an angel turn into a demon so quick, the look of anger taht now apperred put my in mindof the look my dad used to get just prior to administering a beating.

So I think she was angry that her femanine whiles did not work.

But what do you think, and what would you have done if you was me, or indeed her?

You mean you didn't offer her a seat in your lap?:rolleyes:
Glitziness
22-05-2008, 16:05
How do you know?

I'd say that based on the fact that she apparently got pissed when he didn't give the seat up to her, that that was indeed what she was trying to do.
Based on a lot of peoples' interpretation of female behaviour as "flirty" or "bitchy" I don't have much faith in his account. I really can't see a woman becoming "demon"-like just because she doesn't get the seat.
Toxiarra
22-05-2008, 16:10
Man do I disagree.

I've had more than my fair share of instances where a woman thought she was going to get something, and was uber nice to me when she thought she was going to get it, then turned into a raving bitch when she found out she wasn't going to get it.

So I totally agree, and I think she was very pissed that her feminine whiles did not work on you.

I would have let her have the seat, though. Because I don't ride buses. Plus that's like the perfect conversation opener. You could have gotten a date or something out of that.
Toxiarra
22-05-2008, 16:12
Based on a lot of peoples' interpretation of female behaviour as "flirty" or "bitchy" I don't have much faith in his account. I really can't see a woman becoming "demon"-like just because she doesn't get the seat.

I do agree with you however, I wouldn't classify her behavior as flirty. Many a man has gotten into trouble by thinking a woman was giving him some sort of signal when she was either just being nice, or just using tools she had at her disposal.
Dyakovo
22-05-2008, 16:12
Based on a lot of peoples' interpretation of female behaviour as "flirty" or "bitchy" I don't have much faith in his account. I really can't see a woman becoming "demon"-like just because she doesn't get the seat.

My point was that Amor has no way of knowing that the woman wasn't not "using her femininity" to try and get a seat. The only account we have to go on is the OP's and based on that I would say that she was.
Bottle
22-05-2008, 16:20
Whether the woman in question was or wasn't "flirting" is irrelevant.

If she was an able-bodied young woman, then she's got no more right to a seat than an able-bodied young man.

Femaleness does not entitle anybody to a seat, any more than maleness does.

I tend to give up my seat for anybody who is:
1) Pregnant
2) Carrying an infant or small child
3) Elderly
4) Disabled in any way
5) Looking like they really freaking need it

I don't give up seats based on gender, skin color, or any other trivial physical attributes.
Glitziness
22-05-2008, 16:22
My point was that Amor has no way of knowing that the woman wasn't not "using her femininity" to try and get a seat. The only account we have to go on is the OP's and based on that I would say that she was.
True. I just find his account unlikely to be accurate, but of course that's speculation and equally inaccurate!
Glitziness
22-05-2008, 16:23
I do agree with you however, I wouldn't classify her behavior as flirty. Many a man has gotten into trouble by thinking a woman was giving him some sort of signal when she was either just being nice, or just using tools she had at her disposal.
Part of my point was that I don't think she was flirting in the way the OP suggested. Just... smiling.

And did you have a personality change between this post and the one before? :confused:
Toxiarra
22-05-2008, 16:47
Part of my point was that I don't think she was flirting in the way the OP suggested. Just... smiling.

And did you have a personality change between this post and the one before? :confused:


No, no personality change that I know of. It's confusing, because women are confusing. They can be flirtatious as hell, and want nothing to do with you, or they can be demur and quiet, but inside they are screaming at you to flirt with them and show your interest.

It's a funny game with women, and I was simply suggesting he try his hand. I was just trying to state IMHO that women who do look even moderately attractive would use it to their advantage, so just because a woman is being nice or cute with you, doesn't mean she likes you at all. But there's no harm in trying, as long as you know when to stop.

*edit* I was agreeing with you that she wasn't being flirty, but I was disagreeing that I believe women can turn into demons when they don't get their way. Sorry, wasn't as clear as I could have been the first time.
Peepelonia
22-05-2008, 16:56
not sexist maybe not to bright in this case though .. . you could have had something there lol

Heh well I am a ver happly married man, that's not to say that I havn't let a pretty face sway me, but I just wanted to sit down, and I did reach the seat first.
Peepelonia
22-05-2008, 17:04
1. Feminine, not femanine.
2. She wasn't trying to use her femininity to win a sit. I'm not quite sure how you assumed she was doing so.
3. If I were male, or the woman was older than me or carrying a child, I would have given her the seat.
4. I'm sorry your dad was an ass?

1. Meh whatever.
2. She bloody well was.
3. Me too
4. Thank you, he still is, but at least we get on, sorta.
Greater Trostia
22-05-2008, 17:07
I probably would have given her the seat, because I never feel comfortable with people hovering over me, jealous, watching me, envious and hating me for my comfort. It spoils it all. I'm the sort of guy who'll skip a meal or stand around for hours rather than eat in discomfort or sit there, hated.

Not cuz of her feminine tricks though. I may not be a smart man, but I know a useless gesture when I see one.
Peepelonia
22-05-2008, 17:12
True. I just find his account unlikely to be accurate, but of course that's speculation and equally inaccurate!

Well apart from my use of language to convey the situation I can assure you that what I said did in fact happen.

I'm almost 40 years old now, I have experiance in the way some women use their feminity to get what they want, she was definatly trying to get me to give up the race for the seat using her attractivness as a tool, and her whole demeanour changed when she did not get it.

What I would like to know though, is why you find my account to be unlikely to be accurate?
Amasea Perpetua
22-05-2008, 17:13
Man do I disagree.

So I totally agree, and I think she was very pissed that her feminine whiles did not work on you.

I would have let her have the seat, though. Because I don't ride buses. Plus that's like the perfect conversation opener. You could have gotten a date or something out of that.

They're wiles, folks, not whiles. Like Wile E. Coyote.

Second, if her behavior was accurately described, would you really want a date with her? Hot as she may have been, if she turns bitchy when she doesn't get what she wants, even over a bus seat, that doesn't really sound like someone I'd want to have a relationship with. I dunno about you all.
Greater Trostia
22-05-2008, 17:14
They're wiles, folks, not whiles. Like Wile E. Coyote.

Second, if her behavior was accurately described, would you really want a date with her? Hot as she may have been, if she turns bitchy when she doesn't get what she wants, even over a bus seat, that doesn't really sound like someone I'd want to have a relationship with. I dunno about you all.

Relationship? No. Vengeance sex? Could be worth it.
Nova Castlemilk
22-05-2008, 17:30
So I was on my way to work this morning on the second tube of three, crammed in like the preverbial sardines when a whole slew of fellow cattle debarked at Victoria Station.

Great an avaliable seat, rigth there just two shuffling steps to my left. I make the move and am just about to sit down when I notice a very, very attractive woman a mere step away from the seat, looking me straight in the eyes and smiling such a beautiful smile it made my little heart go thud.

So what could I do? Thats right I shrugged my applogy and took my well won seat. Boy I have never seen an angel turn into a demon so quick, the look of anger taht now apperred put my in mindof the look my dad used to get just prior to administering a beating.

So I think she was angry that her femanine whiles did not work.

But what do you think, and what would you have done if you was me, or indeed her?

I say Well Done, you showed you were a New Age, Non Sexist sort of Guy :)

I had a similar experience a few weeks ago, though the woman in this instance started moaning about me to another woman who was already sitting down. I gave her a beaming smile and told her to "Dry Up"......everytime I glanced at her after that, my life expectancy was shortened by another killer glare.
Toxiarra
22-05-2008, 17:45
They're wiles, folks, not whiles. Like Wile E. Coyote.

Second, if her behavior was accurately described, would you really want a date with her? Hot as she may have been, if she turns bitchy when she doesn't get what she wants, even over a bus seat, that doesn't really sound like someone I'd want to have a relationship with. I dunno about you all.

Thank you for the grammar correction.

I never said "Hey why didn't you pursue an ongoing relationship or marry the chick."

I said "a date." Meaning, have sex with her, take advantage of her attractiveness, then when she gets bitchy, toss her to the wolves.

You only pursue active, meaningful relationships with decent women. Personally, I choose not to have sexual relationships with women solely based on how they look. My mother always told me if you don't have anything interesting to say/do after the sex is over and done with, you probably shouldn't have sex with the girl.
Dyakovo
22-05-2008, 17:47
My mother always told me if you don't have anything interesting to say/do after the sex is over and done with, you probably shouldn't have sex with the girl.

Proof that you shouldn't listen to your mother. :D
Greater Trostia
22-05-2008, 17:50
My mother always told me if you don't have anything interesting to say/do after the sex is over and done with, you probably shouldn't have sex with the girl.

Wrong lesson! It's... if you don't have anything to say after the sex is over, don't say anything after the sex is over. :)

Although a little information can't hurt, like, "By the way, you're lying naked in a ditch by the freeway. Have fun hitching home!"
Toxiarra
22-05-2008, 17:54
Proof that you shouldn't listen to your mother. :D

I'm not interested in flagrant sex. I am not the usual male that finishes in a matter of minutes. And when you have sex for hours at a time, it reaches a point when it's really quite boring and you wish it would hurry up because you have other shit to do.

So unless it's with a special person, someone I care about and care for, and the feelings are returned, I'd just rather not have sex. I'd rather be jet-skiing, or taking the boat out to ocean to fish for a day, or play some video games, watch a movie, playing billiards with my mates, go down to the track and race one of my cars for a day, etc.

There are many other things besides sex that can be fun for you. But, none of them result in goo squirting from your body, the grandest of all achievements. Paa.
Dyakovo
22-05-2008, 18:00
I'm not interested in flagrant sex. I am not the usual male that finishes in a matter of minutes. And when you have sex for hours at a time, it reaches a point when it's really quite boring and you wish it would hurry up because you have other shit to do.
You're doing it wrong then.
So unless it's with a special person, someone I care about and care for, and the feelings are returned, I'd just rather not have sex. I'd rather be jet-skiing, or taking the boat out to ocean to fish for a day, or play some video games, watch a movie, playing billiards with my mates, go down to the track and race one of my cars for a day, etc.
And again, you're doing it wrong.
There are many other things besides sex that can be fun for you. But, none of them result in goo squirting from your body, the grandest of all achievements.
So?
Toxiarra
22-05-2008, 18:13
You're doing it wrong then.

And again, you're doing it wrong.

So?

Okay, so you do what you want to do, and I'll do what I want to do.

If you have a problem with my sexual life, then, as respectfully as possible, go suck an egg.

I've never had a complaint from a woman, and I don't intend to start. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. I see no need to just shag every piece of hot ass I see. I've reached that maturity level.
Neesika
22-05-2008, 18:18
1. Feminine, not femanine.
1. Seat, not sit. It makes you look very foolish when you correct other people's spelling and/or grammar and then mess up yourself. Especially when the spelling and/or grammar you're correcting matters not at all to the topic at hand....I'm sure the rest of us were able to figure out the intended meaning quite fine before your post.
2. She wasn't trying to use her femininity to win a sit. I'm not quite sure how you assumed she was doing so.
2. While I agree it's annoying to see men assuming women are trying to manipulate them with their breasteses, it's equally annoying to see women who actually want us to believe that their fellow women never do this.

My breasteses have gotten me seats any number of times. I fight dirty.
Peepelonia
22-05-2008, 18:21
Proof that you shouldn't listen to your mother. :D

Bwahhahahhah true. My mother would always say only go with clean girls. I thought where the fun it that? Although I did marry a good clean girl, so I guess she had summit huh!
Neesika
22-05-2008, 18:21
Wrong lesson! It's... if you don't have anything to say after the sex is over, don't say anything after the sex is over. :)

Although a little information can't hurt, like, "By the way, you're lying naked in a ditch by the freeway. Have fun hitching home!"

I'm going to kick your ass GT.
Toxiarra
22-05-2008, 18:22
snip

Rather than try to use sexual charms to illicit a result, I personally believe simply asking for something goes a long way. If I have something you want, or you want me to do something, just ask. I'll probably do it if you are nice and it isn't weird or too illegal.
Neesika
22-05-2008, 18:27
Rather than try to use sexual charms to illicit a result, I personally believe simply asking for something goes a long way. If I have something you want, or you want me to do something, just ask. I'll probably do it if you are nice and it isn't weird or too illegal.

Public transport is sort of like swimming in a shark tank. Especially at the University station. You have to guage where the bus will stop...if buses ahead of the one you need will pull out and leave you far from the door of said needed bus...you jockey into position, and you show no mercy, or you risk being trampled.

When you get a seat, you erect an invisible bubble around yourself, and aggressively ignore the presence of all the other people standing around you...the students with the heavy backpacks who will be on their feet for a good hour in rush hour traffic, being jostled about...because you know if you showed the slightest mercy, you would be in their position with your shoulders aching and your back in agony.

In that atmosphere, I can't imagine the reaction to simply tapping someone on the shoulder and saying, "Can I sit there?" and offering no compelling reasons why our fates should be reversed :D Then again, you offer an interesting tactic...I think the other person would be so nonplussed, they might just do it out of pure confusion...
Dyakovo
22-05-2008, 18:31
Okay, so you do what you want to do, and I'll do what I want to do.

If you have a problem with my sexual life, then, as respectfully as possible, go suck an egg.
If you aren't enjoying sex, then you're doing it wrong, simple as that. I don't recall saying that that you had to, or should go out and boink random women.
I've never had a complaint from a woman, and I don't intend to start. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. I see no need to just shag every piece of hot ass I see. I've reached that maturity level.
See, that's the thing though Tox, if you aren't enjoying the sex, then it is broken, so you should fix it.
Greater Trostia
22-05-2008, 18:45
I'm going to kick your ass GT.

We're gonna do something involving ass, but it won't involve kicking.
Toxiarra
22-05-2008, 18:46
If you aren't enjoying sex, then you're doing it wrong, simple as that. I don't recall saying that that you had to, or should go out and boink random women.

See, that's the thing though Tox, if you aren't enjoying the sex, then it is broken, so you should fix it.

I never said I don't enjoy sex. I enjoy sex quite a bit, and at any time I should so care to have it. I just don't see the necessity of doing it all the time. And when I don't feel a special attachment or attraction to the women I am having sex with at that exact moment, then I don't feel the need to "boink" them for hours.

You see, Dy, when you have the kind of sex I'm talking about, it's not just the general mechanics of placing part A into receptacle B, then remove, and repeat. There's much more that goes into it, and if you don't know I won't explain it to you. There's probably a million or more books and several emails you get in your inbox that can help you. If I don't care about the girl, it's not worth putting out the effort. Thus, since I'm not doing what I know I'm capable of doing, it would turn out to be a less enjoyable experience for the female/females. And the thing with females, is that if the sex is bad, they probably won't be up for another round.

So unless I care enough to give everything I can, I'm not going to do it. And that's why a sexual encounter with me is never bad.

:)
Dyakovo
22-05-2008, 18:52
I never said I don't enjoy sex.And when you have sex for hours at a time, it reaches a point when it's really quite boring and you wish it would hurry up because you have other shit to do.

Really? It rather looks to me like you did.
You see, Dy, when you have the kind of sex I'm talking about, it's not just the general mechanics of placing part A into receptacle B, then remove, and repeat.
So because I enjoy sex, i.e. I don't get bored and wish it would hurry up because I have other shit to do, you assume that I'm the wham, bam, thank you ma'am type?


Edit: Completely off topic, but if you're going to shorten my name shorten it to Dya, not Dy please. The proper spelling of my nation name is Дяково, transliterated to Dyakovo.
Toxiarra
22-05-2008, 18:57
Really? It rather looks to me like you did.

So because I enjoy sex, i.e. I don't get bored and wish it would hurry up because I have other shit to do, you assume that I'm the wham, bam, thank you ma'am type?


Ha ha.

When you have an active lifestyle, that involves a full time job, and you have interests that don't involve sex, like I do, then having sex from dawn til dusk really isn't something that is even feasible for you to do. I personally have no desire to take away from my day just to spend time with a woman I don't even care about. I'm not sure how I can explain it to you to where you will understand what I'm saying without you ascertaining that somehow I am broken.


*edit* And as far as shortening your name, agreed. Dya it is.
Neesika
22-05-2008, 18:57
We're gonna do something involving ass, but it won't involve kicking.

Well I promise I'll be gentle then, before leaving you naked in the ditch:eek:
Dyakovo
22-05-2008, 19:00
Ha ha.

When you have an active lifestyle, that involves a full time job, and you have interests that don't involve sex, like I do, then having sex from dawn til dusk really isn't something that is even feasible for you to do. I personally have no desire to take away from my day just to spend time with a woman I don't even care about. I'm not sure how I can explain it to you to where you will understand what I'm saying without you ascertaining that somehow I am broken.

And again you are assuming that because I enjoy sex that the above (full-time job, interests that don't involve sex) are not true for me.
From what I can tell, the only real difference is that I don't approach sex with the attitude that it is somehow a chore.
Toxiarra
22-05-2008, 19:02
And again you are assuming that because I enjoy sex that the above (full-time job, interests that don't involve sex) are not true for me.
From what I can tell, the only real difference is that I don't approach sex with the attitude that it is somehow a chore.

Now THAT I can agree upon.

Sex with a woman I do not care for is simply a chore and a bother for me.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you for finding my words.
Rangerville
22-05-2008, 20:29
I don't think you're sexist. I would give up a seat for a pregnant woman, an older person, a disabled person, or just someone who really looks like they could use the seat more than me.

