Is watching over my female relatives as they leave the house sexist?

[Skald the Rhymer]

Here's the sitch:

As mentioned in other threads, one of my brothers came into town this weekend for my father's birthday. I decided Friday to throw a family dinner Saturday, which required me to use a mixer for the mashed potatoes. As my estranged wife took the mixer when she left, I called to ask to borrow it. When she came over she asked if she could stay for the dinner, because she likes Dad. As she has not yet filed for divorce, and as I don't want one, I said sure; thus she was at the house all day helping cook.

The dinner party was fun--positively unRhymerish in its dearth of drama. People started going home around 10 o'clock; the last person to leave did not do so until midnight. As the our sisters, nieces, and female cousins left, my brother and I did what we always do: walked them to their cars and watched as they drove off.

My wife was among the last to leave, as she volunteered to do the dishes. As she was getting ready to leave, she told me that she didn't need or want me or my brother to walk her out. She feels smothered by such behavior, she says, adding that it's inherently sexist; she wishes I would change.

Has she a point?

[Huerta88]

As she was getting ready to leave, she told me that she didn't need or want me or my brother to walk her out. She feels smothered by such behavior, she says, adding that it's inherently sexist; she wishes I would change.

Has she a point?
No.

She's either (1) professionally unpleasant and unhappy; and/or (2) looking for excuses to justify her walking out on a good guy.

No brainer, happy to be of help.

[Huerta88]

By the way, if she says she's leaving you, she needs to leave you. She doesn't get to hang out with you and the in-laws, assuage her conscience, etc. She likes your Dad? Too bad, she can go over to his house, or she can pay the price of her leaving you, which is she doesn't get to hang with your cool relatives.

[Ruken]

If you only do this with female relatives, then yes, it is sexist. Many people are big fans of sexism though. It seems that she isn't.

[Gary T]

I'm inclined to think she has a point. Nevertheless, I would venture that most women are not particularly bothered by this, and some appreciate it.

I don't normally accompany unescorted women visitors to their cars, but I do watch from my doorway until they've entered their cars and I'm satisfied that all is okay. This would probably not be an option at an apartment, but usually is feasible at a house. It's less smothering than going outside with them.

You could always ask "Shall I walk you to your car?" and let each lady choose whatever suits her.

[LSLGuy]

As with so many male/female courtesies common in the 1960s and before, they had their origin in the male-dominated sexist era.

Whether they are courteous today is 100% a matter of opinion of the recipient. And collectively, recipients' opinions range from hating your filthy MCP guts to thinking it's considerate for her legitimate safety to thinking it's outmoded but chivalrous & romantic.

There is no right answer.

The relationship between you and your wife being what it is, she seems to be looking for reasons to dislike you & all your behaviors. That's not an audience yuo're gonna win over. Nor one you should take as representative of society at large. Hence your question.


My anecdotal data point ...

As a male, I've done it, but only in those times & places where problems semed possible.

Leaving a bar & walking 1 block to a parking structure at 1am? Sure.

Leaving my house in uber-cozy suburbia & walking 30 feet across my lawn to her car at the curb? Wouldn't occur to me.

[kasuo]

Nah you shouldn't stop even if she is right. It's what you do.

[tr0psn4j]

Yes, it's sexism but it is the good kind of sexism that women tend to like and even insist on. Your wife wanting to divorce you might have a little to do with her reaction.

[Huerta88]

"Sexism" is as often as not a prettier synonym for "free floating female discontent that's existed since Salome."

Oh I have another free tip for you, today's free tip day: "smothered" is in almost every instance a synonym for "you no longer make me tingle and I'm going to come up with some vague emoto-babble phrase that dresses that up and that you'll be at a loss to respond to."

If I considered that your conduct were, arguendo, "sexist" (it's not, in a world where women get snatched off the street, stuffed into walls, etc. considerably more than men do), it is about a 0.8 on the FU Richter scale. She has handed you a magnitude 7+ FU by WALKING OUT ON YOUR FREAKING MARRIAGE. Are you going to entertain for one second feeling bad about your mini- to non-FU in view of that? Don't play into that BS for a minute.

[norinew]

I'm torn on this.
In a way, yes, it is sexist. OTOH, men (as a whole) are stronger and more assertive than women (as a whole), and therefore, doing what you describe in the OP is not out of line.
In another way, some women would complain (it wouldn't be me, but hey, I'm gettin' old), citing 'sexism'.
In yet another way, if this has always been the tradition in your family, and yet she elected to stay (indeed, invited herself) and then complained about something she knew damn well was traditional, that she had never complained about before, well, either she kept her mouth shut a ton of times she shouldn't have, or she's picking nits because she's basically pissed.