I don't mind standing, i would let someone else have a seat if we both got on the bus or subway at the same time. There have actually been times when i chose to stand simply because i didn't want to be sandwiched between two people. Unless i'm really tired, standing isn't a big deal to me.

One time when i was in New York, i got on the subway and it was full, so i stood. At the next stop, a seat opened up and the guy sitting next to it pointed it out to me. I didn't even take the empty seat because i only had one more stop.

On days when i was coming back from a day of shopping or wandering around a museum or something though, when my feet and legs were tired from all the walking around i did, i would always take a seat, if there was one available. It really depends on how i feel.
Peepelonia
22-05-2008, 20:40
Now THAT I can agree upon.

Sex with a woman I do not care for is simply a chore and a bother for me.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you for finding my words.

Naaa I can't disagree more. Sex is sex, I always enjoy it.
Peepelonia
22-05-2008, 20:41
I don't think you're sexist. I would give up a seat for a pregnant woman, an older person, a disabled person, or just someone who really looks like they could use the seat more than me.

I don't mind standing, i would let someone else have a seat if we both got on the bus or subway at the same time. There have actually been times when i chose to stand simply because i didn't want to be sandwiched between two people. Unless i'm really tired, standing isn't a big deal to me.

One time when i was in New York, i got on the subway and it was full, so i stood. At the next stop, a seat opened up and the guy sitting next to it pointed it out to me. I didn't even take the empty seat because i only had one more stop.

On days when i was coming back from a day of shopping or wandering around a museum or something though, when my feet and legs were tired from all the walking around i did, i would always take a seat, if there was one available. It really depends on how i feel.

Yep I agree, and at the mo, being an old fella, with me hip playing up this morning, I just wanted to sit down.
Philosopy
22-05-2008, 20:43
So I was on my way to work this morning on the second tube of three, crammed in like the preverbial sardines when a whole slew of fellow cattle debarked at Victoria Station.

Go to the front the train. There is always plenty of space, and occasionally even a seat! This is, of course, once you've fought your way past the fascists with the screaming gates on the station concourse, and climbed over the bodies of your victims who you were forced to kill at the ticket barriers because they won't just form an orderly queue and go through one at a time.

It's people like you, cluttering up the entrances to the platform, that make my life such a misery. I bet you drag a suitcase around with you too.
Khazistan
22-05-2008, 20:49
Whether the woman in question was or wasn't "flirting" is irrelevant.

If she was an able-bodied young woman, then she's got no more right to a seat than an able-bodied young man.

Femaleness does not entitle anybody to a seat, any more than maleness does.

I tend to give up my seat for anybody who is:
1) Pregnant
2) Carrying an infant or small child
3) Elderly
4) Disabled in any way
5) Looking like they really freaking need it

I don't give up seats based on gender, skin color, or any other trivial physical attributes.

Good to see your seat giving policies are so well thought out and structured.
Conserative Morality
22-05-2008, 20:49
I would have given her the seat. However, I also would've given it to anyone else who had not wronged me in the past, because a good seat isn't all that important to me. You weren't being sexist, don't worry.
Sparkelle
22-05-2008, 21:26
You should have given her the seat and then come here and bitched that she didn't give you sex in return for being so kind.
Santiago I
22-05-2008, 21:48
She was expecting a gentleman...and you are obvisouly not one.

Nowadays women want equality...and also to keep all those victorian era privileges of the ladies.

you suck
Slythros
22-05-2008, 22:34
She was expecting a gentleman...and you are obvisouly not one.

Nowadays women want equality...and also to keep all those victorian era privileges of the ladies.

you suck

wat
Blouman Empire
23-05-2008, 03:36
So you took the seat over some woman. How can anyone think that is sexist you treated the same way as if a man was doing the same thing, that my friend is showing true equality.

I too have had this sort of experience, some 30 year old bitch in a power skirt told me how rude I was for not giving up my seat for a woman. I told her that since she got the vote she lost the seat, and I was just showing true equality and not some twisted form that she would like. I do, however, give up my seats for people who really do need to sit down such as elderly people, who really cant stand for 30 minutes on a cramped stuffy bus.
High Expectation
23-05-2008, 08:18
So you took the seat over some woman. How can anyone think that is sexist you treated the same way as if a man was doing the same thing, that my friend is showing true equality.

I too have had this sort of experience, some 30 year old bitch in a power skirt told me how rude I was for not giving up my seat for a woman. I told her that since she got the vote she lost the seat, and I was just showing true equality and not some twisted form that she would like. I do, however, give up my seats for people who really do need to sit down such as elderly people, who really cant stand for 30 minutes on a cramped stuffy bus.

If I get a seat I don't give it up for anyone. I use bus travel during rush hour and considering old folk here get all day free travel and don't work they should be considerate enough not to clog up the buses at such time when the people who are funding their free travel. With pregnant women, I didn't fertilise them, it's not my responsibility to pander to their self indulgences. I do make the concession though of not sitting on the seats at the front which are labelled priority seating for disabled and infirm.

However the OP has the reverse of my thinking. I would consider it sexist to give up a seat to an able bodied woman just because she's a woman.
Peepelonia
23-05-2008, 12:01
Go to the front the train. There is always plenty of space, and occasionally even a seat! This is, of course, once you've fought your way past the fascists with the screaming gates on the station concourse, and climbed over the bodies of your victims who you were forced to kill at the ticket barriers because they won't just form an orderly queue and go through one at a time.

It's people like you, cluttering up the entrances to the platform, that make my life such a misery. I bet you drag a suitcase around with you too.



Hahah room at the front you are funny.:D
Peepelonia
23-05-2008, 12:05
She was expecting a gentleman...and you are obvisouly not one.

Nowadays women want equality...and also to keep all those victorian era privileges of the ladies.

you suck

Bwahahah! I am in fact quite gentalmanly, but you know she was a good 20 years younger than me, she actualy got seated at the very next station, and she was blatantly using her sexuality as a weapon to try and make me give up my fairly won prize.

Thanks though for your assesment of me, it means so much from faceless web users.:D
Dinaverg
23-05-2008, 12:09
Go to the front the train. There is always plenty of space, and occasionally even a seat! This is, of course, once you've fought your way past the fascists with the screaming gates on the station concourse, and climbed over the bodies of your victims who you were forced to kill at the ticket barriers because they won't just form an orderly queue and go through one at a time.

It's people like you, cluttering up the entrances to the platform, that make my life such a misery. I bet you drag a suitcase around with you too.

Phil! Beligerent, aren't we? :p
Bottle
23-05-2008, 12:46
Good to see your seat giving policies are so well thought out and structured.
Well, see, it's handy because it also applies to many other areas of life.

For instance, if I see a pregnant woman carrying some heavy grocery bags, I offer to help her a bit. If I see an able-bodied person of my own age carrying heavy grocery bags, not so much.

If I see an elderly person heading toward a door, I typically speed up a bit so I can hold it for them. If I see a college kid heading for a door, I don't go out of my way to hold it for them.

And yes, I do give thought to how I interact with other people, 'cause I figure that's better than being yet another unthinking yahoo stumbling through the world. Plenty of those already.
Peepelonia
23-05-2008, 12:47
Well, see, it's handy because it also applies to many other areas of life.

For instance, if I see a pregnant woman carrying some heavy grocery bags, I offer to help her a bit. If I see an able-bodied person of my own age carrying heavy grocery bags, not so much.

If I see an elderly person heading toward a door, I typically speed up a bit so I can hold it for them. If I see a college kid heading for a door, I don't go out of my way to hold it for them.

And yes, I do give thought to how I interact with other people, 'cause I figure that's better than being yet another unthinking yahoo stumbling through the world. Plenty of those already.

Wow two internet referances in one post!
Rambhutan
23-05-2008, 12:57
Well, see, it's handy because it also applies to many other areas of life.

For instance, if I see a pregnant woman carrying some heavy grocery bags, I offer to help her a bit. If I see an able-bodied person of my own age carrying heavy grocery bags, not so much.

If I see an elderly person heading toward a door, I typically speed up a bit so I can hold it for them. If I see a college kid heading for a door, I don't go out of my way to hold it for them.

And yes, I do give thought to how I interact with other people, 'cause I figure that's better than being yet another unthinking yahoo stumbling through the world. Plenty of those already.


Similar to my approach and theory that politeness is in reality based on practicality not social stereotypes.
Philosopy
23-05-2008, 13:36
Phil! Beligerent, aren't we? :p

Victoria station at 8:30 in the morning is not a pleasant place to be. I was trying to joke with Peepelonia, but I guess my hatred of the place overwhelmed my sense of humour. :p
Peepelonia
23-05-2008, 13:45
Victoria station at 8:30 in the morning is not a pleasant place to be. I was trying to joke with Peepelonia, but I guess my hatred of the place overwhelmed my sense of humour. :p

I'll second that, and I'm only passing through. Now I know you use Victoria I'm going to be looking at every one now and wondering who NSG's , Daaaanm Yoooou!

T-Shirts, must get NSG T-shirts made.:eek:
Philosopy
23-05-2008, 14:41
I'll second that, and I'm only passing through. Now I know you use Victoria I'm going to be looking at every one now and wondering who NSG's , Daaaanm Yoooou!

T-Shirts, must get NSG T-shirts made.:eek:

I know Ollieland works in the same area too. But as for t-shirts, I'm afraid I would never wear one. :p
Fishutopia
23-05-2008, 15:05
My theory on giving up my seat is nearly identical to Bottle. The old, infirm, pregnant, people carrying heavy stuff, etc I'll give them a seat.

IF anything the women should have let you have the seat. From the sounds of things, you are approximately 20 years older than her. She'd be better placed to stand for a long time than you. Well, unless she was a slave to fashion and wearing stupidly high heels. But then, she deserves to be punished for being a slave to fashion anyway. :p
Bottle
23-05-2008, 15:09
IF anything the women should have let you have the seat. From the sounds of things, you are approximately 20 years older than her. She'd be better placed to stand for a long time than you. Well, unless she was a slave to fashion and wearing stupidly high heels. But then, she deserves to be punished for being a slave to fashion anyway. :p
Gotta admit, I'm a total bastard about that one...I do not, under any circumstances, give up a seat to somebody wearing spike high heels. I regard such shoes as so profoundly stupid that I WANT people to suffer if they wear them. I want the experience to be so uncomfortable that they never buy another stupid pair of shoes again.
Kamsaki-Myu
23-05-2008, 15:43
For instance, if I see a pregnant woman carrying some heavy grocery bags, I offer to help her a bit. If I see an able-bodied person of my own age carrying heavy grocery bags, not so much.

If I see an elderly person heading toward a door, I typically speed up a bit so I can hold it for them. If I see a college kid heading for a door, I don't go out of my way to hold it for them.
See, here's what I don't actually get; why should politeness depend on ability? Why not dash forward and grab the door for the perfectly healthy college kid? Why not offer to help the bodybuilder carry their really heavy shopping? Why not offer the pristine businessman in the rain your umbrella?

Whenever they need help, they need help. The fact that the point at which the college kid, the businessman or the weight-lifter needs help is somewhat more advanced than others seems to be tangential to helping them whenever that help is needed.
Neo Bretonnia
23-05-2008, 15:43
I know what the response will be but I'm gonna say it anyway:

I would give up my seat to a woman. I have taught my sons to do the same. I lose a measure of respect for any man I see who does not do so.

It's called being a gentleman, and despite rhetoric to the contrary, being a gentleman =/= sexism.

Now, my personal belief/opinion is that we do this because on some level we want to acknowledge our respect for the women who, quite frankly, must endure tings we don't. My wife has to be the one to go through the hassle of pregnancy, the pain of giving birth, the body-altering process associated with it... Not me. Much as I might wish I could somehow bear that burden for her or at least share it, all I can do is help her as best I can but I will never be pregnant and I will never give birth.

So every time I hold a door open for her, or for any woman, or offer them my seat on a subway, it's an acknowledgment of that fact and a sign of respect for those who have that to deal with that when I do not.

If you find that somehow offensive, then the fault lies with you, not with me.
Kamsaki-Myu
23-05-2008, 15:50
-Snip-
*Bites the bullet*

Why not offer guys the same treatment? The reasons would be different, of course, but men are important people too.
Philosopy
23-05-2008, 15:51
So every time I hold a door open for her, or for any woman, or offer them my seat on a subway, it's an acknowledgment of that fact and a sign of respect for those who have that to deal with that when I do not.
It's an acknowledgment of the fact that you think that a woman is fundamentally different to you. And it's a very short stop from there to discrimination.

If you find that somehow offensive, then the fault lies with you, not with me.

A polite way of putting your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la, I can't hear you".
Bottle
23-05-2008, 15:52
See, here's what I don't actually get; why should politeness depend on ability? Why not dash forward and grab the door for the perfectly healthy college kid? Why not offer to help the bodybuilder carry their really heavy shopping? Why not offer the pristine businessman in the rain your umbrella?

Whenever they need help, they need help.

Well, that's the catch, isn't it? I don't see an able-bodied college kid as "needing help" with the door. I figure they're just as able to open it as I am. If we hit the door at about the same time, I hold it for whomever is behind me, but I don't go out of my way to "help out" somebody who clearly doesn't need my help.

Having been around my mom while she was pregnant, I know that the later stages of pregnancy are pretty physically exhausting. A pregnant women may be perfectly capable of handling her own grocery bags, but she's also already carrying a massive weight strapped to her belly, which is basically like having to carry a couple MORE grocery bags. I know how much my mom appreciated having somebody lend her a hand when she was hauling around my baby brother inside her, so I lend a hand to pregnant ladies whenever I can.

I've also never yet encountered a body builder who appreciated having a 5-foot-tall girl help him with his bags. Most take it as a direct assault on their manhood.

As for businessmen, I live in DC. I'd need a damn huge umbrella if I wanted to offer them all a spot under mine! At any rate, if a man can afford a $500 suit, then I expect him to be able to provide his own damn umbrella. :)


The fact that the point at which the college kid, the businessman or the weight-lifter needs help is somewhat more advanced than others seems to be tangential to helping them whenever that help is needed.
I treat others as I would want to be treated. I'm an able-bodied young person, and I prefer that strangers leave me the hell alone unless I'm in obvious distress or I specifically ask for assistance. However, if I was preggers, or broke my leg and was on crutches, or something similar, I'd appreciate a hand if somebody could lend one. So that's what I do for others.
Bottle
23-05-2008, 16:01
I know what the response will be but I'm gonna say it anyway:

I would give up my seat to a woman. I have taught my sons to do the same. I lose a measure of respect for any man I see who does not do so.

It's called being a gentleman, and despite rhetoric to the contrary, being a gentleman =/= sexism.

Hold whatever values you want, but please don't kid yourself:

Giving up a seat based on the sex of a person is sexism. Now, you can defend your sexist behavior as being appropriate for any of a variety of reasons, but don't bother trying to insist that it's not sexism. It is.


Now, my personal belief/opinion is that we do this because on some level we want to acknowledge our respect for the women who, quite frankly, must endure tings we don't. My wife has to be the one to go through the hassle of pregnancy, the pain of giving birth, the body-altering process associated with it... Not me. Much as I might wish I could somehow bear that burden for her or at least share it, all I can do is help her as best I can but I will never be pregnant and I will never give birth.

So every time I hold a door open for her, or for any woman, or offer them my seat on a subway, it's an acknowledgment of that fact and a sign of respect for those who have that to deal with that when I do not.

If you find that somehow offensive, then the fault lies with you, not with me.
I don't find it offensive, I just find it generally meaningless. It sounds like you mostly do it to make yourself feel better. There's nothing wrong with wanting to make yourself feel better, of course, it's just silly to pretend like you're doing Womankind a favor.

Be honest with yourself: you're being sexist because it makes you feel better. Doesn't make you a bad person. You seem to have very nice intentions. The only problem is if you try to convince yourself (or others) that your actions 1) aren't sexist and 2) actually constitute a significant gesture.
Santiago I
23-05-2008, 16:06
Bwahahah! I am in fact quite gentalmanly, but you know she was a good 20 years younger than me, she actualy got seated at the very next station, and she was blatantly using her sexuality as a weapon to try and make me give up my fairly won prize.

Thanks though for your assesment of me, it means so much from faceless web users.:D

Of course.... any gentleman has to concede and submit to blantant uses of femenine sexuality...

When a woman doesnt gets what she wants thru seductions she will immediately think that :

a) you are gay

b) you are rude

Thats how it works. To be polite you have to be sexiest.

and you still suck :p
Kamsaki-Myu
23-05-2008, 16:21
I treat others as I would want to be treated. I'm an able-bodied young person, and I prefer that strangers leave me the hell alone unless I'm in obvious distress or I specifically ask for assistance. However, if I was preggers, or broke my leg and was on crutches, or something similar, I'd appreciate a hand if somebody could lend one. So that's what I do for others.
I guess there's the difference. I like random acts of kindness, both doing and receiving, even when I'm able to bear the burdens myself. What is it about help that is seen as invasive? It's not like I'm going to search your shopping to find out what you buy, or give you an umbrella that spies on you, or use you as a distraction for a sniper I'm expecting behind the door. I just want to lend a hand, and it seems crazy that I should have to prove to you that I'm not some creepy stranger looking to use you for personal gain just to help keep you dry.
Peepelonia
23-05-2008, 16:35
I know what the response will be but I'm gonna say it anyway:

I would give up my seat to a woman. I have taught my sons to do the same. I lose a measure of respect for any man I see who does not do so.