[Der Trihs]

in a world where women get snatched off the street, stuffed into walls, etc. considerably more than men doActually, men are more likely to be crime victims than women.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Huerta88, I'm sure you're intending to be helpful, but if you could not turn this into a discussion of my wife that would be great. (Admittedly I rather invited that by phrasing the OP as I did; I should have simply said that one of my relatives objected.) Neither of us have filed for divorce, and we're trying to work together to save the marriage, and that's all I'm saying on the subject.

[you with the face]

I suspect that your ex-wife's statement has less to do with perceived sexism and more to do with not feeling comfortable being alone with you.

To answer your question, yes it's sexist, but most women probably wouldn't be bothered with it in most situations. It would only bother me if there were negative tension between me and the guy, and I said "no, I can walk myself to my car just fine, but thanks" and the guy still insisted on it as if he knew better than me. This seems to be the likely case with your ex-wife.

Maybe she thought you were going to expect some display of affection at the end. A hug, a kiss, a lingering stare, an attempt to hold hands. She didn't want that, so her refusal to have you walk her to her car was actually a refusal of intimacy.

Just curious: With this habit of walking women to their cars, is this gesture offered to them ("hey, want me to walk you to your car, ladies?) or is it the default assumption that you're going to walk with them ("You're about to leave? Okay, let me go get my coat so I can see you to your car") with no query as to whether it's desired in the first place? If it's the latter, I can see how this could get irritating. I'd just as rather slip out of the house unnoticed than deal with the "to-do" of having other a man escort me out.

[Hello Again]

Its a bit patronizing if you insist on walking only women down the driveway to their car in a safe neighborhood. If you live in a sketchy neighborhood, and would walk any person to their car, it certainly isn't sexist.

At the end of the day though, it doesn't matter why she doesn't like it, or whether your reasons are sexist or not, or whether she was irrationally and/or emotionally invested in the issue. She asked you to stop, why on earth would you continue? Out of spite?

[Weedy]

I think it's sexist and paternalistic unless you live in a particularly dangerous area that takes the combined efforts of three people to get someone safely into their car (maybe one to keep lookout and run distraction, and a tank to hold attackers off if they get through, while the would-be driver makes a break for it). Maybe your wife wants to be more independent and do things herself, for herself. Like get into her car on her own.

Hmm, that sounds snarky, and I don't mean it to. It's a trivial thing, really. You probably just think of it as a courtesy. But I think your wife is giving you a pretty major hint as to something that bothers her in your relationship.

[Ephemera]

Yes, it's sexist, but not necessarily negative unless the person doesn't wish to be accompanied, in which case it's patronizing and insulting if you continue to insist upon it in light of her discomfort.

[elbows]

Y'know what?

The days of her getting to shape your behaviour in any way, are past. Your house, your hospitality, you should do what makes you comfortable.

If that means you don't do this for her, out of respect for how she feels, fine. If you still want to do it, just watch her from the house/a distance.

[Haunted]

I don't think it's sexist and I've been a feminist since I was 11.

Particularly in answer to your question - Is watching over my female RELATIVES as they leave...

I would be very surprised if my father or brother or any male relative of mine who is not a child did not see me to my car at night. I know they care about me and want to make sure I am safe. That's part of what family is about, after all.

I would also appreciate it if a man who is not related to me expressed the same concern for my well-being. I think it shows that he is thoughtful, courteous, and polite. I would not consider it discriminatory or insulting.

Definitions of "sexist:" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3A+sexist&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g2

[Freudian Slit]

I think it's nice to do it if the person wants you to, but they expressly say it's not necessary, then you should respect their wishes, just as if you felt you could handle a task (let's say carrying something out to the car) and someone just decided to grab it out of your hand and do it for you.

[capybara]

If it's not a particularly sketch neighborhood (ESPECIALLY if you're in the burbs and she's parked in the drive or right on the street), if I were her I would personally find it a bit paternalistic and possibly see it as an attempt by you to have 'alone time' for whatever agenda (it's a standard way of getting alone time when you're dating, right?) This might piss her right off. If OTOH you're way up in a building of flats or she's parked 5 blocks away in the city it's a different situation.

[astro]

When my wife and I were getting divorced in the mid 90's she was very pointed about wanting to do things by herself re stuff like replacing the wipers on the family car and related "I am empowered" stuff. It was fine with me. After the divorce she was more than happy to point the kids my way for anything that needed to be fixed or serviced "See your father about that!" was the standard reply when the thrill of empowerment wore off shortly after the divorce finalized.

Women (like anyone) in general I think like to feel they are prized and cared for, however, if you're hovering it's annoying, and if she's divorcing I'd guess she's also in that "don't do me any favors" place my ex was. You just need to back off.

[amarinth]

The argument in my family is between the person who thinks that everyone must be walked to their car (regardless of the gender, age, or other social status of the walkees & walkers) and everyone who think that it's perfectly ok to watch guests leave from the doorway (again, regardless of the gender, age, or other social status of the guests/hosts).