It's called being a gentleman, and despite rhetoric to the contrary, being a gentleman =/= sexism.

Now, my personal belief/opinion is that we do this because on some level we want to acknowledge our respect for the women who, quite frankly, must endure tings we don't. My wife has to be the one to go through the hassle of pregnancy, the pain of giving birth, the body-altering process associated with it... Not me. Much as I might wish I could somehow bear that burden for her or at least share it, all I can do is help her as best I can but I will never be pregnant and I will never give birth.

So every time I hold a door open for her, or for any woman, or offer them my seat on a subway, it's an acknowledgment of that fact and a sign of respect for those who have that to deal with that when I do not.

If you find that somehow offensive, then the fault lies with you, not with me.

Well I understand your POV, but unearned respect based on ones gender, really?
Neo Bretonnia
23-05-2008, 17:59
*Bites the bullet*

Why not offer guys the same treatment? The reasons would be different, of course, but men are important people too.

I think my post prettymuch covered that.

It's an acknowledgment of the fact that you think that a woman is fundamentally different to you. And it's a very short stop from there to discrimination.


It can be, yes. That doesn't necessarily mean that one must take that step, however.


A polite way of putting your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la, I can't hear you".

Actually, no. It simply means that it's asinine to find offense where none is offered, and in fact my actions are actions of respect and deference. The offense does not originate there, if it exists at all.

Hold whatever values you want, but please don't kid yourself:

Giving up a seat based on the sex of a person is sexism. Now, you can defend your sexist behavior as being appropriate for any of a variety of reasons, but don't bother trying to insist that it's not sexism. It is.


This is either a case of putting one's head in the sand and pretending that men and women are physiologically the same, or it's a broad defining of the term 'sexism' that would cover everything from the manufacture of tampons with only women as the target sales demographic to cologne meant for male customers, thus rendering the term meaningless.

Which is it?


I don't find it offensive, I just find it generally meaningless. It sounds like you mostly do it to make yourself feel better. There's nothing wrong with wanting to make yourself feel better, of course, it's just silly to pretend like you're doing Womankind a favor.


I've always found it fascinating how quick you are to criticize people who aren't hurting anybody when there's a whole world full of genuine sexists out there you could be focusing on. Hell, if you do that I'll be right there with you.

But then, I bet they won't listen to you. ;)
(Just kidding)


Be honest with yourself: you're being sexist because it makes you feel better. Doesn't make you a bad person. You seem to have very nice intentions. The only problem is if you try to convince yourself (or others) that your actions 1) aren't sexist and 2) actually constitute a significant gesture.

To the first, if this is what you call sexism then you're stripping the term of its meaning. Unless, of course, you're equating my holding a door open for a woman to a guy refusing to hire a female job applicant because of her sex.

Which frankly, I find irrational.

To the second, the significance of the gesture is irrelevant, although I think you'd be surprised how often it's appreciated. I know it doesn't mean much to you personally, and that's fine, but I very seriously doubt you speak for the majority of women out there.

Well I understand your POV, but unearned respect based on ones gender, really?

Yep. Because IMHO it is earned. So what if, for example, I give up my seat to a woman who doesn't happen to have ever had a kid and never will? That's not really important in the overall scheme of things.
Peepelonia
23-05-2008, 18:01
Yep. Because IMHO it is earned. So what if, for example, I give up my seat to a woman who doesn't happen to have ever had a kid and never will? That's not really important in the overall scheme of things.