Anyway, I think the walking is a bit strange and walking just your female guests is sexist, though the impulse may be rooted in civility. I think you need to start walking everyone, or start asking everyone whether they'd like to be walked and walking only those who assent (if only sisters, aunts, and female cousins say "yes," that's no longer your distinguishing them by gender, at that point, they own it)

[Claire Beauchamp]

I'm female. I live in a neighborhood where, barring bizarre circumstances, it's perfectly safe to walk from my front door to a car in the driveway at night. Still ... I always watch guests from the door/porch and don't go back inside until the car is cranked and they are pulling out. Always have done, regardless of where I've lived. Doesn't matter if the guest is male or female.

So yes, if you only do it for females, it's chivalrous/outdated/sexist, depending on one's perspective. It wouldn't phase me if a man walked me to my car, despite my feminist outlook I would simply consider it sweet. (I AM a native Southerner, though, so the fact that it's supposedly more common here might be a factor.)

I see her point, though ... I HAVE been around guys who were being NOTHING but thoughtful when they performed formerly-more-common chivalrous moves, and it did tick me off. When you cross the line from common courtesy that you might perform for anyone to making assumptions about my desires or ability to speak or take care of myself ... then you've gone too far.

[Pray for peace]

I'm female. I wouldn't find being walking to my car by a male family member to be sexist. I appreciate someone looking out for my safety. I have been in situations where I have had to ask a male friend or date to walk me to my car, or to wait with me until I was able to hail a cab. If a man offers to do these things without my asking, I consider it courteous.

The only context under which I've considered the possibility of walking-type behavior being sexist was during business travel or socializing with work colleagues. Basically I worried whether I would be perceived as being weak or fragile if I accepted the walking. In those scenarios, though, male colleagues offered walking or waiting with me for a cab and I gladly accepted it for safety's sake.

[Shakes]

Awesome! So next time I'm up at the bar and some lady asks me to walk her to her car; I can tell her to F' off because that would be sexist.

Great! I'm glad we got that settled.

Goes back to drinking his beer.



[End sarcasm]

[Superhal]

Has she a point?

Maybe I'm a misogynist, but I don't care: women are crazy and/or stupid.

[DigitalC]

It is, but who gives a shit.

[Iridescent Orb]

Just ask "would you like a walk to your car?"

Of course, some people will be offended at the insinuation that they are in any way incapable of defending themselves. They are just looking for a fight, though, so to heck with them.

[Magiver]

Your response should have been: "I wasn't planning on walking you to your car".

Loosely translated: "bite me mother-of-a-puppy, you're not worth it".

[Justin_Bailey]

Yes, it's sexist, but not necessarily negative unless the person doesn't wish to be accompanied, in which case it's patronizing and insulting if you continue to insist upon it in light of her discomfort.

This.

But my mom would always walk guests to the door when they left and watch as they pull away. For some reason, that feels perfectly normal to me but going all the way to the car sounds absolutely nuts.

[Huerta88]

Huerta88, I'm sure you're intending to be helpful, but if you could not turn this into a discussion of my wife that would be great. (Admittedly I rather invited that by phrasing the OP as I did; I should have simply said that one of my relatives objected.) Neither of us have filed for divorce, and we're trying to work together to save the marriage, and that's all I'm saying on the subject.

Of course I am trying to be helpful.

I will stipulate that your wife was/is a great woman. You married her, after all. You ain't a fool.

I hope things will work out well for you, with or without (less good -- I know) your wife.

I have nothing else to say about your marriage, and I apologize for intruding, except:

If "we're" trying to work together to save the marriage -- why is one of "us" raising a pissant little point to disrupt things?

You made a chivalrous effort to walk your wife out to the car. It was either sweet/cute, or outmoded.

It wasn't evil.

I've been in relationships that were doomed-but-doomed, and in ones that were troubled-but-salvagabeable.

In the doomed ones, the women always seized on the superficial flaws as reasons to end it.

In the salvageable ones, the women always salvaged it.

YMMV.

[legalsnugs]

IMO, whatever your motivations for walking anyone out - all the walkee would have to say (whether it was your wife or anybody) is "No thanks. I'm fine." And your response would have been "Okay. See ya'" and that would be the end of that.

You would not insist and the person would have no reason to go into "it's sexist" or personal slurs, which, again only MHO, were unnecessary and hurtful to you.

I hope the rest of the day went well with you two and that you do not dwell on this one small part.

[Zebra]

Why don't you just move to a decent neighborhood?


I'm not a woman but I personally hate the long goodbye. I say goodbye in the house, then as I get in the car, then I have to wave goodbye as I drive off. Shees!



I also suspect that it could turn weird. for her, if you two were having an 'end of a date' sort of moment

[Shagnasty]

As a male, I think it is sexist in the purest sense of the word but it depends on the person. My ex-wife routinely loads up groups of male hispanic immigrants in her BMW to take them to the nearest bus stop after work. My mother speaks in almost all U.S. states, Canada, the Middle East, Europe, and Asia all by herself hundreds of days of the year. I think they would both be incredibly insulted if I offered to escort them out to make sure they are "safe" even though I don't feel that either one is a true feminist. I would have deep sympathy for anyone that tried to pull one over on either of them because I have made minor versions of that mistake myself and it didn't work out that well for me.

Some females are delicate little wallflowers. Many are not and I think that what you are describing is very old-fashioned and I can see her point. It can be condescending and I don't raise my own daughters to need or expect that type of thing either.

[sandra_nz]

My wife was among the last to leave, as she volunteered to do the dishes. As she was getting ready to leave, she told me that she didn't need or want me or my brother to walk her out. She feels smothered by such behavior, she says, adding that it's inherently sexist; she wishes I would change.

Is this something that's happened in the past, so you already knew that she didn't like being walked to her car, but still insisted on doing it? To me, that would be the only reasonable explanation for her comments about feeling smothered.

[Nava]

If you only do this with female relatives, then yes, it is sexist. Many people are big fans of sexism though. It seems that she isn't.

What Ruken said. You're doing it to be helpful, but it makes me think of the guys who will open doors for women (and refuse to go first even if they happen to be carrying boxes and the woman isn't) but not for men. Basically, anything which is done because the recipient is of a specific sex constitutes sexism; if your criteria to decide when to do it or not is different, then it's not sexism.


ETA: *positive vibes for the OP and Kim, ommmmmm*

[aruvqan]

Well, yes it is sexist, but I find it a bit of old fashioned courtesy.

i don't mind it when it happens to me at all.

[pharris]

It is NOT sexist, it is gentlemanly. I am a very strong, independent woman, and I carry mace, but I am not stupid enough to venture out alone in an unfamiliar place if I have someone else to accompany me. Man or woman, it doesn't matter - two people are less vulnerable than one.

It irks the crap out of me when women say that it's sexist when a man tries to be helpful. Get over it, gals. It just emasculates your fella and makes you look like a bitch.

Chivalry is not dead, it's just been proscribed by the femi-nazies.

[norinew]

Maybe I'm a misogynist, but I don't care: women are crazy and/or stupid.
Every single one of them? Wow. That attitude must do wonders for your love life! :rolleyes:

[madmonk28]

I think if she said she didn't want to be walked out, then that ends it. Some people will appreciate the gesture, some won't, respect what preference your guest states.

[Huerta88]

I think if she said she didn't want to be walked out, then that ends it. Some people will appreciate the gesture, some won't, respect what preference your guest states.
That didn't end it -- you missed the part where instead of just "thanks, I'm good, you needn't" she "added" that she "felt smothered" and he was being "inherently sexist" and [!!] "wished he would change."

Which of those little gems was necessary to state her "preference?"

[Buckler of Swashing]

Maybe I'm a misogynist, but I don't care: women are crazy and/or stupid.

That word 'maybe' that you used there? You don't need it.

[rbroome]

Here's the sitch:



My wife was among the last to leave, as she volunteered to do the dishes. As she was getting ready to leave, she told me that she didn't need or want me or my brother to walk her out. She feels smothered by such behavior, she says, adding that it's inherently sexist; she wishes I would change.

Has she a point?

Not even a little bit.
you are right. she is wrong.

[CrazyCatLady]

It is NOT sexist, it is gentlemanly. I am a very strong, independent woman, and I carry mace, but I am not stupid enough to venture out alone in an unfamiliar place if I have someone else to accompany me. Man or woman, it doesn't matter - two people are less vulnerable than one.

It irks the crap out of me when women say that it's sexist when a man tries to be helpful. Get over it, gals. It just emasculates your fella and makes you look like a bitch.

Chivalry is not dead, it's just been proscribed by the femi-nazies.


If he's treating them differently simply because of their sex, then it's pretty much by definition sexist. That's what the word means. Walking women, and only women, to their cars isn't necessarily being a mcp, but it is sexist.

And this is not "venturing out alone in an unfamiliar place." This is walking to the end of the driveway in a quiet suburb where a family member has lived for years. In this particular woman's case, it's walking to the end of what was up until a couple months ago her own bleeding driveway. How is that helpful? I mean, what the hell is he supposedly helping her with, and how exactly is it emasculating to tell a guy that no, you're pretty sure you can walk down your own driveway without fainting from exertion or being raped and murdered?

There is a totally unsubtle and massively important difference between walking a few blocks or waiting an unknown time for a cab in a place with a high crime rate or someplace that is large or simply unfamiliar, and walking 20 feet from the front door in a quiet, familiar area with a low crime rate. Offering escort to only women in either circumstance is equally sexist, as the odds of something happening are equally likely for men or women. But the former situation actual has some potential element of risk, so offering escort isn't problematic--it's just pragmatism. The latter situation, however, has no statistically significant risk from external factors; the only risk she'd be at would be due to her somehow not being able to manage some aspect of the task due to her having a vagina, and thus it becomes patronizing and paternalistic.