Then would you also do the same for a man?
Sparkelle
23-05-2008, 18:03
~~~~~~~Now, my personal belief/opinion is that we do this because on some level we want to acknowledge our respect for the women who, quite frankly, must endure tings we don't. My wife has to be the one to go through the hassle of pregnancy, the pain of giving birth, the body-altering process associated with it... Not me. ~~~~~~~

Of course not all woman can or want to have children. Would you be more inclined to give up your seat for a man who has passed a kidneystone than a woman who never has and never will give birth? I know it is hard to tell these types of things.
Neo Bretonnia
23-05-2008, 18:32
Then would you also do the same for a man?

Of course not all woman can or want to have children. Would you be more inclined to give up your seat for a man who has passed a kidneystone than a woman who never has and never will give birth? I know it is hard to tell these types of things.

Why is that so critical for you guys? If my post hasn't made the answers to those questions clear then I really can't make it any clearer for you. Sparkelle, you even quoted the relevant section. I fail to see the ambiguity.
Hydesland
23-05-2008, 18:36
I'm polite to women who like men being polite to them, if I get the impression that they don't care for that cheesy stuff then I don't bother. I don't do it to men since that will almost always result in awkwardness.
Kamsaki-Myu
23-05-2008, 19:36
I fail to see the ambiguity.
You've said that because women can do something that you don't, and that you admire them for, they get special privileges from you. But most men do things that you don't too, even that you might admire them for, and yet that doesn't translate into the same sort of "appreciation chivalry".

That's the ambiguity - you somehow apply a different kind of appreciation towards female physiological traits than you do towards other skills that you will never be able to acquire, and the nature of that difference is hard to grasp if it's not purely that "they're female things".
JuNii
23-05-2008, 19:40
But what do you think, and what would you have done if you was me, or indeed her?

I would've given her the seat. but that's because my job has me sitting down most of the time so standing is actually a good thing.
Neo Bretonnia
23-05-2008, 19:41
You've said that because women can do something that you don't, and that you admire them for, they get special privileges from you. But most men do things that you don't too, even that you might admire them for, and yet that doesn't translate into the same sort of "appreciation chivalry".

That's the ambiguity - you somehow apply a different kind of appreciation towards female physiological traits than you do towards other skills that you will never be able to acquire, and the nature of that difference is hard to grasp if it's not purely that "they're female things".

I see what you're getting at, but I think that's over complicating the whole thing. My reasons are what they are. It's just something I do.

As it happens, I also treat educators and soldiers with deference because of what they do. Is that invalidated because I don't do the same for, say doctors?

Don't make a mountain out of a molehill. ;)
Sparkelle
23-05-2008, 19:58
I see what you're getting at, but I think that's over complicating the whole thing. My reasons are what they are. It's just something I do.

As it happens, I also treat educators and soldiers with deference because of what they do. Is that invalidated because I don't do the same for, say doctors?

Don't make a mountain out of a molehill. ;)

Maybe if you respect doctors more than soldiers and educators it could be.
Neo Bretonnia
23-05-2008, 19:59
Maybe if you respect doctors more than soldiers and educators it could be.

Meaning...? Could you elaborate, please?
Lord Tothe
23-05-2008, 20:23
*assuming the OP's account is true*

Ah, the beauty of modern militant feminism. "We want equal rights. There's no difference between men and women, so don't do anything that would indicate you notice a difference between men and women. But be chivalrous and deferential even though there's no difference unless we want to assert our independence. Know which is which telepathically."
Santiago I
23-05-2008, 20:38
A true gentleman is well versed in the arts of telepathy
Glitziness
23-05-2008, 21:11
This is either a case of putting one's head in the sand and pretending that men and women are physiologically the same, or it's a broad defining of the term 'sexism' that would cover everything from the manufacture of tampons with only women as the target sales demographic to cologne meant for male customers, thus rendering the term meaningless.

Which is it?
That anaolgy doesn't really work because tampons are only relevant to women due to physiological differences. Politeness/helping out/etc is not only relevant to women, but you have decided to treat people differently, based on gender, in an irrational manner. (While it may seem to follow a personal form of rationality to you, it doesn't stand up really so you can't claim it's totally rational).

To the first, if this is what you call sexism then you're stripping the term of its meaning. Unless, of course, you're equating my holding a door open for a woman to a guy refusing to hire a female job applicant because of her sex.

Which frankly, I find irrational.

Well, you can compare them because they both involve treating people differently, on the basis of gender, with no rationality. They clearly have very different levels of significance, importance, consequence, offensiveness etc but they are comparable and both can fall under the term of sexism.



And Lord Tothe, can we please not use the term feminism for that attitude? It's nothing of the sort and totally demeans an incredibly worthwhile cause.
Neo Bretonnia
23-05-2008, 21:16
That anaolgy doesn't really work because tampons are only relevant to women due to physiological differences. Politeness/helping out/etc is not only relevant to women, but you have decided to treat people differently, based on gender, in an irrational manner. (While it may seem to follow a personal form of rationality to you, it doesn't stand up really so you can't claim it's totally rational).


It works perfectly. I don't know if you read my original post but it's worth doing if you haven't. I'm not going to repeat it but suffice to say it is the physiological differences that are at issue.


Well, you can compare them because they both involve treating people differently, on the basis of gender, with no rationality. They clearly have very different levels of significance, importance, consequence, offensiveness etc but they are comparable and both can fall under the term of sexism.


In your opinion.

Would you be offended if I held a door open for you, or got up to offer you a seat on a subway?
Santiago I
23-05-2008, 21:18
Would you be offended if I held a door open for you, or got up to offer you a seat on a subway?

He will probably think you are gay
Neo Bretonnia
23-05-2008, 21:19
He will probably think you are gay

Did you notice the part of G's sig that says she is female?
Santiago I
23-05-2008, 21:20
Did you notice the part of G's sig that says she is female?

Females can also think you are gay...

So...you are assuming that if a guy gives its seat to another guy, he must be gay?
Neo Bretonnia
23-05-2008, 21:34
Females can also think you are gay...

So...you are assuming that if a guy gives its seat to another guy, he must be gay?

I hate having to get pedantic.

You said:

He will probably think you are gay

To which I responded with "Did you notice the part of G's sig that says she is female?"

Where did you come up with the rest of that nonsense?
Santiago I
23-05-2008, 21:39
I hate having to get pedantic.

You said:



To which I responded with "Did you notice the part of G's sig that says she is female?"

Where did you come up with the rest of that nonsense?

No, I didnt saw her sign...

It came to my mind that a young healty guy that gives his seat to another young healty mind would come to think weird stuff...
Glitziness
23-05-2008, 21:52
It works perfectly. I don't know if you read my original post but it's worth doing if you haven't. I'm not going to repeat it but suffice to say it is the physiological differences that are at issue.
I have read it. I don't think it's rational. I don't have any huge objection but I don't think it's rational and I think it's fair to classify it as sexism. A very mild kind, but still sexism.

Correct me if I'm wrong but your argument is this.
Women have to deal with pregnancy, childbirth etc and men don't.
"Gentlemanly" action shows respect for this so you act in certain ways towards women and not men.

There is no clear direct link between the ability to be pregnant and holding doors open, agreed? So you've made a decision to make the link and show respect for this by acting a certain way because you... want to.

I don't see anything really wrong with it, though I don't understand why you don't want to respect what men have to deal with, or don't generalise to respecting what people in general deal with.

And it's not necessarily illogical or going against all rationality, but it is a purely personal decision that just feels right to you.

You have decided to make a distinction based on gender that is based on nothing but your feeling about how you want to respect something you feel deserves respect. Fine! But I can't see where rationality comes into it.


Would you be offended if I held a door open for you, or got up to offer you a seat on a subway?
If you got in my way to open a door for me that I was about to open I'd be a bit annoyed and confused. If you were in front of me I'd expect you to keep the door held open out of basic politeness, as I would anyone, but if you didn't do the same for a man I'd find that weird.

And if you got out of your seat on the subway I'd be confused as to why, probably find it slightly creepy (no personal offence, and no real rational reason for that - just based on my experiences of guys on train who are "friendly" :p), and politely refuse and let you stay seated.
If I was having a very stressful day, you picked up on that, and let me sit down that'd be a nice gesture, but I'd find it weird if that was based upon my gender.

I don't think I'd be offended by either. I'm not offended by chivalry - I just find it unnecessary. Holding doors open specially for women is based upon their long dresses in earlier times (they needed both hands to hold it up out of the mud) when that was the norm. Unless I have both hands full for some reason (as a man could), there is no reason I can see for it.
Glitziness
23-05-2008, 21:56
Did you notice the part of G's sig that says she is female?
Sometimes I think that part of my sig is a unnecessary... every now and again I get reminded why I put it there :P

And just to say- if I sound aggressive or heated in any of my posts, it's not intentional. And I'm not hugely bothered by the issue, just find it confusing and am interested to find an explanation for chivalry that makes sense to me! Just having the debate cos... well, what else do we do on NS?
Santiago I
23-05-2008, 21:57
CHivalry is based on the fact that women are the weaker sex and need guidance and protection. Simple!
Glitziness
23-05-2008, 22:01
CHivalry is based on the fact that women are the weaker sex and need guidance and protection. Simple!
And anyone who does it because of that is simply sexist!

Women are not weaker. Many worldwide studies have shown that women do more and harder physical labour than men.
Santiago I
23-05-2008, 22:02
Doing more and harder physical work doesnt means you are stronger...only that you dont have other option.

Whats sexist for some women, its basic etiqutte for others

Telepathy is once again required
Amor Pulchritudo
23-05-2008, 22:37
How do you know?

I'd say that based on the fact that she apparently got pissed when he didn't give the seat up to her, that that was indeed what she was trying to do.

How does he know she was?

His account doesn't seem particularly viable, and if she did in fact get pissed, it's still a little rude to assume she was trying to use her sexuality to get a seat, however I suppose I can't entirely rule it out.

My point was that Amor has no way of knowing that the woman wasn't not "using her femininity" to try and get a seat. The only account we have to go on is the OP's and based on that I would say that she was.

Having a bad week, I see.

Whether the woman in question was or wasn't "flirting" is irrelevant.

If she was an able-bodied young woman, then she's got no more right to a seat than an able-bodied young man.

Femaleness does not entitle anybody to a seat, any more than maleness does.

I tend to give up my seat for anybody who is:
1) Pregnant
2) Carrying an infant or small child
3) Elderly
4) Disabled in any way
5) Looking like they really freaking need it

I don't give up seats based on gender, skin color, or any other trivial physical attributes.

I give up my seat for those people, and also for mothers or fathers who have their children with them, but while it's not obligatory, it's still nice for a man to offer a woman a seat.

True. I just find his account unlikely to be accurate, but of course that's speculation and equally inaccurate!

That's fair enough.

1. Meh whatever.
2. She bloody well was.
3. Me too
4. Thank you, he still is, but at least we get on, sorta.

Maybe she was. It's probably not something that happens often, I assume, but I suppose she would've had to have come across as an uber-bitch for you to bother posting about it.


2. While I agree it's annoying to see men assuming women are trying to manipulate them with their breasteses, it's equally annoying to see women who actually want us to believe that their fellow women never do this.

My breasteses have gotten me seats any number of times. I fight dirty.

Luckily I don't need to use my breasts to get a seat.
Amor Pulchritudo
23-05-2008, 22:38
And anyone who does it because of that is simply sexist!

Women are not weaker. Many worldwide studies have shown that women do more and harder physical labour than men.

I can bench more than most of the guys I know. :D
Soviestan
23-05-2008, 22:40
I would've taken the seat. If she wanted so bad, she should gotten there sooner. You snooze, you lose sweet cheeks.
Santiago I
23-05-2008, 22:59
How does he know she was?


Luckily I don't need to use my breasts to get a seat.

You are very old or disabled? :D
Fishutopia
24-05-2008, 06:22
I give up my seat for those people, and also for mothers or fathers who have their children with them, but while it's not obligatory, it's still nice for a man to offer a woman a seat.
But the niceness isn't the issue. it's nice for someone to offer anyone a seat, be they male female, young, old, etc.. It's nice for a starving person to offer an obese person their last piece of bread. Just because it's nice, doesn't mean it should be done, or that it is right.

The issue is (accepting what the OP said he observed as true) should a man give up his seat for a women, and is it sexist? A sub point is, do women use their feminine wiles to trick men into being chivalrous, when chivalry shouldn't exist in an age of equal opportunity.

I think the man should not give up his seat. I do think giving up his seat is sexist. I do think some women, but not too many, try to use their feminine wiles, to get men to do things they really shouldn't.

Luckily I don't need to use my breasts to get a seat.
This suggests men give you a seat often. Are you infirm? If not, then how do you accept that by them giving you the seat, they are implying you are inferior to them, as you need the seat and they don't.
Marrakech II
24-05-2008, 06:30
And anyone who does it because of that is simply sexist!

Women are not weaker. Many worldwide studies have shown that women do more and harder physical labour than men.

Women are not weaker in mind however pure brawn they lose. Don't know how anyone could really support an argument against that. As for harder physical labor I highly doubt that one too. Not taking away from what women do in this world but it still is a mans world when it comes to the hard labor job market. Now if you are taking into account what women do outside of the workforce I think it would probably vary from ones perception as hard labor.
Brutland and Norden
24-05-2008, 06:32
But what do you think, and what would you have done if you was me, or indeed her?
My feminist teacher would not mind. As she always says, "Chivalry is dead."
Marrakech II
24-05-2008, 06:40
My feminist teacher would not mind. As she always says, "Chivalry is dead."


She should know. The feminist movement put a knife in Chivalry's back a while ago.
Soheran
24-05-2008, 06:41
She should know. The feminist movement put a knife in Chivalry's back a while ago.

And good thing, too.
Marrakech II
24-05-2008, 06:44
And good thing, too.

True, I got tired of opening doors and being generally polite. Was just a big bother really.
Fishutopia
24-05-2008, 07:56
True, I got tired of opening doors and being generally polite. Was just a big bother really.
Another missing the issue. You can still be polite. The only issue is, when being polite, you should treat both genders equally. If you are the kind of person who hold open a door for a woman, you should do the same thing if it was a man. If you do, no worries, you are being polite.

If you only do it for women, at some level, it may be subconsciously, you think they are the weaker sex, and are being sexist. As has been said before, it's nowhere near as damaging as denying the vote, jobs, etc part of sexism, but it is sexist.
Nobel Hobos
24-05-2008, 08:08
So I was on my way to work this morning on the second tube of three, crammed in like the preverbial sardines when a whole slew of fellow cattle debarked at Victoria Station.

Great an avaliable seat, rigth there just two shuffling steps to my left. I make the move and am just about to sit down when I notice a very, very attractive woman a mere step away from the seat, looking me straight in the eyes and smiling such a beautiful smile it made my little heart go thud.

So what could I do? Thats right I shrugged my applogy and took my well won seat. Boy I have never seen an angel turn into a demon so quick, the look of anger taht now apperred put my in mindof the look my dad used to get just prior to administering a beating.

Well, you did the right thing then. Don't worry about it.

So I think she was angry that her femanine whiles did not work.

But what do you think, and what would you have done if you was me, or indeed her?

Perhaps she was really interested in you, not just trying to scam the seat. And the mean face was from rejection, that you wasted no time opting for a seat over a little polite banter with her.

(Both of you bow and nod and make hand gestures at the seat, you square your shoulders and tell her you a fine with standing, showing how strong you are, she asks if you are really sure, showing how considerate she is ... then some pimply twerp with an ipod on grabs it off both of you and you're in ...)

Nah, you're probably right.
Nobel Hobos
24-05-2008, 08:16
I give up seats, hold door open etc entirely on the basis of need.

If a person looks really tired, or they're elderly or even if they just look physically weak ... I'll usually let them have the seat regardless of their gender.

If it's me that's really tired and someone gives me a seat, I can tell you that feels great.

I don't get tired that often though, I'm a lazy bastard and haven't done eight hours of work in years. :p
WiseOldUnicorn
24-05-2008, 08:24
I give up my seat for people, hold doors open, etc. for just about anyone. Doesn't matter if they're male or female, old or young, disabled or perfectly healthy. Why? It's just a nice thing to do, and it's no big imposition to me. Of course, from what I've seen I have to say I'm more polite than most people...kind of a shame, really.

And people getting offended by chivalry is one of the many reasons why feminism makes no sense to me and never will. I'm a chick, and quite personally, I love a guy to do things like opening doors for me. There's nothing wrong with being a gentleman. Except apparently, there is. :confused:
Divine Imaginary Fluff
24-05-2008, 15:04
not sexist maybe not to bright in this case though .. . you could have had something there lolWould it have been brighter for him to be a stupid tool for a narcissist?

Manipulation is never to be accepted.

2. While I agree it's annoying to see men assuming women are trying to manipulate them with their breasteses, ... My breasteses have gotten me seats any number of times. I fight dirty.Hardly a case for complaint, then. But assuming you don't feel entitled to having your manipulation work, I suppose it doesn't make you more than a little bit disgusting - as is the case with any and all manipulators - in my view.

I would give up my seat to a woman. I have taught my sons to do the same. I lose a measure of respect for any man I see who does not do so.

It's called being a gentleman, and despite rhetoric to the contrary, being a gentleman =/= sexism.It does however equal willingly reducing yourself to a tool who lends himself to often undeserving people on a wholly arbitrary ground.

Now, my personal belief/opinion is that we do this because on some level we want to acknowledge our respect for the women who, quite frankly, must endure tings we don't.The sex of the person is hardly a good way to determine how deserving of help [s]he is. And as for the nastier people out there, a scumbag is a scumbag no matter what it endures and is best simply left untouched.

So every time I hold a door open for her, or for any woman, or offer them my seat on a subway, it's an acknowledgment of that fact and a sign of respect for those who have that to deal with that when I do not.A person who actually needs help as indicated by the situation would be a worthier choice for helping.

If you find that somehow offensive, then the fault lies with you, not with me.Not offensive, just vaguely amusing and saddening at the same time.
Anti-Social Darwinism
24-05-2008, 16:44
So I was on my way to work this morning on the second tube of three, crammed in like the preverbial sardines when a whole slew of fellow cattle debarked at Victoria Station.

Great an avaliable seat, rigth there just two shuffling steps to my left. I make the move and am just about to sit down when I notice a very, very attractive woman a mere step away from the seat, looking me straight in the eyes and smiling such a beautiful smile it made my little heart go thud.

So what could I do? Thats right I shrugged my applogy and took my well won seat. Boy I have never seen an angel turn into a demon so quick, the look of anger taht now apperred put my in mindof the look my dad used to get just prior to administering a beating.

So I think she was angry that her femanine whiles did not work.

But what do you think, and what would you have done if you was me, or indeed her?

You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Give up your seat and you're saying she's weak and incapable; don't give it up and you're saying you're not a gentleman.

I'm an old female (60+), I don't give up my seat for anyone and I'll grandma-guilt anyone who won't give their seat up for me.
Intangelon
24-05-2008, 17:30
I ride the bus every day to and from campus. I only ever give up a seat if it's an older person, somebody with crutches, or basically anybody that seems like they need the seat much more than I do. I won't give a seat I've already taken to somebody just because she has a vagina; women and men are equally capable of standing. Now, if somebody and I arrive at a seat at the same time, I typically offer it to them and just stand myself.

Of course, the buses I usually ride tend to have plenty of available seats anyway, so it doesn't often come up.

[/thread]
Croatoan Green
24-05-2008, 17:35
Personally. In response to everything. I would like to point out that chivalry if used in it's proper termnology as it was originally intended in no uncertain terms simply means "to behave honorably." The inherent flaw is what is considered honorable.

I am chivalrous because I behave with honor and coutesy. I open doors for anyone who happens to be approaching or entering into a facility at the time that I am. I give up my seat to anyone who is standing on the bus if there are no available seats for them. Or if I am not impeded from doing so by being on the inner end of the seat. I offer money, when I have it in extra, to those who needed with exception to those who would waste it on alcohol, drugs, or other such unnecessary activities. Not to women, or to men, or old, or young. But to all.

Women and men alike should be chivalrous, if they were then the world would be a far kinder place.

As for the OP. No. It's not sexist. Giving ip your seat would have been, in my mind, unless you would have given it up to a middle -aged unattractive fat man.