[Freudian Slit]

Not even a little bit.
you are right. she is wrong.

Huh? So if she doesn't feel the need for someone to talk her to the car, she should just shut up and go along with it? If you were carrying a small box to the car and a friend asked if you needed help, you replied, "No, I've got it," but they insisted and took it out of your hand and brought it to the car for you, would your friend be right to do so?

[DianaG]

Good lord, there's nothing I enjoy more than a "strong, independent woman" who spends her time worrying about how vulnerable she is, or whether she's being an "emasculating bitch" and declares women who don't to be "femi-nazies*".

Skald, yeah, it's sexist. It's also well-intentioned, so you don't need to feel bad about it, unless of course you insist that your good intentions trump her lack of interest in being "protected", which would be really, really sexist. Don't worry about it, just don't offer again.

*Just incidentally, there's no "e" on the end of "nazis". Pretty sure you don't need the hyphen, either. You also might want to look up "strong" and "independent" but kudos for spelling them correctly.

[trupa]

. The latter situation, however, has no statistically significant risk from external factors; the only risk she'd be at would be due to her somehow not being able to manage some aspect of the task due to her having a vagina, and thus it becomes patronizing and paternalistic.

At the risk of splitting hairs here, it's not whether the escortee has a vagina or not, it's whether she has the muscle mass and the familiarity with violence to successfully confront aggression. Fewer women have these than men, although this is a week generalization*.

To your point about doing so in a safe circumstance, I guess it comes down to intent: If the intent is to demonstrate caring and consideration, I wouldn't call it sexism. If the intent were to demonstrate how the escorter was such a manly man and that the little lady needed his studly protection, than yeah, it's sexism, especially as there is no real threat.

*Case in point: there are some lady trainers at my gym whom I would ask to walk me (6'-250lbs) to my car, such are their athletic and martial arts skills.

[Grumman]

Huh? So if she doesn't feel the need for someone to talk her to the car, she should just shut up and go along with it? If you were carrying a small box to the car and a friend asked if you needed help, you replied, "No, I've got it," but they insisted and took it out of your hand and brought it to the car for you, would your friend be right to do so?
1. Skald wasn't insisting. He hadn't even offered yet.
2. A simple "No" or "No, thank you" would have sufficed. There was no need for her to blast him for being sexist and needing to change over such a petty thing.

[overlyverbose]

As has been pointed out, it's sexist if you wouldn't do the same for a man; however, I also think that it's unreasonable for your wife to get annoyed at you for doing it. As a female, I always appreciate courtesy, even if it's just being extended because I'm female. Why look a gift horse in the mouth?

[Freudian Slit]

1. Skald wasn't insisting. He hadn't even offered yet.
2. A simple "No" or "No, thank you" would have sufficed. There was no need for her to blast him for being sexist and needing to change over such a petty thing.

Ah, I just read the other posters as saying he was wrong as meaning she should have just let him do it no matter how she felt about it.

[tacoloco]

She was wrong for saying what she said, but not wrong for not wanting Skald (or anyone) to walk her to her car. As some others have pointed out, this seems less about sexism that it does about intimacy-ism. Maybe she just didn't want to deal with what could have happened in that sort of intimate moment when she's getting ready to get into the car?

Ah, I just read the other posters as saying he was wrong as meaning she should have just let him do it no matter how she felt about it.

Nah. She just shouldn't have been so pissy about it.

[crazyjoe]

If, by saying she wishes you would change, she means you would elminate behavior she finds somewhat smothering, then I would listen. Even if you ARE worried about her, if she thinks it is smothering, let it go, at least for now, while you guys continue to try to work on things.

If she means she wants you to eschew all chivalrous behavior because she feels it's an affectation on your part and not sincere, I would also listen, and see if it describes you well. No one likes chivalrous behavior that's done for show or to enhance a person's sense of self-worth. I am not saying this is you, either. Just that I have run into the type in the past.

Honeslty, she could mean any one of a dozen things, so it seems to me to be a conversation opener, something for you guys to talk about in the context of changing your marriage.

I am still reminded of the way she courted you, and some other things in her past that may make her desire more to assert her own independence from things that simply seem like male dominance, even though they aren't. Keep in mind that a lot of things that are virtuous can be twisted in abusive relationships to exert control over people. She may still be working on some of these issues and inadvertently projecting them onto everyone else, seeing them as smothering and sexist, when they really are virtuous.