I dislike "feminism" in the aspect of the feminist who believe they should get the rewards or benefits for the job men do, but complain at the same time when they are treated like a man would treat another man. They spout out about how they're women and they deserve this but they want equal everything else. I use the "" so that you can understand that I don't associate that with what I view as true feminism which is fighting to be recognized as an equal individual in comparisson to men, no better/no worse.

Though I laugh because I've never heard of feminism or feminist group fighting to get a man included in an activity they've been excluded from based on their gender. Though to be fair, I've never cared enough to look for such an event either.

And do women use their sexuality to get what they want? Sure. Several women do. But hey. Men try to charm and show of their "manliness" for the same reasons. So... Equality?

I think that's all I have to say.
Halna
24-05-2008, 17:41
I would have let her have the seat, just out of general kindness.
Fishutopia
24-05-2008, 19:37
I would have let her have the seat, just out of general kindness.
Have you read the rest of the thread? Why should he be the kind one? If he is kind, then wouldn't she be selfish to take the seat? He's 20 years older. If anything, she should be the kind one and give him the seat.
JuNii
24-05-2008, 20:39
Have you read the rest of the thread? Why should he be the kind one? If he is kind, then wouldn't she be selfish to take the seat? He's 20 years older. If anything, she should be the kind one and give him the seat.

to be fair, Halna said...
I would have let her have the seat, just out of general kindness.

not that Peepelonia should out of General Kindness.

I said I would and why. That doesn't make me sexist?
The blessed Chris
24-05-2008, 22:03
I suspect I'd have given the seat to the lady myself. However, were to take the tube on a daily basis, this might not be the case.

In any case, I'm a fool for wellbred air, upperclass voice and dress, and that palpable sense of class some exude.
Amor Pulchritudo
25-05-2008, 09:16
You are very old or disabled? :D

Nope. Just kidding, really.

But the niceness isn't the issue. it's nice for someone to offer anyone a seat, be they male female, young, old, etc.. It's nice for a starving person to offer an obese person their last piece of bread. Just because it's nice, doesn't mean it should be done, or that it is right.

The issue is (accepting what the OP said he observed as true) should a man give up his seat for a women, and is it sexist? A sub point is, do women use their feminine wiles to trick men into being chivalrous, when chivalry shouldn't exist in an age of equal opportunity.

I think the man should not give up his seat. I do think giving up his seat is sexist. I do think some women, but not too many, try to use their feminine wiles, to get men to do things they really shouldn't.

To me, chivalry is just about politeness and kindness. Some women may use their feminine wiles to gain what they want, but it's certainly not trickery. If a man chooses to give up his seat, he's chosen to do so.

Also, I in no way implied that the original poster did the wrong thing, and no one should be expected to be chivalrous. However, I can't stand the assumption that chivalry is sexist behaviour: it's simply a nicety. It's nice for a man to offer a woman his seat, just as it's nice to offer anyone a seat. He doesn't have to offer, and she doesn't have to accept, but it's simply nice. She shouldn't have been pissed off though: it was sexist to assume she deserved the seat more than him.

This suggests men give you a seat often. Are you infirm? If not, then how do you accept that by them giving you the seat, they are implying you are inferior to them, as you need the seat and they don't.

No, it suggests that unlike Neesikia, I don't use my breasts to get myself a seat, and when I have been offered a seat it has simply been out of politness. They are not implying that I am inferior to them. You are creating an issue out of something that is simply not that complicated. When I offer a pregant woman a seat, am I implying she's inferior? No. When a man offers a woman a seat - or anyone offers anyone a seat - they are doing so out of kindness.
Fishutopia
25-05-2008, 15:04
To me, chivalry is just about politeness and kindness. Some women may use their feminine wiles to gain what they want, but it's certainly not trickery. If a man chooses to give up his seat, he's chosen to do so.
Chivalry is a holdover from the time where the job of the man was the financial provider and protector, the job of the woman was the care providing. You want to get the good jobs, you want the vote, then you lose the chivalry.
A boat's sinking, kids 1st, but not women, you and me are racing for it.
You want me to kill the spider, then cook me dinner and do the dishes.

They are not implying that I am inferior to them. You are creating an issue out of something that is simply not that complicated.
Yes they are. If you were both equally capable, then the 1st person to get the seat keeps it. Ask yourself this. Would you have been given the chair if you were a male? If the answer is no, he thinks you are inferior. It may be subconsious. It may be cultural, but it is there. Another question to reinforce this. How often has a woman given you a seat?
When I offer a pregnant woman a seat, am I implying she's inferior? No.
My choice of word "inferior" is poor, but correct. Her capacity to stand for a long time without feeling pain actually is inferior to you. Thus, by standing, you are saying she is inferior to you (in her capacity to keep standing) and there's nothing wrong with that, as it is an acknowledged truth.
Croatoan Green
25-05-2008, 16:46
Chivalry is a holdover from the time where the job of the man was the financial provider and protector, the job of the woman was the care providing. You want to get the good jobs, you want the vote, then you lose the chivalry.
A boat's sinking, kids 1st, but not women, you and me are racing for it.
You want me to kill the spider, then cook me dinner and do the dishes.


Civalry has really nothing to do with men and women. Civalry is about behaving honorably and courteously. Yes, being chivalrous included holding doors open or in some cases downright carrying a woman, but that's because that was considered an honorable thing to do at the time. Stop bastardising the word. Just because there is equality doesn't mean you can't be chivalrous. Behaving honorably and corteously is a practice all should perfrm to everybody, that's what equality means.
Varrey
25-05-2008, 17:09
Women can stand just like men can stand. You don't have to give your seat up to anyone, though the person I am I would give it up to someone who needs it. Such as an elderly person or someone with a child.
Fishutopia
26-05-2008, 18:38
Civalry has really nothing to do with men and women. Civalry is about behaving honorably and courteously. Yes, being chivalrous included holding doors open or in some cases downright carrying a woman, but that's because that was considered an honorable thing to do at the time. Stop bastardising the word.
Only one of us is misusing the word. I'll put down a distionary definiton, and then let the forum decide.The most generous dictionary option from dictionary.com is this one
chivalry1 [ˈʃivəlri] noun
kindness and courteousness especially towards women or the weak
At least this one partly suggests it's not only towards women, when all the other dictionary options tended to say women only.

Just because there is equality doesn't mean you can't be chivalrous. Behaving honorably and corteously is a practice all should perfrm to everybody, that's what equality means.
But that's the whole point. What is polite and courteous? If you offer the seat, shouldn't the other person be too polite to take it up?

Polite and courteous, to me, is things like holding the door when you've already opened it, standing up for old or pregnant people, etc. Too many people are trying to equate being nice to women, purely because they are women, is just being nice, and it isn't. It's sexist.
Maxus Paynus
26-05-2008, 20:43
surely you would have got a better view of her cleavage if you had given up the seat?

What this man said. Think on your feet next time lad!
Croatoan Green
27-05-2008, 02:10
Only one of us is misusing the word. I'll put down a distionary definiton, and then let the forum decide.The most generous dictionary option from dictionary.com is this one
chivalry1 [ˈʃivəlri] noun
kindness and courteousness especially towards women or the weak
At least this one partly suggests it's not only towards women, when all the other dictionary options tended to say women only.

chiv·al·ry Audio Help /ˈʃɪvəlri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[shiv-uhl-ree] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries for 6. 1. the sum of the ideal qualifications of a knight, including courtesy, generosity, valor, and dexterity in arms.
2. the rules and customs of medieval knighthood.
3. the medieval system or institution of knighthood.
4. a group of knights.
5. gallant warriors or gentlemen: fair ladies and noble chivalry.
6. Archaic. a chivalrous act; gallant deed.

The first definition found on Dictionary.com. Generosity, Coutesy, and valor. Women are not mentioned at all in this one.

And the second one noted

chiv·al·ry Audio Help (shĭv'əl-rē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. chiv·al·ries

The medieval system, principles, and customs of knighthood.

The qualities idealized by knighthood, such as bravery, courtesy, honor, and gallantry toward women.
A manifestation of any of these qualities.
A group of knights or gallant gentlemen.

Gallantry toward women is ONE subvert mention in the definition. Not the sum of it's parts. The fact that people ignore the rest of it's aspect to focus on but one is a bit bothersome to me personally. I could post all the definitions. Most of them have some mention of coutesy to women. But most note it as the principles and codes held by knights.


But that's the whole point. What is polite and courteous? If you offer the seat, shouldn't the other person be too polite to take it up?

Polite and courteous, to me, is things like holding the door when you've already opened it, standing up for old or pregnant people, etc. Too many people are trying to equate being nice to women, purely because they are women, is just being nice, and it isn't. It's sexist.

And that's all courteous and how it should be. Being nice to women is courteous, so is being nice to men, and children, and anyone. Yes, in a perfect world if you offered your seat to someone and they didn't need it then they wouldn't accept it. And if they did need it then allswell. Either way, it's still courteous to offer.
Amor Pulchritudo
27-05-2008, 06:34
Chivalry is a holdover from the time where the job of the man was the financial provider and protector, the job of the woman was the care providing. You want to get the good jobs, you want the vote, then you lose the chivalry.
A boat's sinking, kids 1st, but not women, you and me are racing for it.
You want me to kill the spider, then cook me dinner and do the dishes.

Your logic is skewed. Both men and women deserve the same rights: the right to work, the right to vote, the right to freedom of speech, the right to life and so forth. However, women gaining something doesn't mean something else needs to be taken away. I don't expect chivalry, but I certainly don't consider it sexist. Opening a door for a woman does not mean a man thinks she doesn't deserve the same basic rights as he does, just as a woman opening a door for a man doesn't mean that either.


Yes they are. If you were both equally capable, then the 1st person to get the seat keeps it. Ask yourself this. Would you have been given the chair if you were a male? If the answer is no, he thinks you are inferior. It may be subconsious. It may be cultural, but it is there. Another question to reinforce this. How often has a woman given you a seat?

I've been given a seat by a woman who was getting off earlier than I was. Like I keep saying, it's a matter of courtesy. If a man and a woman are equally capable, I don't think either of them deserve the seat more, and I don't think he is obliged to give her his seat, so stop arguing as though that is what I'm saying. You seem to love to twist words so that you can argue against someone. I am simply saying that I don't feel that chivalry is sexist, and I don't think men who practice acts of chivalry are implying that women are inferior.

My choice of word "inferior" is poor, but correct.

No, it's not.

Her capacity to stand for a long time without feeling pain actually is inferior to you. Thus, by standing, you are saying she is inferior to you (in her capacity to keep standing) and there's nothing wrong with that, as it is an acknowledged truth.

What? Just what?

Look, even if you think someone may be feeling pain if they're standing, that doesn't mean you think they're INFERIOR.

But that's the whole point. What is polite and courteous? If you offer the seat, shouldn't the other person be too polite to take it up?

It's not necessarily polite to refuse. It's more polite -in my eyes- to accept the seat if you need it in a gracious manner.

Polite and courteous, to me, is things like holding the door when you've already opened it, standing up for old or pregnant people, etc. Too many people are trying to equate being nice to women, purely because they are women, is just being nice, and it isn't. It's sexist.

I certainly didn't say that. Being nice to people because they're people is nice.
Fishutopia
27-05-2008, 10:40
However, women gaining something doesn't mean something else needs to be taken away. I don't expect chivalry, but I certainly don't consider it sexist.
Chivalry (in the context of gallantry towards women, to avoid going down a semantic argument) was because it was the job of every man who had the capacity, to protect every woman. That is no longer the case. You take away that women need to be protected, you take away the need for chivalry.

I don't think either of them deserve the seat more, and I don't think he is obliged to give her his seat, so stop arguing as though that is what I'm saying.
Can you tell me where I have suggested that you are arguing he is obliged to give up the seat. I have not done that. Your argument is that chivalry isn't sexist, it's just courtesy.
You seem to love to twist words so that you can argue against someone. I am simply saying that I don't feel that chivalry is sexist, and I don't think men who practice acts of chivalry are implying that women are inferior.
I'm not twisting your words. I am saying my opinion. If anything, you are the one twisting words, accusing me of misrepresenting your argument when I haven't.
Chivalry, in my opinion, in the context that most people understand the word, is sexist. Anything that dictates that you will do different behaviour in the same circumstance, if the person is of the opposite gender, is sexist.

What? Just what?
Look, even if you think someone may be feeling pain if they're standing, that doesn't mean you think they're INFERIOR.
:rolleyes: She is not inferior, her capacity to stand is inferior. Same as my ability to get pregnant is inferior to hers. That doesn't make me inferior to her.
Peepelonia
27-05-2008, 12:39
Why is that so critical for you guys? If my post hasn't made the answers to those questions clear then I really can't make it any clearer for you. Sparkelle, you even quoted the relevant section. I fail to see the ambiguity.

I think it's important to make the distinction and have the reasons why, to show you how, although you may not think so, your actions can be construled as sexist.

Why for example, would you not giveup your seat to a man in his 30's. He may not have carried any children, but he may be the sole breadwinner and so provides for maybe 20years of that childs life. Is this any less of a feat than carrying a baby in your body for a mere nine months?
Bottle
27-05-2008, 12:45
I dislike "feminism" in the aspect of the feminist who believe they should get the rewards or benefits for the job men do, but complain at the same time when they are treated like a man would treat another man. They spout out about how they're women and they deserve this but they want equal everything else. I use the "" so that you can understand that I don't associate that with what I view as true feminism which is fighting to be recognized as an equal individual in comparisson to men, no better/no worse.

I'm glad you used the scare quotes, but it would be better if you identified that behavior as what it really is: ANTI-feminism. Somebody who demands or advocates sexist treatment isn't advocating feminism, they're advocating the opposite of feminism.


Though I laugh because I've never heard of feminism or feminist group fighting to get a man included in an activity they've been excluded from based on their gender. Though to be fair, I've never cared enough to look for such an event either.

You probably shouldn't laugh then, eh? Since there were several such incidents in the last year alone, a number of them highly publicized. I'd share some, but you don't care to look.

Feminism also contains, at its very core, many ideas which are directly and specifically beneficial to men. For instance, feminism is about freeing men from the stereotype that they must always be a wage earner, and that they cannot be loving and nurturing toward their own children (because that's "mothering"). Feminism rejects the revoltingly anti-male traditionalist crap about how all men are mindless slaves to their penises, or that all men are impulsively violent, or that men can't possibly control their own behavior because they are male.


And do women use their sexuality to get what they want? Sure. Several women do. But hey. Men try to charm and show of their "manliness" for the same reasons. So... Equality?

I think that's all I have to say.
At least this much we can agree on. PEOPLE tend to use whatever means are at their disposal. Women are disproportionately forced to be members of the "sex class," and in many ways are basically shown that their only real power is as sex objects. Small wonder that some women choose to use what they believe to be their only real source of power!
Rotovia-
27-05-2008, 12:49
It may not be in vogue, but I still believe in giving up your seat for a woman.
Peepelonia
27-05-2008, 12:49
Maybe she was. It's probably not something that happens often, I assume, but I suppose she would've had to have come across as an uber-bitch for you to bother posting about it.



No no no, on the contrary. I posted because it amused me, the sight of this young pretty thing failing to use her sexuality to sway me, the look on her face, it made me giggle.


You know the the truth is if my hip wasn't hurting, or her attempt at playing the sexual game wasn't so blatant, I may well have let her have the seat, most of us men folx can be swayed by a pretty face.
Peepelonia
27-05-2008, 12:55
I give up my seat for people, hold doors open, etc. for just about anyone. Doesn't matter if they're male or female, old or young, disabled or perfectly healthy. Why? It's just a nice thing to do, and it's no big imposition to me. Of course, from what I've seen I have to say I'm more polite than most people...kind of a shame, really.

And people getting offended by chivalry is one of the many reasons why feminism makes no sense to me and never will. I'm a chick, and quite personally, I love a guy to do things like opening doors for me. There's nothing wrong with being a gentleman. Except apparently, there is. :confused:

Naaa there isnowt wrong with being a getalman, as Long as you treat everybody with the same curtiesey and depth of empathy.
Neo Bretonnia
27-05-2008, 15:01
No, I didnt saw her sign...

It came to my mind that a young healty guy that gives his seat to another young healty mind would come to think weird stuff...

Gotcha.

I have read it. I don't think it's rational. I don't have any huge objection but I don't think it's rational and I think it's fair to classify it as sexism. A very mild kind, but still sexism.

My problem with that (and I appreciate that you're not getting up in arms over it) is that the term 'sexism' carries connotations of contempt and superiority. I've seen people pretend that isn't the case in order to justify its use (Not saying you're doing that, only that I've seen it happen) but generally speaking when one uses the term 'sexist' there's an implicit intent to suggest the person performing the 'sexist' activity somehow doesn't see equal value between men and women.

And that's wrong.

It's precisely because men and women are equal that gives chivalry its meaning. We are equal, but not equivalent. An example is that women have to deal with the labor of childbirth, men don't. Chivalry is a way of trying to even things up a little and acknowledge that. It's that simple.


Correct me if I'm wrong but your argument is this.
Women have to deal with pregnancy, childbirth etc and men don't.
"Gentlemanly" action shows respect for this so you act in certain ways towards women and not men.

There is no clear direct link between the ability to be pregnant and holding doors open, agreed? So you've made a decision to make the link and show respect for this by acting a certain way because you... want to.

I don't see anything really wrong with it, though I don't understand why you don't want to respect what men have to deal with, or don't generalise to respecting what people in general deal with.


People keep obsessing over these hypothetical "would you hold the door for a man" questions as if that was at all relevant. Sometimes I do. Sometimes I don't. Depends on the situation. It's not like there's some kind of complex matrix I keep a copy of folded up in my wallet to refer to whenever I see another human being approach a door. You guys are making it WAY overcomplicated.


And it's not necessarily illogical or going against all rationality, but it is a purely personal decision that just feels right to you.

You have decided to make a distinction based on gender that is based on nothing but your feeling about how you want to respect something you feel deserves respect. Fine! But I can't see where rationality comes into it.


I'm not sure in what context, precisely, you're using the term 'rationality.' from where I'm sitting, it's perfectly rational.


If you got in my way to open a door for me that I was about to open I'd be a bit annoyed and confused. If you were in front of me I'd expect you to keep the door held open out of basic politeness, as I would anyone, but if you didn't do the same for a man I'd find that weird.


Again, common sense has to apply here. If I'm passing through a door and there's a guy behind me, of course I'm not just going to let the door slam in his face. "Sorry dude, but you're a guy!" By the same token I wouldn't make a nuisance of myself by jumping into your path just to hold a door for you unless both of your arms are broken or occupied.

Happy? (I didn't want to get that pedantic with my answer because I had hoped it would be obvious, but so many people keep throwing out these hypothetical and yet obvious questions...)


And if you got out of your seat on the subway I'd be confused as to why, probably find it slightly creepy (no personal offence, and no real rational reason for that - just based on my experiences of guys on train who are "friendly" :p), and politely refuse and let you stay seated.
If I was having a very stressful day, you picked up on that, and let me sit down that'd be a nice gesture, but I'd find it weird if that was based upon my gender.


Assuming you even knew why I did it ;)


I don't think I'd be offended by either. I'm not offended by chivalry - I just find it unnecessary. Holding doors open specially for women is based upon their long dresses in earlier times (they needed both hands to hold it up out of the mud) when that was the norm. Unless I have both hands full for some reason (as a man could), there is no reason I can see for it.

See above.

Sometimes I think that part of my sig is a unnecessary... every now and again I get reminded why I put it there :P

And just to say- if I sound aggressive or heated in any of my posts, it's not intentional. And I'm not hugely bothered by the issue, just find it confusing and am interested to find an explanation for chivalry that makes sense to me! Just having the debate cos... well, what else do we do on NS?

Cheers! :D

CHivalry is based on the fact that women are the weaker sex and need guidance and protection. Simple!

That may be true for some but it is not the case for me or anybody I know.


It does however equal willingly reducing yourself to a tool who lends himself to often undeserving people on a wholly arbitrary ground.

The sex of the person is hardly a good way to determine how deserving of help [s]he is. And as for the nastier people out there, a scumbag is a scumbag no matter what it endures and is best simply left untouched.

A person who actually needs help as indicated by the situation would be a worthier choice for helping.

Not offensive, just vaguely amusing and saddening at the same time.

What does deserving have to do with it? As I've said, it's a gesture of respect. The world isn't going to fly apart at the seams if such a gesture is offered to someone who is mean and nasty and doesn't 'deserve' it.

You guys, I think, are just looking for something to go after. I mean seriously. There are some REAL sexists out there. Look at guys like Jason from this season's Hell's Kitchen. There's where the problem is.

I think it's important to make the distinction and have the reasons why, to show you how, although you may not think so, your actions can be construled as sexist.

Why for example, would you not giveup your seat to a man in his 30's. He may not have carried any children, but he may be the sole breadwinner and so provides for maybe 20years of that childs life. Is this any less of a feat than carrying a baby in your body for a mere nine months?[/QUOTE]

Again, I think you're just rooting for something to criticize. I mean, I'll try one more time to make the answer clear, although, and no offense, I don't think you're really looking for an answer.

Why wouldn't I get up for a guy in his 30s? Because he's in the same boat I am. I've been the sole breadwinner for most of my adult life. I'm in my 30s. It would be pointless in the context I've given. Besides, what do I know just from what I can see in a stranger? I don't know his circumstance any more than I know my own, but a woman I know instantly there's one thing she can do I can't, and I choose to honor that. By the same token I'd get up for an elderly person regardless of their sex. It's another sign of respect.

Is that so hard to understand? Do you truly feel you must take issue with someone over it?

...and you guys call us Conservatives uptight... :P
Fishutopia
27-05-2008, 15:14
So if a woman's barren, chivalry be damned?

Dress it up it how you want. Say it's about pregnancy if you want. It must be, your background doesn't let you let go of the chivalry. Fine. If it works for you great, but don't try to sell it using logic.
Reichstatt
27-05-2008, 15:27
Its a reflex for me to give up a seat to anyone else. I'm a healthy young man so what do I need a seat for? Even if it was another man about to sit down I'd still let him have the seat. Then again I also prefer to walk a few blocks to get somewhere rather than drive. Also, in my part of the world, most people seem to have reflex courtesy.
Neo Bretonnia
27-05-2008, 15:32
So if a woman's barren, chivalry be damned?

Dress it up it how you want. Say it's about pregnancy if you want. It must be, your background doesn't let you let go of the chivalry. Fine. If it works for you great, but don't try to sell it using logic.

I'm assuming that was directed at me.

I'm not going to repeat myself even though I can see you've missed the point. In fact, your post suggests you haven't bothered.
Peepelonia
27-05-2008, 15:58
Again, I think you're just rooting for something to criticize. I mean, I'll try one more time to make the answer clear, although, and no offense, I don't think you're really looking for an answer.

Why wouldn't I get up for a guy in his 30s? Because he's in the same boat I am. I've been the sole breadwinner for most of my adult life. I'm in my 30s. It would be pointless in the context I've given. Besides, what do I know just from what I can see in a stranger? I don't know his circumstance any more than I know my own, but a woman I know instantly there's one thing she can do I can't, and I choose to honor that. By the same token I'd get up for an elderly person regardless of their sex. It's another sign of respect.

Is that so hard to understand? Do you truly feel you must take issue with someone over it?

...and you guys call us Conservatives uptight... :P

Hahaha look at you now. I don't ask you to clarufy becuase I have a bee in my bonnet about it, what you choose to do matter not one white to me.

The point is, and I too am repeating myself to you here, is that wether or not you view them as so, your actions can certianly be called sexist.

The point of asking the questions I and others have asked is to get you to rationalise your actions, and see them for what they are. I'm with you as far as sexism goes, you indulge in a little tiny, winney bit, not that important I would have said.

Lets look at your answers though. You say in defence of not offering a man the same curtiesy as you would offer a a woman, that you can't tell just by looking. Can you tell then a woman unable to have childen just by looking, or do you offer this chilvalry to all woman, just in case?

In which case, why not offer it to all men just in case?
Neo Bretonnia
27-05-2008, 16:15
Hahaha look at you now. I don't ask you to clarufy becuase I have a bee in my bonnet about it, what you choose to do matter not one white to me.

That isn't how it comes across, but I'll take your word for it.


The point is, and I too am repeating myself to you here, is that wether or not you view them as so, your actions can certianly be called sexist.


That is your position.


The point of asking the questions I and others have asked is to get you to rationalise your actions, and see them for what they are. I'm with you as far as sexism goes, you indulge in a little tiny, winney bit, not that important I would have said.

But here's the problem I'm having here. You're essentially saying to me "I'm right and you're wrong, albeit in a harmless way and I want you to see it that way."

Truly, I get what you're saying. I get it. I am perfectly aware of your position and what you're trying to get here. I simply don't agree with you.

My purpose here isn't to get you to agree with me. My purpose is to get people to accept the fact that theirs isn't the only possible point of view.


Lets look at your answers though. You say in defence of not offering a man the same curtiesy as you would offer a a woman, that you can't tell just by looking. Can you tell then a woman unable to have childen just by looking, or do you offer this chilvalry to all woman, just in case?

In which case, why not offer it to all men just in case?

But like I said before, whether an individual lady for whom I might hold a door open or offer a seat to is able or willing to have kids is irrelevant. It's unimportant because the act of chivalry is and always has been a general acknowledgment and sign of respect. It would be impractical anyway to worry about individual cases. I mean honestly, are you suggesting that this gesture only has meaning if I stop and ask "Pardon me ma'am, but are you fertile?" before extending this courtesy? That's silly.

And it's still completely pointless to ask me what I'd do if it were a guy. This idea of respect and acknowledgment is all about the things women endure that men don't. Why isn't that an answer?

The elderly is a separate case but based on a similar principle of respect. I show respect to those who are elderly. Period. I don't worry about whether they've earned it or not. The old man I offer my seat to could have been a WWII vet or an ex convict who was just released after a 30 year sentence. It's not about individual desserts. It's about general respect.
Peepelonia
27-05-2008, 16:38
But here's the problem I'm having here. You're essentially saying to me "I'm right and you're wrong, albeit in a harmless way and I want you to see it that way."

That is almost right, I want you to admit that your actions in this matter are sexist.


Truly, I get what you're saying. I get it. I am perfectly aware of your position and what you're trying to get here. I simply don't agree with you.

Then your reasoning is also at fault.


My purpose here isn't to get you to agree with me. My purpose is to get people to accept the fact that theirs isn't the only possible point of view.

Heh well that' bleedin' obvious, of course there are many POV's your's just happens to be logicaly incorrect. That is not to ay thre is no merit there, but you actions are sexist.

And here is why.


And it's still completely pointless to ask me what I'd do if it were a guy. This idea of respect and acknowledgment is all about the things women endure that men don't. Why isn't that an answer?

Because you do not treat men in the same way for the things that men endure.

Ohh and it is an answer, a sexist answer, from a sexist! :D

Now don't take that to heart, I hear you when you talk about negative connotations of words. It took me a fare while to come to terms that my faith in God is delusional, as any belife in something unproven must by the defintion of the word be so.

So when I call you a sexist, it is because that is the proper word to describe a biased action based on gender.



The elderly is a separate case but based on a similar principle of respect. I show respect to those who are elderly. Period. I don't worry about whether they've earned it or not. The old man I offer my seat to could have been a WWII vet or an ex convict who was just released after a 30 year sentence. It's not about individual desserts. It's about general respect.

Now this of course is ageist! Heheh but lets leave that one, I take it you offer this to both male and female?
Neo Bretonnia
27-05-2008, 18:13
That is almost right, I want you to admit that your actions in this matter are sexist.

I will not admit to something that is not true. More on that below.


Then your reasoning is also at fault.


In your opinion, which is based either on a different worldview from my own, or a faulty understanding of my motives.


Heh well that' bleedin' obvious, of course there are many POV's your's just happens to be logicaly incorrect. That is not to ay thre is no merit there, but you actions are sexist.

And here is why.



Because you do not treat men in the same way for the things that men endure.

Ohh and it is an answer, a sexist answer, from a sexist! :D

Now don't take that to heart, I hear you when you talk about negative connotations of words. It took me a fare while to come to terms that my faith in God is delusional, as any belife in something unproven must by the defintion of the word be so.

So when I call you a sexist, it is because that is the proper word to describe a biased action based on gender.


I know what you mean and how you mean it, which is why my feathers aren't ruffled :). I realize it is not your intent to be insulting. Here's the reason I reject that perspective though:

By your definition, the very act of going to med school and becoming an OB/GYN is sexist, because your patients must, by definition, be all female. An OB/GYN is of little or no use to a man. Is that a useful way to use the term 'sexist?' Of course it isn't. Calling an OB/GYN sexist is ridiculous, even though by the logic you're using above it would be technically correct because such a doctor sees his/her patients based on their sex.

That makes the word useless.


Now this of course is ageist! Heheh but lets leave that one, I take it you offer this to both male and female?

Yep.
ChaoticFlame
28-05-2008, 00:39
You mean you didn't offer her a seat in your lap?:rolleyes:That's disgusting....
But I would have given up my seat to her. Who knows? She might have given me a "reward". Not likely though....
Fishutopia
28-05-2008, 06:44
I'm assuming that was directed at me.

I'm not going to repeat myself even though I can see you've missed the point. In fact, your post suggests you haven't bothered.

I have not missed your point, I just disagree. You yourself freely admit that you recognize a woman's capacity to endure a certain hardship (pregnancy) as your justification for your chivalry.My comment about a barren woman was designed to show the inherent flaw in that.

Take off all the window dressing, if someone is more courteous and more polite to someone due to their gender, it is sexist. It's not a huge problem or issue, but it is sexist.
Peepelonia
28-05-2008, 12:24
I know what you mean and how you mean it, which is why my feathers aren't ruffled :). I realize it is not your intent to be insulting. Here's the reason I reject that perspective though:

By your definition, the very act of going to med school and becoming an OB/GYN is sexist, because your patients must, by definition, be all female. An OB/GYN is of little or no use to a man. Is that a useful way to use the term 'sexist?' Of course it isn't. Calling an OB/GYN sexist is ridiculous, even though by the logic you're using above it would be technically correct because such a doctor sees his/her patients based on their sex.

That makes the word useless.


Nope I disagree. Your act of chivalry is directed only towards woman and your stated reason is as a mark of respect for the whole act of childbirth. You say that you do not extent that act to men as men cannot go through childbirth. When presented with resonable scenerios of men who deserve the same honour for the acts that they perform you are less inclined to agee.

This is then offering or witholding respect based only on gender, which certianly is sexist.

Your example fails as following a career in a gender biased industry means you can only perform your role for a certian gender, whislt respect and shows of resepct are gender neutral. By offering respect to a woman, but not extending the same to a man, you are being sexist.
Bottle
28-05-2008, 12:40
Take off all the window dressing, if someone is more courteous and more polite to someone due to their gender, it is sexist. It's not a huge problem or issue, but it is sexist.
Exactly.

I don't know why this is so difficult for some to accept. If you are so very bothered by the fact that your behavior is sexist, then maybe you should...I dunno...stop being sexist? But if you think your behavior is correct, then why should it matter if it's sexist? If you believe sexist behavior is the appropriate behavior, then admitting as much shouldn't be a problem.
Neo Bretonnia
28-05-2008, 13:49
I have not missed your point, I just disagree. You yourself freely admit that you recognize a woman's capacity to endure a certain hardship (pregnancy) as your justification for your chivalry.My comment about a barren woman was designed to show the inherent flaw in that.

Take off all the window dressing, if someone is more courteous and more polite to someone due to their gender, it is sexist. It's not a huge problem or issue, but it is sexist.

Nope I disagree. Your act of chivalry is directed only towards woman and your stated reason is as a mark of respect for the whole act of childbirth. You say that you do not extent that act to men as men cannot go through childbirth. When presented with resonable scenerios of men who deserve the same honour for the acts that they perform you are less inclined to agee.

This is then offering or witholding respect based only on gender, which certianly is sexist.

Your example fails as following a career in a gender biased industry means you can only perform your role for a certian gender, whislt respect and shows of resepct are gender neutral. By offering respect to a woman, but not extending the same to a man, you are being sexist.

Exactly.

I don't know why this is so difficult for some to accept. If you are so very bothered by the fact that your behavior is sexist, then maybe you should...I dunno...stop being sexist? But if you think your behavior is correct, then why should it matter if it's sexist? If you believe sexist behavior is the appropriate behavior, then admitting as much shouldn't be a problem.

We're getting repetitive now so I'm not going to keep repeating myself and I ask the same of you. If you can't agree to disagree then at least spare me the monotony of the same arguments over and over.

But I do have a question that I'd be interested in hearing from each of you individually:

Is sexism, as YOU define it, an inherently bad thing?
(Keeping in mind that my definition is not the same, I'm asking for YOUR perspective. Please do not muddle the results by trying to anticipate my reason for asking. You've already made it abundantly clear that you're not interested in my perspective anyway.)
Hydesland
28-05-2008, 14:06
The main question is: is positive discrimination based on gender sexist, and even if it is, is it bad?
Peepelonia
28-05-2008, 14:14
We're getting repetitive now so I'm not going to keep repeating myself and I ask the same of you. If you can't agree to disagree then at least spare me the monotony of the same arguments over and over.

But I do have a question that I'd be interested in hearing from each of you individually:

Is sexism, as YOU define it, an inherently bad thing?
(Keeping in mind that my definition is not the same, I'm asking for YOUR perspective. Please do not muddle the results by trying to anticipate my reason for asking. You've already made it abundantly clear that you're not interested in my perspective anyway.)

Heh it's not a perspective, it is an ill reasoned piece of wrongness. Whether you agree or not, your actions are sexist, and we are forced to repeat why because you refuse to concede.

Not all bias is wrong so inherently not all sexual bias can be wrong. As I have already said, the type of sexism that you show is such a minor one (others may disagree with me) that I really wouldn't worry about it.
Blouman Empire
28-05-2008, 14:27
The main question is: is positive discrimination based on gender sexist, and even if it is, is it bad?

Any discrimination positive or negative is bad.
Hydesland
28-05-2008, 14:37
Any discrimination positive or negative is bad.

So giving money to the poor but not the rich is bad?
Neo Bretonnia
28-05-2008, 14:38
Heh it's not a perspective, it is an ill reasoned piece of wrongness. Whether you agree or not, your actions are sexist, and we are forced to repeat why because you refuse to concede.

No offense, but I find that extremely arrogant. No matter how certain you are about your opinion or how firmly you hold it, it won't transform into a fact for you.


Not all bias is wrong so inherently not all sexual bias can be wrong. As I have already said, the type of sexism that you show is such a minor one (others may disagree with me) that I really wouldn't worry about it.

Thanks for the answer. :)

This is what makes the term meaningless as you guys use it. To me, sexism is inherently a bad thing because when it's used the term suggests (As I said earlier) unfair treatment. If you're saying that you believe that what I do is benign, then I say it is not sexist. (It's like saying "That's racist of you, but not in a bad way." Completely non sequitur.) Like it or not, that's the common usage.

Why expend so much time and energy in an effort to force your perspective on me if you say it's not a big deal?

(Unless you're just in it for the sake of the debate, which I can understand completely ;) )
High Expectation
28-05-2008, 14:48
Any discrimination positive or negative is bad.

Oxymoronic.

Discrimination is discrimination, when one goes to a restaurant and chooses a meal one is discriminating. When one has to choose which interviewee to hire, one discriminates. No one is really going to complain when they are discriminated towards, only when they are discriminated against. In our societies we have, because of traditionalist social roles, commonly discriminated against certain groups and this has allowed these groups to create legal and social standards in which any discrimination against them is "wrong".

That such legal and social standards have to exist at all suggests a form of discrimination of those who do not ascribe to equality of sexes or races. Thus
it is easy to consider that discrimination against favoured groups is always "wrong" but discrimination against unfavoured groups is always "right".

It just depends who is favoured and who is unfavoured in society.
Fishutopia
28-05-2008, 14:58
Is sexism, as YOU define it, an inherently bad thing?
Yes. But there are degrees. This is a minor sexist thing. Denying women the vote is a major sexist thing.

To use racism as an example. If someone sees a black man ahead of them and chooses to cross the street, that's racist, but minor. If someone gets together a posse and beats a black man, that is a Major racist thing.
You've already made it abundantly clear that you're not interested in my perspective anyway.
I find this kind of thing weird. You are in a forum, and there is a debate. We hear your perspective, we just disagree. If we weren't interested in your perspective, we'd stop reading or not reply. There is an ignore function.
By your standards, you've made it abundantly clear you aren't interested in my perspective. :rolleyes:
Neo Bretonnia
28-05-2008, 15:04
Yes. But there are degrees. This is a minor sexist thing. Denying women the vote is a major sexist thing.

To use racism as an example. If someone sees a black man ahead of them and chooses to cross the street, that's racist, but minor. If someone gets together a posse and beats a black man, that is a Major racist thing.

If you see a black man and cross the street to avoid him it's a mark of contempt, dislike or fear. That's what makes it racist, minor or not. If chivalry as I practice it were based on those things, then I'd agree that it's sexist. It is not however, and so I do not.


I find this kind of thing weird. You are in a forum, and there is a debate. We hear your perspective, we just disagree. If we weren't interested in your perspective, we'd stop reading or not reply. There is an ignore function.
By your standards, you've made it abundantly clear you aren't interested in my perspective. :rolleyes:

Here's the difference. I am perfectly comfortable acknowledging that you simply have a different perspective from my own, and can leave it at that. By contrast, you guys have already decided that your own perspective is as good as fact and that opinion has nothing to do with it, and use that to justify saying I'm wrong outright.
Peepelonia
28-05-2008, 15:20
No offense, but I find that extremely arrogant. No matter how certain you are about your opinion or how firmly you hold it, it won't transform into a fact for you.

No offence taken, and by the same yardstick when you start to changethe acepted definition of a word to proove your point, then who exactly is displaying arrogance and a lack of reasoning?



Thanks for the answer. :)

This is what makes the term meaningless as you guys use it. To me, sexism is inherently a bad thing because when it's used the term suggests (As I said earlier) unfair treatment. If you're saying that you believe that what I do is benign, then I say it is not sexist. (It's like saying "That's racist of you, but not in a bad way." Completely non sequitur.) Like it or not, that's the common usage.

Why expend so much time and energy in an effort to force your perspective on me if you say it's not a big deal?

(Unless you're just in it for the sake of the debate, which I can understand completely ;) )

Really?

Then lets take the acepted defintion of the word 'Sexist; from Oxford english Dictionary.

sexism

• noun prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

Nowhere here can I see a soley negative connatation of the word.

Predjudice can be both negative and positve, as can sterotypes, as can discrimination. As I said not all bias is negative bias, so any negative conotations of the word 'sexist' is your own.

So we can see that your claims on my opinion are indeed just opinion, whilst my claims about your sexisim are fact.

You declare the word 'sexist'(as I have used it) meaningless, yet this is no more than your opinion, while if you just consult any dictionary you will find that I have been using the word correctly.
Peepelonia
28-05-2008, 15:23
So giving money to the poor but not the rich is bad?

Indeed or not letting 13 year olds drink in the pubs, is bad?
Neo Bretonnia
28-05-2008, 15:26
No offence taken, and by the same yardstick when you start to changethe acepted definition of a word to proove your point, then who exactly is displaying arrogance and a lack of reasoning?


Actually, the accepted definition is hardly as concrete as you're characterizing it to be. See below.


Really?

Then lets take the acepted defintion of the word 'Sexist; from Oxford english Dictionary.

sexism

• noun prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

Nowhere here can I see a soley negative connatation of the word.

Predjudice can be both negative and positve, as can sterotypes, as can discrimination. As I said not all bias is negative bias, so any negative conotations of the word 'sexist' is your own.

So we can see that your claims on my opinion are indeed just opinion, whilst my claims about your sexisim are fact.