[mnemosyne]

Maybe it's a generational thing, or a regional thing...I don't know, but no male friend or family member of mine has ever offered to walk me to my car when they knew perfectly well that it was within the immediate area, such as the driveway. This has been true in all sorts of neighbourhoods, at all times of day and night. Not only would I decline the offer, but I would also feel that it was a little sexist and I'd wonder why the hell they thought I would need such "assistance"?

I don't think I'd say anything to them, though, unless they asked me "why not?". However, if it was a situation between me and an estranged husband, and if I wanted to work on the marriage, then perhaps I'd find a way to express that this was one aspect of the relationship that made me uncomfortable, and I wish it could change. Perhaps Skald's wife didn't choose the right moment or choice of words, but it is possible that in her mind she was offering up a relationship issue that she felt needed to be addressed? You and your family have always done something that she didn't actually like; there aren't many ways to say that to you without potentially hurting your feelings, but she felt it needed to be said.

From now on, don't offer to walk your wife out to her car. If she's parked far away and is worried about the walk, then she can ask for assistance if she feels she needs it.

[BigT]

You guys seem to be forgetting that "sexist" is now generally used like racist: not only are you treating the different sexes differently, but that you are doing so for a bad reason. It's a fighting word.

In my experience, people don't say exactly what they mean, especially when talking to someone they have negative feelings toward. I think the statement is closer to meaning something like "Previously, in our relationship, I didn't feel like I had enough time to myself. And, since we're going through this, I don't think it would be appropriate for you to walk me to the car. Oh, and just because we sorta hung out together today doesn't mean I'm not still mad."

[legalsnugs]

...My wife was among the last to leave, as she volunteered to do the dishes. As she was getting ready to leave, she told me that she didn't need or want me or my brother to walk her out. She feels smothered by such behavior, she says, adding that it's inherently sexist; she wishes I would change.

Emphasis mine. I do not agree with the posters that Wife was afraid Skald might try something of an "intimate" nature because of their present difficulty. Was she afraid the brother might hold her hand? Does she wish the brother should change, too? I think not. I do think she has her own issues and that it was unnecessary and hurtful for her to dump all over Skald, but that's just MHO as I don't know any of these people or their personal dynamics.

[calm kiwi]

Maybe it's a generational thing, or a regional thing...I don't know, but no male friend or family member of mine has ever offered to walk me to my car when they knew perfectly well that it was within the immediate area, such as the driveway.

Maybe it is. My mother would have been HORRIFIED if the whole damn family didn't escort visitors to their car (just in the driveway). We were taught that if someone had visited you OWED them the duty to go outside and wave goodbye.

Perhaps this form of "manners" evolved because there is never snow here. My best friend is Austrian and EVERY time she visits she says "don't come outside" and gives me a goodbye hug. Everytime I follow her to her car and we hug again.

Male or female, solo or multiple if you visit I will come out and wave as you drive away because my mother said it's just good manners!

It's soooooooo hard to break those kind of ingrained rules and to be honest I don't want to break that one. OK if you parked miles aways and it did happen to snow, well then I might change my my mind but if you are in the driveway or on the street I'm coming to the car with you I don't care what sex you are.

[Gustav]

Why aren't you watching the male relatives? Do they all know kung fu or something?

[Anaamika]

If she asks you politely to stop, you should stop. I doubt she's going to get mugged in your driveway.

That being said, she didn't really ask you very politely. I would still take the high ground, though, and stop doing it.

We stand at the door and wave at people in my family, but if you started walking me to my car I'd think it was a bit weird, yes. I don't think I'd say anything, just remember it and maybe find it a little bit creepy.

[Teacake]

My parents escort everyone, regardless of gender, to their car. They always have; it's "good manners". My manners may have slipped a little - I'll walk you to your car if I want to spend that extra bit of time with you (not in an intimacy sense, in an interesting conversation/not going to see you for a while/whatever sort of sense), or I'll wave you off from the door if I don't.

I don't think it's sexist to make allowances for the greater potential women have to be victims of certain crimes. That's like saying it's discriminatory on the grounds of height to offer to get something off a high shelf for a short person, or ageist to hold a child's hand crossing the road. It's a courtesy, as long as she has the option to say no. I think the way your wife told you no was insensitive and unkind, but you asked us not to comment on your wife and I respect your efforts (and hope they'll work out for the best).

[Shot From Guns]

My wife was among the last to leave, as she volunteered to do the dishes. As she was getting ready to leave, she told me that she didn't need or want me or my brother to walk her out. She feels smothered by such behavior, she says, adding that it's inherently sexist; she wishes I would change.

Has she a point?

If you're doing it because she has a vagina, then yes, it's sexist. (That's what sexism is, by its very definition: basing your treatment of someone on their perceived gender.) If you walk everybody else out, too, just to be polite, then it's not sexist.

The most insidious kinds of sexism, IMO, are the ones that masquerade as politeness. Please only hold the door for me, pull my chair out, or offer me a hand down the stairs if you'd do the same were my genitals hanging around outside my body instead of tucked away inside.