You declare the word 'sexist'(as I have used it) meaningless, yet this is no more than your opinion, while if you just consult any dictionary you will find that I have been using the word correctly.

Actually I DO see the negative connotation.

'prejudice' 'stereotyping' and 'discrimination' are all words that carry a negative connotation, like it or not.

Go up to any random 100 people on the street and call each one a sexist, then tally up how many take offense. Then from that you can decide whether or not my reaction is reasonable.
Peepelonia
28-05-2008, 15:43
Actually I DO see the negative connotation.

'prejudice' 'stereotyping' and 'discrimination' are all words that carry a negative connotation, like it or not.

Go up to any random 100 people on the street and call each one a sexist, then tally up how many take offense. Then from that you can decide whether or not my reaction is reasonable.

Did you read my post at all? I said I can see nothing there that has soley a negative conatation.

Yes of course all of these words can be negative, they can also be positive. Yet you claim only the negative for these words, and thus for the word 'Sexist' when the truth is it can be both. This is your error.
Neo Bretonnia
28-05-2008, 15:49
Did you read my post at all? I said I can see nothing there that has soley a negative conatation.

Yes of course all of these words can be negative, they can also be positive. Yet you claim only the negative for these words, and thus for the word 'Sexist' when the truth is it can be both. This is your error.

I read it. Stop assuming I haven't simply because I don't share your viewpoint.

Please use those three words in a common, credible example context in which they'd be used in a positive light. Bonus points if you can do it in a way that actually relates to the topic at hand such that it would demonstrate that the average person would have no problem being accused of one of those.
Peepelonia
28-05-2008, 16:00
I read it. Stop assuming I haven't simply because I don't share your viewpoint.

Please use those three words in a common, credible example context in which they'd be used in a positive light. Bonus points if you can do it in a way that actually relates to the topic at hand such that it would demonstrate that the average person would have no problem being accused of one of those.

I assume nothing, I react only to what you have written, and again it is not a differance in POV, you are wrong, and I am right.

The sale of alchol to over 18's is ageism, that is positive predjudice against those under 18, true or fales?

Germans are effieceiant workers, is a positve sterotype, true or false?

When chossing the best applicant for a job, you positivly discriminate for those with the required skill set, tru or false?
Neo Bretonnia
28-05-2008, 16:11
I assume nothing, I react only to what you have written, and again it is not a differance in POV, you are wrong, and I am right.

The sale of alchol to over 18's is ageism, that is positive predjudice against those under 18, true or fales?

Germans are effieceiant workers, is a positve sterotype, true or false?

When chossing the best applicant for a job, you positivly discriminate for those with the required skill set, tru or false?

If your point was so clear and true, you wouldn't have needed to insert the word 'positive' before each of the words in question.
Peepelonia
28-05-2008, 16:46
If your point was so clear and true, you wouldn't have needed to insert the word 'positive' before each of the words in question.

Meh well thats a weak posting. Nothing else, are we done now?
Neo Bretonnia
28-05-2008, 16:48
Meh well thats a weak posting. Nothing else, are we done now?

I've got nothing new to add to the discussion, so unless you do, let's call it an agreement to disagree.
Peepelonia
28-05-2008, 16:54
I've got nothing new to add to the discussion, so unless you do, let's call it an agreement to disagree.

Heh i can live with that.
Neo Bretonnia
28-05-2008, 18:15
Heh i can live with that.

Done.

W00T! 4000th post!
Croatoan Green
28-05-2008, 19:05
I don't remember who was arguing about the word chivalry with me but glad to see you recognize the faulting. And furthermore. There is a reason I argue about the general use of the term. Because it gives Chivalry a bad name. I, for example, like to believe I am fairly chivalrous. And nothing I do is about doing anything for women in particular that I don't do for anyone else.

If we were all chivalrous then the world would be a better place for it. But once again, this is never going to happen because people inherently are assholes.

Neo Bretonnia. Your argument holds certain faults. When asked why you wouldn't do the same for a man you argued you were in the same position and thus didn't need to. For this argument to work you'd also have to argue that a woman should give up HER seat to a man for the hardships HE endures that she does not. And that when asked why she shouldn't do the same for another woman the fact that "I can do that to" is a suitable argument to defend it. You don't expect a woman to give up her seat to a man out of respect for what he can do that she cannot. Why should one expect it of a man to a woman. In order to argue you aren't sexist you'd have to argue the alternative behavior as well.

Your opinion is sexism out of nobility. You nobly accept that women haeve hardships that you yourself don't experience and attempt to make up for that by little gestures of appreciation. But in order for that NOT to be sexist you must offer that same kindness to anyone who has gone through hardships you haven't. Anyone whose been in the military for example if you haven't served. Or even more progressively. Anyone who happend to have had a harder day then you on that one day. Because they are going through something you aren't at the moment. But you can't know that is your argument. And so what? The question you should always ask yourself is... Do I need this seat? And is there someone who might need it more than me? That's who you should give it up to. If you need the seat, and the other person doesn't need it terribly, then keep it. If you don't really need it, then give it to someone who might. That's chivalry. That's courteousy. That's being polite. Not because they're a woman. Or elderly. Or a man. Or anything. But because you don't need it and they might. And in a perferct world if they didn't need it they wouldn't take it.

The fact that you wouldn't give up your seat to a man who might need it more then you, but will give it to a woman whether she needs it more then you do or not is what classifies your argument as sexism. You're not doing it based on anything but gender. And while your sexism isn't necessarily bad. It's still sexism.

That's all.
Neo Bretonnia
28-05-2008, 19:51
Neo Bretonnia. Your argument holds certain faults. When asked why you wouldn't do the same for a man you argued you were in the same position and thus didn't need to.
<snip for brevity>
You're not doing it based on anything but gender. And while your sexism isn't necessarily bad. It's still sexism.


I'll tell you the same thing I said to the others. I reject the idea that showing courtesy to women in particular = sexism. Is the behavior linked to the person's sex? Yes. Is it a bad thing? No. Is it sexism? No, unless you classify ALL behavior, good, bad or indifferent, that takes into consideration the sex of the people involved as sexism.

Which would make OB/GYNs sexist by definition, A condom a sexist device because only males are meant to put one on, and the entire system of separating mens and womens bathrooms a sexist construct.

...which makes the term effectively meaningless. I won't keep repeating it but suffice it to say I understand your point completely and still disagree with it.
Dinaverg
28-05-2008, 20:25
...which makes the term effectively meaningless.

er...really?
Croatoan Green
29-05-2008, 01:23
I'll tell you the same thing I said to the others. I reject the idea that showing courtesy to women in particular = sexism. Is the behavior linked to the person's sex? Yes. Is it a bad thing? No. Is it sexism? No, unless you classify ALL behavior, good, bad or indifferent, that takes into consideration the sex of the people involved as sexism.

Which would make OB/GYNs sexist by definition, A condom a sexist device because only males are meant to put one on, and the entire system of separating mens and womens bathrooms a sexist construct.

...which makes the term effectively meaningless. I won't keep repeating it but suffice it to say I understand your point completely and still disagree with it.

You really don't understand the point at all. OB/GYNs are not sexist by definition. They are doctors who specialize in a particular body system, the fact that the body system is unique to women is purely happenstance. Condoms are a birth control device designed for men because the birth control for women CAN'T work on men. The bathrooms is just silly and has nothing to do with gender at all but deceny. I don't know alot of women who want to walk in on a male stranger using the bathroom, or would want their daughter to either. None of these is sexist.

The difference here is that you're trying to compare an ideology to a physical need. Men can't use women's birth control. And women can't use men's birth control. Not out of someone's ideal but because of physical differences. OB/GYNs study a body system that men don't have. Simple as that.

So let me ask you a question.

If an elderly man and an elderly woman got on a bus together and you were sitting and could give one of them a seat, which one would you give the seat to?

If a middle aged man coming off work and looking drained and a young eighteen year old woman got on the bus who would you give the seat too?

If a man with a child and a woman with a child, both children and parents the same age, which of the two would you give the seat too?

The difference between the things you listed and the your own sexist standpoint is yours is ideology. The case here is, both men and women can sit, both can use the seat, but your saying that one is more deservant of the seat based on nothing but the fact of their gender. That is sexism.
Neo Bretonnia
29-05-2008, 13:27
er...really?

Yep.

You really don't understand the point at all.
<snip>
That is sexism.

Stop assuming that I don't understand your point simply because I don't agree with it. You can repeat the same talking points another thousand times.

I get it.

I don't agree with you.

Period.

I thought about replying to your points one at a time but I had this feeling of deja vu, so if you're really interested in my answers (Which I suspect you are not) then you're more than welcome to go back over what I've said in this thread. If it's not worth your time to do that, then it's definitely not worth my time to re-type it all.

One thing I do find worth mentioning is that interestingly, you did contradict yourself when you suggested that somehow it's not sexist if a woman doesn't want some male stranger using the same bathroom she does. That strikes me as more sexist than what you're trying to portray me as.

But then, I'm not the one dumping labels on people.
Siempreciego
29-05-2008, 15:32
Whether you consider is sexist or not is irrelevant. By all definitions it would be considered sexist. By making a distinction, whether positive or negative, against a person or thing based on the group/class/sex/etc rather than on individual merit you are discriminating. In this case as its due to the sex of an individual its sexism.

please note, this does not mean you are sexist nor am i saying you are, just that your actions in this case are. Which many people are guilty of.
Just as giving your seat to someone older but not younger than yourself is ageist.
Neo Bretonnia
29-05-2008, 15:37
Whether you consider is sexist or not is irrelevant. By all definitions it would be considered sexist. By making a distinction, whether positive or negative, against a person or thing based on the group/class/sex/etc rather than on individual merit you are discriminating. In this case as its due to the sex of an individual its sexism.

please note, this does not mean you are sexist nor am i saying you are, just that your actions in this case are. Which many people are guilty of.
Just as giving your seat to someone older but not younger than yourself is ageist.

Which strips the term of any useful meaning.
Dyakovo
29-05-2008, 15:39
Which strips the term of any useful meaning.

So sexism/sexist has no useful meaning if it isn't derogatory?
Neo Bretonnia
29-05-2008, 15:43
So sexism/sexist has no useful meaning if it isn't derogatory?

Yeah, when you consider how people use it. It's just like the term 'racist.' Ever heard that one used in a positive or even a neutral context? I know people are pushing hard to get me to swallow the 'sexist' label as if it were a perfectly neutral and so on, but let's be honest... Is that at all realistic?

I say no.
Dyakovo
29-05-2008, 15:51
Yeah, when you consider how people use it.

That explains a lot.
Neo Bretonnia
29-05-2008, 15:58
That explains a lot.

Meaning?
Dinaverg
29-05-2008, 15:59
Meaning?

That you work from the usage of the word to determine it's meaning, as opposed to going form the other direction?
Neo Bretonnia
29-05-2008, 16:03
That you work from the usage of the word to determine it's meaning, as opposed to going form the other direction?

Usage determines meaning. Think of the word 'gender.' It's a grammatical term to describe the femininity or masculinity of nouns in languages that have that feature. People eventually started using the term to describe the sex of living things when it was awkward to say 'sex.' Now even the dictionary reflects this new usage, but it hasn't always.

Ok so if you commented that it was cool they got Morgan Freeman to portray a black American President in the movie Deep Impact, would you be comfortable if I then called you a racist (but meant it in a positive way), on the basis that you found an actor's race noteworthy of comment?

Of course not.
Dyakovo
29-05-2008, 16:04
Meaning?
This \/
That you work from the usage of the word to determine it's meaning, as opposed to going form the other direction?

It wasn't meant as a put down.
Neo Bretonnia
29-05-2008, 16:04
This \/


It wasn't meant as a put down.

I know it wasn't. I just didn't understand ;)

I replied to Dinaverg.
Dyakovo
29-05-2008, 16:08
I know it wasn't. I just didn't understand ;)

I replied to Dinaverg.

I saw...

To answer the question therein:

I'd be confused and ask for an explanation.
Dinaverg
29-05-2008, 16:09
Usage determines meaning. Think of the word 'gender.' It's a grammatical term to describe the femininity or masculinity of nouns in languages that have that feature. People eventually started using the term to describe the sex of living things when it was awkward to say 'sex.' Now even the dictionary reflects this new usage, but it hasn't always.

That's merely an example of usage changing, and dictionaries, being largely descriptive, reflecting that change. i.e., you're not supporting descriptivism, just giving an example of it. I would then, for example, point out that academy thing they've got going in France.

Ok so if you commented that it was cool they got Morgan Freeman to portray a black American President in the movie Deep Impact, would you be comfortable if I then called you a racist (but meant it in a positive way), on the basis that you found an actor's race noteworthy of comment?

Of course not.

hee, it's funny cuz I'm black

I'd find it humorous really, but not inaccurate. Though...I didn't actually mention the actor's race, but the character's, didn't I? Additionally, if Morgan Freeman had been playing a white prez, I'd probably find that worthy of mention as well...so perhaps it is inaccurate, in this example.
Neo Bretonnia
29-05-2008, 16:21
I saw...

To answer the question therein:

I'd be confused and ask for an explanation.

I'm sure you would be confused, as would most people. That's part of the point. You'd wonder why I was calling you a racist over it. And I'm quite sure you wouldn't turn to me and say "Oh, whyever in the world do you say so?"

More likely you'd arch an eyebrow, look over and say "WTF was that for?"

That's merely an example of usage changing, and dictionaries, being largely descriptive, reflecting that change. i.e., you're not supporting descriptivism, just giving an example of it. I would then, for example, point out that academy thing they've got going in France.


I don't understand the reference...?


hee, it's funny cuz I'm black

I'd find it humorous really, but not inaccurate. Though...I didn't actually mention the actor's race, but the character's, didn't I? Additionally, if Morgan Freeman had been playing a white prez, I'd probably find that worthy of mention as well...so perhaps it is inaccurate, in this example.

But you see the point I'm getting at, do you not? Would it be racist to acknowledge the race of the President in the movie because he's black whereas a white President would not be at all noteworthy?
Dyakovo
29-05-2008, 16:23
I'm sure you would be confused, as would most people. That's part of the point. You'd wonder why I was calling you a racist over it. And I'm quite sure you wouldn't turn to me and say "Oh, whyever in the world do you say so?"

More likely you'd arch an eyebrow, look over and say "WTF was that for?"

Actually my response would more likely be:

*arches eyebrow*
Hunh?
Neo Bretonnia
29-05-2008, 16:26
Actually my response would more likely be:

*arches eyebrow*
Hunh?

So if I explained the remark in the way people keep justifying calling my actions sexist in this thread, would that satisfy you? Would you feel it was a useful use of the word and maybe even go on to use it that way yourself?
Dyakovo
29-05-2008, 16:28
So if I explained the remark in the way people keep justifying calling my actions sexist in this thread, would that satisfy you?
Yes, it would.
Would you feel it was a useful use of the word and maybe even go on to use it that way yourself?
I'd say that it was a strange way to use the word.
Neo Bretonnia
29-05-2008, 16:31
Yes, it would.

I'd say that it was a strange way to use the word.

That's all I'm sayin'. It takes the meaning away from it when used in that way.
Peepelonia
29-05-2008, 17:12
That's all I'm sayin'. It takes the meaning away from it when used in that way.

Hehe you are soooo funny, what lenghts won't you go to to 'prove' your point.

You claim that the way a word is used gives it it's meaning.

Now count how many people in this thread take your stance and how many people in this thread take my stance.

I think you'll find that the way I used it is in the majority so by your own claim, you must be sexist.

If the majority of us use the word in one way, then by your claim that is what it's meaning is, yet here you are telling us that to use it that way strips it of meaning.

Now come on, you can't have it both ways, either usage counts, or it does not.
Dinaverg
29-05-2008, 17:19
I don't understand the reference...?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3%A7aise

But you see the point I'm getting at, do you not? Would it be racist to acknowledge the race of the President in the movie because he's black whereas a white President would not be at all noteworthy?

Probably would be, yeah.
GlassWorld
29-05-2008, 17:45
Well now, isn't that amusing? Poor thing - after she went to all that trouble to reward you in advance by smiling at you. Unfortunately for her, you took both the smile and the seat. Some women appreciate men's deference and other women feel only contempt for a guy who's trying to be a "gentleman". However, the latter group may fake appreciation if it gets them what they want - looks like you ran into one of them. Pretty women in particular seem to feel an entitlement about things like this. She probably felt that you were being disrespectful when you sat down. Since she's attractive, my guess is that she's used to having her ego massaged frequently. That's a pretty sure way for her to develop that sense of entitlement. Question: how do you think she'd respond if you tried to chat her up at a pub?
GlassWorld
29-05-2008, 17:46
Well now, isn't that amusing? Poor thing - after she went to all that trouble to reward you in advance by smiling at you. Unfortunately for her, you took both the smile and the seat. Some women appreciate men's deference and other women feel only contempt for a guy who's trying to be a "gentleman". However, the latter group may fake appreciation if it gets them what they want - looks like you ran into one of them. Pretty women in particular seem to feel an entitlement about things like this. She probably felt that you were being disrespectful when you sat down. Since she's attractive, my guess is that she's used to having her ego massaged frequently. That's a pretty sure way for her to develop that sense of entitlement. Question: how do you think she'd respond if you tried to chat her up at a pub?
Giliaid
29-05-2008, 17:54
Personally I would probably have let her have the seat as it's almost a reflex reaction from my upbringing. I don't think you did anything wrong though

i totally agree
Peepelonia
29-05-2008, 17:56
Question: how do you think she'd respond if you tried to chat her up at a pub?

What a good looking chap like me. I hope she would have found me not too corny, not too mature, and not too sweaty!:D
Neo Bretonnia
29-05-2008, 19:32
Hehe you are soooo funny, what lenghts won't you go to to 'prove' your point.

You claim that the way a word is used gives it it's meaning.

Now count how many people in this thread take your stance and how many people in this thread take my stance.

I think you'll find that the way I used it is in the majority so by your own claim, you must be sexist.

If the majority of us use the word in one way, then by your claim that is what it's meaning is, yet here you are telling us that to use it that way strips it of meaning.

Now come on, you can't have it both ways, either usage counts, or it does not.

So... You're suggesting I should take a few dissenting opinions on NSG and take that as the majority opinion in the world?

And what happened to our agreement to disagree? :confused:
Neo Bretonnia
29-05-2008, 19:32
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3%A7aise



Probably would be, yeah.

Even if the remark was positive?
Dinaverg
29-05-2008, 19:39
:)

Even if the remark was positive?

Probably would be, yeah.
Neo Bretonnia
29-05-2008, 19:42
:)

If you say so. I doubt it, but I'm not going to call you a liar or anything.
Croatoan Green
29-05-2008, 20:59
Stop assuming that I don't understand your point simply because I don't agree with it. You can repeat the same talking points another thousand times.

I get it.

I don't agree with you.

Period.


No. You quite obviously don't understand. It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with my opinion. It's the fact that you are plainly ignoring rationality to argue your point.

If YOU discriminate against ANYONE based on nothing but the GENDER of that person then it is SEXISM. Period. The end. There's nothing to agree with. That is in fact the very MEANING of sexism. You're saying that woman is more entitle to sitting down then a man is. That is sexist. Plain and simple. You've argued alot of points to make your stance seem valid but none of those arguments are remotely pertinent or even similar to this dispute.


I thought about replying to your points one at a time but I had this feeling of deja vu, so if you're really interested in my answers (Which I suspect you are not) then you're more than welcome to go back over what I've said in this thread. If it's not worth your time to do that, then it's definitely not worth my time to re-type it all.


I am actually curious to your answers because they would actually identify if you're sexist really or just silly. I read the entire thread up to this point but have forgotten certain things, and while I can hazard a guess at what your answers will be, I would find it unfair to condemn you on assumptions.


One thing I do find worth mentioning is that interestingly, you did contradict yourself when you suggested that somehow it's not sexist if a woman doesn't want some male stranger using the same bathroom she does. That strikes me as more sexist than what you're trying to portray me as.

But then, I'm not the one dumping labels on people.

You see this? This is why I say you don't understand the point at all. I said women don't want to walk in on a strange male using the bathroom. Why? Because it would be awkward and weird. Not out of sexism, much the same way they wouldn't want said man to walk in on THEM using the bathroom. Because they would most likely be embarassing. It's about social decorum more then gender.

Your argument is more like this. You have a single bathroom that you only let women use and make the men go in the bushes outside. Or you have one bathroom and in a line the women automatically get to go in first because they're women. That is sexist. You're awarding a privilege to one gender while denying the other the same privilege to the other. It is sexism. No matter which way you want to slice it.