[Huerta88]

The most insidious kinds of sexism, IMO, are the ones that masquerade as politeness. Please only hold the door for me, pull my chair out, or offer me a hand down the stairs if you'd do the same were my genitals hanging around outside my body instead of tucked away inside.
"Insidious?" Coming it a little strong.

1. intended to entrap or beguile: an insidious plan.
2. stealthily treacherous or deceitful: an insidious enemy.
3. operating or proceeding in an inconspicuous or seemingly harmless way but actually with grave effect: an insidious disease.

"Grave effect?" "Intended to entrap?"

Stuff like that lends credence to those who would say "sexism" was the invention of bored over-indulged Western hausfraus with nothing real to worry about.

[Shot From Guns]

"Insidious?" Coming it a little strong.

My intent was meaning #3. Things like this do in fact "operat[e] or [proceed] in an inconspicuous or seemingly harmless way but actually with grave effect." Extending a particular courtesy to women and women only seems like a kind, polite thing to do, but it emphasizes and reinforces the idea that women are less capable than men, less independent than men, and need to be cared for by and dependent on men.

[Freudian Slit]

The most insidious kinds of sexism, IMO, are the ones that masquerade as politeness. Please only hold the door for me, pull my chair out, or offer me a hand down the stairs if you'd do the same were my genitals hanging around outside my body instead of tucked away inside.

Plus there's the fact that historically this kind of chivalrous behavior was only aimed at a certain kind of woman--those deemed to be ladies. I.e., upper class and white.

[Huerta88]

Plus there's the fact that historically this kind of chivalrous behavior was only aimed at a certain kind of woman--those deemed to be ladies. I.e., upper class and white.

Genetic Fallacy. WTH cares what the source of something is, if in practice, it is today experienced as harmless-to-pleasant by most non-grievance-mongering people who receive it? My mother still sends me cookies. Does not send them to my sisters. Sexism!!

Or, gee thanks Mom.

Also cite (you did mention an alleged "fact" after all) for the fact that tradesmen and farmers did not do this for their sisters, mothers, wives, or inamorata?

[Huerta88]

Plus there's the fact that historically this kind of chivalrous behavior was only aimed at a certain kind of woman--those deemed to be ladies. I.e., upper class and white.

Genetic Fallacy. WTH cares what the source of something is, if in practice, it is today experienced as harmless-to-pleasant by most non-grievance-mongering people who receive it? My mother still sends me cookies. Does not send them to my sisters. Sexism!!

Or, gee thanks Mom.

Also cite (you did mention an alleged "fact" after all) for the fact that tradesmen and farmers did not do this for their sisters, mothers, wives, or inamorata, or that black gentlemen did not tip their hat to black ladies? It's actually okay, I understand that "feminism" is a unified (if unappetizing) package deal of warmed-over Marxist "your-gender's-in-my-race-and-class" Reese's cup, it's hard to resist the impulse to throw out the whole entangled jargon, whether necessarily applicable or not.

[Huerta88]

Sorry, duplipost.

I'll try to add something by noting that chivalric concepts massively pre-date any goofy Big Bad White Industrialist paradigm.

The Bible is rife with exhortations for men to "take care of" women. 1 Peter gives me: "live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered."

Ephesians and I think Colossians offer other examples. I am not aware that the Jewish agriculturalists who were the target of many of the epistles were "white and upper class," but I could be wrong.

There's also a massive "courtly love" phenomenon/theme in much of Indo-European literature and culture. "Courtly love" concepts often or always involve the notion of making special protective provision for women:

courtly love philosophy of love and code of lovemaking that flourished in France and England during the Middle Ages. Although its origins are obscure, it probably derived from the works of Ovid, various Middle Eastern ideas popular at the time, and the songs of the troubadours. According to the code, a man falls passionately in love with a married woman of equal or higher rank. Before his love can be declared, he must suffer long months of silence; before it can be consummated, he must prove his devotion by noble service and daring exploits. The lovers eventually pledge themselves to secrecy and to remain faithful despite all obstacles. In reality, courtly love was little more than a set of rules for committing adultery. It was more important as a literary invention, expressed in such works as Chrétien de Troyes's Lancelot (12th cent.), Guillaume de Lorris's Roman de la Rose.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/courtly_love.aspx

Wait, my women's studies maxims can't be wrong! Those people were often middle class, or peasants, or brown! How can I identify the privileged white patriarchy that's the source of all evil?

You can't. Men and women down the ages have loved and aspired to various manifestations of chivalry. It's probably hard-wired.

[The Second Stone]

I vote sexist, but it is rude not to unless asked not to.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Plus there's the fact that historically this kind of chivalrous behavior was only aimed at a certain kind of woman--those deemed to be ladies. I.e., upper class and white.