Ok so if you commented that it was cool they got Morgan Freeman to portray a black American President in the movie Deep Impact, would you be comfortable if I then called you a racist (but meant it in a positive way), on the basis that you found an actor's race noteworthy of comment?

Of course not.

Once again, another example of your failure to understand the argument. Acknowledging that someone is black, or that it was cool to see a black president isn't at all the same or even remotely arguable to the point. Let me paint this to you in the terms of the argument at hand. If Morgan Freeman had been cast as the President in Deep Impact simply because he is BLACK then yes. That would be racism. If he was hired because of his acting skill and he just happens to be black, no it's not racism.

I can't recall the name of the act at the moment. But the law that was made to assure that you have so many of X minority in the office? That one.. Yes, it is racist, and sexist, and discriminatory. Because those people aren't getting the job because of their skills, or what they bring to the table, but simply because of their gender or race. And that is racist and sexist and silly.

So to say it again. You don't understand. You are sexist. There is nothing to agree with. There is nothing to disagree with. You can choose not to accept it, proving foolishness, or to accept it. That's just the way it is.


Oh. And it seems you might think we're saying your sexist against women... but I don't think anyone's arguing that point. You're sexist against men. Quite clearly.
Neo Bretonnia
29-05-2008, 21:55
No. You quite obviously don't understand. It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with my opinion. It's the fact that you are plainly ignoring rationality to argue your point.

If YOU discriminate against ANYONE based on nothing but the GENDER of that person then it is SEXISM. Period. The end. There's nothing to agree with. That is in fact the very MEANING of sexism.


There's the disconnect, right there.

There is no discrimination here. At the end of your post you indicated that you're saying I discriminate against men, not women. I'm glad you said that because yes, indeed I was taking it the other way.

On the other hand, it's not 'discriminating against men' because there's simply no reason for that to enter into the logic of it. Other men are in the same category as I am so if I feel it's right that I should give up my seat to a lady, then I think all men should do so. But that's my opinion. I'm not out there stopping other men from doing it, and if there's some guy who looks like he's had a long, tiring day and needs to sit down more than I do, then common courtesy says that yes, I'd offer him my seat.


I am actually curious to your answers because they would actually identify if you're sexist really or just silly. I read the entire thread up to this point but have forgotten certain things, and while I can hazard a guess at what your answers will be, I would find it unfair to condemn you on assumptions.


Well that being the case, if you have specific question, ask away.


You see this? This is why I say you don't understand the point at all. I said women don't want to walk in on a strange male using the bathroom. Why? Because it would be awkward and weird. Not out of sexism, much the same way they wouldn't want said man to walk in on THEM using the bathroom. Because they would most likely be embarassing. It's about social decorum more then gender.

Social decorum based on....


Your argument is more like this. You have a single bathroom that you only let women use and make the men go in the bushes outside. Or you have one bathroom and in a line the women automatically get to go in first because they're women. That is sexist. You're awarding a privilege to one gender while denying the other the same privilege to the other. It is sexism. No matter which way you want to slice it.


That's not my argument at all. It's a personal choice on my part. I never said men had to stand up at all times, nor did I ever indicate that I'd enforce the courtesy on anybody.


Once again, another example of your failure to understand the argument. Acknowledging that someone is black, or that it was cool to see a black president isn't at all the same or even remotely arguable to the point. Let me paint this to you in the terms of the argument at hand. If Morgan Freeman had been cast as the President in Deep Impact simply because he is BLACK then yes. That would be racism. If he was hired because of his acting skill and he just happens to be black, no it's not racism.

Just out of curiosity, what if it's both? What if the director WANTED a black president AND hired an actor with a lot of skill?


I can't recall the name of the act at the moment. But the law that was made to assure that you have so many of X minority in the office? That one.. Yes, it is racist, and sexist, and discriminatory. Because those people aren't getting the job because of their skills, or what they bring to the table, but simply because of their gender or race. And that is racist and sexist and silly.


Agreed.


So to say it again. You don't understand. You are sexist. There is nothing to agree with. There is nothing to disagree with. You can choose not to accept it, proving foolishness, or to accept it. That's just the way it is.


Or, you could be missing my point too. Maybe my answers here have helped.


Oh. And it seems you might think we're saying your sexist against women... but I don't think anyone's arguing that point. You're sexist against men. Quite clearly.

Noted.
Peepelonia
30-05-2008, 11:46
So... You're suggesting I should take a few dissenting opinions on NSG and take that as the majority opinion in the world?

And what happened to our agreement to disagree? :confused:

We can always agree to disagree, but we can still talk.

No I suggest you stick to your claim and realise what meaning the majority here are giving the world, and then suck that up and say, okay okay I was wrong.:D
Neo Bretonnia
30-05-2008, 13:24
We can always agree to disagree, but we can still talk.

No I suggest you stick to your claim and realise what meaning the majority here are giving the world, and then suck that up and say, okay okay I was wrong.:D

The majority here can say what it wants, it neither represents the the real life majority nor does it represent my point of view on virtually anything, so why should I concede to it?
Peepelonia
30-05-2008, 13:43
The majority here can say what it wants, it neither represents the the real life majority nor does it represent my point of view on virtually anything, so why should I concede to it?

*sigh*

Did you not say that the way a word is used give it it's meaning?

Yes you did, I remember you saying that.

So if the majority here disagree with your usage of the word, and hence it's meaning, then you must conced to the majority usage of the word.

You suggested this, I'm pulling you up, on your terms.

Now weedle out of it if you wish.
Neo Bretonnia
30-05-2008, 14:15
*sigh*

Did you not say that the way a word is used give it it's meaning?

Yes you did, I remember you saying that.

So if the majority here disagree with your usage of the word, and hence it's meaning, then you must conced to the majority usage of the word.

You suggested this, I'm pulling you up, on your terms.

Now weedle out of it if you wish.

I'm gonna be completely open here, and your reaction will tell me whether or not it's a good idea to lay the cards on the table in such a way.

It's very irritating to me, that the tone of that post suggests that you're more interested in trying to create some kind of logic trap then actually getting a clear understanding of what I'm getting at. Instead of gleefully acting like somehow you've managed to confuse me into contradicting myself, I think you'd find it much more fruitful to say something like "Wait a sec, help me out here. How do you reconcile your belief that the majority defines the term, yet resist the majority here on the forum?"

A question like that would tell me that you were sincerely interested in my point, at which time I'd me more than happy to explain.

But no, this isn't 'wheedling' because what you think I'm saying is not at all accurate in this.
Fishutopia
30-05-2008, 16:15
I'm having a similar argument in another thread.

What someone defines a word to be is not relevant. Labels and language is all about communication. Sexism is a label attached to certain behaviour. What society deems that label to be is what matters, not one person's definition. In this case it's majority rules. The tyranny of the majority, if you want.

The majority of people accept that sexism is giving different treatment (be it preferential or deletrious) to someone based on gender.

So in the context of standing up for a woman, and not standing up for a man (assuming everything else is mostly equal) is definately sexist by most people's definition.

Since you asked for help to understand, I'll try some pop psych. Neo Brettonia, I think the problem is, you have attached to the sexism label, that is has to be bad. Thus you have a problem accepting your behaviour is sexist. Your sexism is mostly innocous, and large parts of society, while recognising it is technically sexist, might still agree with it.
Hotwife
30-05-2008, 16:17
I ride the bus every day to and from campus. I only ever give up a seat if it's an older person, somebody with crutches, or basically anybody that seems like they need the seat much more than I do. I won't give a seat I've already taken to somebody just because she has a vagina; women and men are equally capable of standing. Now, if somebody and I arrive at a seat at the same time, I typically offer it to them and just stand myself.

Of course, the buses I usually ride tend to have plenty of available seats anyway, so it doesn't often come up.

This.
Neo Bretonnia
30-05-2008, 16:17
I'm having a similar argument in another thread.

What someone defines a word to be is not relevant. Labels and language is all about communication. Sexism is a label attached to certain behaviour. What society deems that label to be is what matters, not one person's definition. In this case it's majority rules. The tyranny of the majority, if you want.

The majority of people accept that sexism is giving different treatment (be it preferential or deletrious) to someone based on gender.

So in the context of standing up for a woman, and not standing up for a man (assuming everything else is mostly equal) is definately sexist by most people's definition.

Since you asked for help to understand, I'll try some pop psych. Neo Brettonia, I think the problem is, you have attached to the sexism label, that is has to be bad. Thus you have a problem accepting your behaviour is sexist. Your sexism is mostly innocous, and large parts of society, while recognising it is technically sexist, might still agree with it.

Are you suggesting that my perception of the label 'sexist' being bad is somehow unusual or in error?
Peepelonia
30-05-2008, 16:30
I'm gonna be completely open here, and your reaction will tell me whether or not it's a good idea to lay the cards on the table in such a way.

It's very irritating to me, that the tone of that post suggests that you're more interested in trying to create some kind of logic trap then actually getting a clear understanding of what I'm getting at. Instead of gleefully acting like somehow you've managed to confuse me into contradicting myself, I think you'd find it much more fruitful to say something like "Wait a sec, help me out here. How do you reconcile your belief that the majority defines the term, yet resist the majority here on the forum?"

A question like that would tell me that you were sincerely interested in my point, at which time I'd me more than happy to explain.

But no, this isn't 'wheedling' because what you think I'm saying is not at all accurate in this.


Yes you are correct, this is not wheeldling. Thats the thing with these places, you really can't tell intent by the choice of words. I'm not playing with you, although I will admit to having fun with this.

I get your point, we have after all been over it a few times now.

You can't reconcile your claim and how you have been contradicting your claim in the last few pages, how can one reconcile contradictions, one either is contradictory or not.

I'm happy that you can sense the glee in my posts though, I am rather a gleefull man, I try to find homour in lots of placee, and this place is chock full of it.
Peepelonia
30-05-2008, 16:33
Are you suggesting that my perception of the label 'sexist' being bad is somehow unusual or in error?

No but your instance that it is 'only' bad, and that to claim this is not so somehow renders the term 'meaningless' is certianly in error.
Neo Bretonnia
30-05-2008, 16:37
Yes you are correct, this is not wheeldling. Thats the thing with these places, you really can't tell intent by the choice of words. I'm not playing with you, although I will admit to having fun with this.

I get your point, we have after all been over it a few times now.

You can't reconcile your claim and how you have been contradicting your claim in the last few pages, how can one reconcile contradictions, one either is contradictory or not.

I'm happy that you can sense the glee in my posts though, I am rather a gleefull man, I try to find homour in lots of placee, and this place is chock full of it.

Glee is good. After all, ideally we're all here to amuse ourselves.

Where I get frustrated is when I can tell that somebody starts to react to what I said in a way that is obviously more about achieving a 'gotcha' than actually having a discussion. If you say that's not your intent, I accept your word for it.

Where is the contradiction, as you see it?

No but your instance that it is 'only' bad, and that to claim this is not so somehow renders the term 'meaningless' is certianly in error.

I disagree, otherwise what's the point of saying it at all?
Peepelonia
30-05-2008, 16:41
Glee is good. After all, ideally we're all here to amuse ourselves.

Where I get frustrated is when I can tell that somebody starts to react to what I said in a way that is obviously more about achieving a 'gotcha' than actually having a discussion. If you say that's not your intent, I accept your word for it.

Where is the contradiction, as you see it??


Did you not say that the way a word is used give it it's meaning?

Yes you did, I remember you saying that.

So if the majority here disagree with your usage of the word, and hence it's meaning, then you must conced to the majority usage of the word.


I disagree, otherwise what's the point of saying it at all?


And as said before, your disagreement matters not one bit. You are just plain wrong, disagree all you want.

What would you mean if you used the word 'discriminate'?
Fishutopia
30-05-2008, 16:55
Are you suggesting that my perception of the label 'sexist' being bad is somehow unusual or in error?
In the way you are saying, absolutely it is in error.

A hard core psycho feminist would say "Standing up just shows how superior you think you are because you're the big man, sit down you offensive jerk". In that viewpoint, all sexism is bad.

Most people aren't that hard core though. I think that your criteria for standing fits the definition I previously gave for sexist. Many people wouldn't think that it is a bad thing, though. It's just a courteous gesture, etc, etc.

So in the context of this discussion, not all sexism is necessarily seen as bad by many people.
Rathanan
30-05-2008, 17:07
So I was on my way to work this morning on the second tube of three, crammed in like the preverbial sardines when a whole slew of fellow cattle debarked at Victoria Station.

Great an avaliable seat, rigth there just two shuffling steps to my left. I make the move and am just about to sit down when I notice a very, very attractive woman a mere step away from the seat, looking me straight in the eyes and smiling such a beautiful smile it made my little heart go thud.

So what could I do? Thats right I shrugged my applogy and took my well won seat. Boy I have never seen an angel turn into a demon so quick, the look of anger taht now apperred put my in mindof the look my dad used to get just prior to administering a beating.

So I think she was angry that her femanine whiles did not work.

But what do you think, and what would you have done if you was me, or indeed her?

Dude, rock on... Chances are, she would have given you that seductive smile to make you back off and then not give you a second thought if you gave her your seat.

If nothing else, what you did was anti-sexism because you're not treating the woman like she's too dainty and weak to stand. Women wanted equality, well, there they have it... You get equality with all the trimmings, including the loss of automatic claim to a seat simply because you're a woman.

If it were me, I would take the seat and give her a big Cheshire grin to gloat over my victory.... As a poor grad student who spends most of his time either teaching, studying, smoking, or drinking, I have to get my kicks any way I can, even if it's immature and contrary to usual social expectations. I'm only a chivalrous yuppie when it's of benefit to me (no, I don't mean sex)... For instance, if I mind my manners with waitresses, a lot of times they'll "forget" to charge me for a small dessert or that refill of beer.

It's contrary to how my parents raised me, but Hell... Everyone's gotta make some changes in his or her life sometime. Some would argue I made a change for the worse in that respect, but whatever.
Sparkelle
30-05-2008, 17:09
I think you should give up your seat to a man because they stand up to pee and so they spend more time standing than women and must be more tired.
Peepelonia
30-05-2008, 17:11
I think you should give up your seat to a man because they stand up to pee and so they spend more time standing than women and must be more tired.

Yes!:D
Fishutopia
30-05-2008, 17:46
I think you should give up your seat to a man because they stand up to pee and so they spend more time standing than women and must be more tired.
Brilliant. Also women are generally smaller than men. Thus, due to the square/cube rule for muscles, a mans muscles are put under more strain, so he needs the rest. ;)
Neo Bretonnia
30-05-2008, 18:20
Did you not say that the way a word is used give it it's meaning?

Yes you did, I remember you saying that.

So if the majority here disagree with your usage of the word, and hence it's meaning, then you must conced to the majority usage of the word.


But see, you said 'the majority here.' Do you think that the majority on NSG necessarily represents the majority of the population at large? (Mind you, even the majority on NSG hasn't been established on this. Maybe a poll on that would be fun to do sometime.)

I can tell you that this is the ONLY place I've ever heard people say that there's not an inherently negative connotation to the term. To then go with that over my real life experience WOULD be inconsistent.


And as said before, your disagreement matters not one bit. You are just plain wrong, disagree all you want.


In your opinion.


What would you mean if you used the word 'discriminate'?

Depends on the context. That word has more than one meaning.

In the way you are saying, absolutely it is in error.

A hard core psycho feminist would say "Standing up just shows how superior you think you are because you're the big man, sit down you offensive jerk". In that viewpoint, all sexism is bad.

Most people aren't that hard core though. I think that your criteria for standing fits the definition I previously gave for sexist. Many people wouldn't think that it is a bad thing, though. It's just a courteous gesture, etc, etc.

So in the context of this discussion, not all sexism is necessarily seen as bad by many people.

That is not the common usage.
Croatoan Green
31-05-2008, 01:34
There's the disconnect, right there.

There is no discrimination here. At the end of your post you indicated that you're saying I discriminate against men, not women. I'm glad you said that because yes, indeed I was taking it the other way.

On the other hand, it's not 'discriminating against men' because there's simply no reason for that to enter into the logic of it. Other men are in the same category as I am so if I feel it's right that I should give up my seat to a lady, then I think all men should do so. But that's my opinion. I'm not out there stopping other men from doing it, and if there's some guy who looks like he's had a long, tiring day and needs to sit down more than I do, then common courtesy says that yes, I'd offer him my seat.


And see that's what the issue is. You see. Now if you're willing to offer your seat to another man who needs it, then it's all well and done, but it is the fact that you'd willingly give up your seat to a woman just because of her gender where the issue arises. Now. That in and of itself is not necessarily sexist. However, it becomes sexist when you advocate that any man should give up his seat to any woman simply because of her gender that sexism is found.

I said earlier that for your own stand point not to be considered sexist per se is if you advocated that if men give up their seat to women out of respect for what they can do that men cannot that you must also advocate that women should give up their seat to men out of respect for what they can do that women can't. The problem is that you don't seem to agree to that. You think men should give up their seat to women and that paints the picture that the woman is more desrving of the seat then the man, and that is sexist.


Well that being the case, if you have specific question, ask away.


I did. I chose certain questions that would give me a better picture of if you were truly sexist or not. The first and last scenarios had no differences in your options of who to give the seat to aside from the genders. The middle offered a chance to give the seat to a man who needed or a woman who didn't. Your answers would have allowed me to see if you're severly sexist, or idealistically sexist.


Social decorum based on....


Public decency and comfort. Actually. Not wanting to expose people to situations that would make them uncomfortable.


That's not my argument at all. It's a personal choice on my part. I never said men had to stand up at all times, nor did I ever indicate that I'd enforce the courtesy on anybody.


You kind of do though. By proxy. If you offer your seat to a woman when another man could use it then you therein are making him stand so she may sit. Now, if you do it because she needs it more, then that's great. If you do it just because she's a woman, then that's mildly sexist. To use the analogy of the outhouse again. If you were in line and let all the women behind you go infront of you then any man behind you would have to wait for those women to use the bathroom. Unintentional as it may be, it's true.


Just out of curiosity, what if it's both? What if the director WANTED a black president AND hired an actor with a lot of skill?


If he wanted to cast a black president, and cast a talented actor who happend to be black. Then awesome for him. If he wanted to cast a black president and cast a black actor who just happend to be talented, then that's mildly racist. Though I doubt anyone would complain unless it was a bad actor.


Or, you could be missing my point too. Maybe my answers here have helped.


I could be. So let's make it clear our points so there won't be any dispute on if someone is missing it.

My point is that if you would give your seat to a woman who may or may not need it over a man who may or may not need it, based solely on the nature of their sex then that is sexist. If you would give your seat to a woman who doesn't need it over a man who does, that is extremly sexist. If you would give your seat to a woman over a man whose in the same position as that woman because she's a woman and he's a man that is also sexist, but only mildly so and isn't a big deal.

That is not the common usage.

No but it does fit in with it's definition. Whether your intent is to, say, show her respect, some might read it as an insult. As if you were implying that she isn't capable of standing. Which would be sexist.

Anyway. I hope this clarifies everything.
Honsria
31-05-2008, 01:42
*snip*

I'd say that you did nothing wrong. It may not be in accordance with society's norms, but if we want progress, this is the sort of thing which must happen.
Honsria
31-05-2008, 01:43
Brilliant. Also women are generally smaller than men. Thus, due to the square/cube rule for muscles, a mans muscles are put under more strain, so he needs the rest. ;)

plus, y'know, he got there first.