None of my sisters, aunts, nieces, or cousins is white. (I just checked the photo album to be sure.) My stepdaughter is white, and the estranged Mrs. Rhymer is whatever she's calling herself this week.

[Shot From Guns]

The Bible is rife with exhortations for men to "take care of" women. 1 Peter gives me: "live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered."

Emphasis added. You're seriously quoting this as an example of this sort of behavior not being sexist?

[Freudian Slit]

None of my sisters, aunts, nieces, or cousins is white. (I just checked the photo album to be sure.) My stepdaughter is white, and the estranged Mrs. Rhymer is whatever she's calling herself this week.

In response to this, I don't mean specifically that you're being racist/sexist by doing it. But that it's kind of problematic because historically it wasn't just about being nice/polite, just about being nice to polite to some women.


Also cite (you did mention an alleged "fact" after all) for the fact that tradesmen and farmers did not do this for their sisters, mothers, wives, or inamorata?

As for a cite--I don't have a specific cite that says that every single man did this. But Soujourner Truth's Ain't I A Woman speech (http://www.womenwriters.net/domesticgoddess/truth.htm) alludes to it:

That man over there say
a woman needs to be helped into carriages
and lifted over ditches
and to have the best place everywhere.
Nobody ever helped me into carriages
or over mud puddles
or gives me a best place. . .

And ain't I a woman?

[amarinth]

The argument in my family is between the person who thinks that everyone must be walked to their car (regardless of the gender, age, or other social status of the walkees & walkers) and everyone who think that it's perfectly ok to watch guests leave from the doorway (again, regardless of the gender, age, or other social status of the guests/hosts).

Anyway, I think the walking is a bit strange and walking just your female guests is sexist, though the impulse may be rooted in civility. I think you need to start walking everyone, or start asking everyone whether they'd like to be walked and walking only those who assent (if only sisters, aunts, and female cousins say "yes," that's no longer your distinguishing them by gender, at that point, they own it)4 days later, ETA:
To me, that the title of the OP refers to the action as "watching over" relatives also tilts the behavior to the sexist side. Adults don't need "watching over," especially not in a driveway.

[Huerta88]

Emphasis added. You're seriously quoting this as an example of this sort of behavior not being sexist?
Eye on the ball, please. Did you not note that I was responding to

historically this kind of chivalrous behavior was only aimed at a certain kind of woman--those deemed to be ladies. I.e., upper class and white.

to specifically debunk the Women's Studies-induced silliness of trying to cram all of chivalry into a Smith-freshwomyn-friendly, easy-to-understand Marxist interpretation of the Big Bad White Patriarchy, than which (pretending for a moment the BBWP existed) chivalry (whether you like it or not, as you apparently don't in 1 Peter) is thousands of years older.

[Huerta88]

In response to this, I don't mean specifically that you're being racist/sexist by doing it. But that it's kind of problematic because historically it wasn't just about being nice/polite, just about being nice to polite to some women.



As for a cite--I don't have a specific cite that says that every single man did this. But Soujourner Truth's Ain't I A Woman speech (http://www.womenwriters.net/domesticgoddess/truth.htm) alludes to it:

Highly probative.

Parenthetically, her father, brothers, and husband sound like horrible people.

[Huerta88]

Adults don't need "watching over,"
Cool. We can get rid of restraining orders, VAWA, alimony, police force? Neato!

[you with the face]

Wouldn't it be strange if women expected to be escorted to the door when arriving to Skald's? Upon driving up and parking, they would then call Skald to inform him that they'd arrived so that he could come out, greet them at their cars, and then walk with them to the house. Wouldn't that be a weird expectation?

I guess if you think about anything long enough, anything will appear strange. But still, what's the point of walking a woman to her car after leaving your house if the expectation doesn't apply in the other direction? For all I know, it does and you just left that out of the story. But if not, maybe its something else to chew on. Some traditions don't really make any sense and can annoy people who would prefer that they do.

[Huerta88]

Wouldn't it be strange if women expected to be escorted to the door when arriving to Skald's? Upon driving up and parking, they would then call Skald to inform him that they'd arrived so that he could come out, greet them at their cars, and then walk with them to the house. Wouldn't that be a weird expectation?

I guess if you think about anything long enough, anything will appear strange. But still, what's the point of walking a woman to her car after leaving your house if the expectation doesn't apply in the other direction? For all I know, it does and you just left that out of the story. But if not, maybe its something else to chew on. Some traditions don't really make any sense and can annoy people who would prefer that they do.

One explanation I can think of is gatherings often start during daylight hours but may run till late at night, which is perceived to be (probably is) a "riskier" time.

[Huerta88]

Emphasis added. You're seriously quoting this as an example of this sort of behavior not being sexist?

As for the "weaker vessel" -- did some research, found out women are generally weaker than men. Smaller, less physical strength, lower threshold of pain. Careful that you don't inadvertently posit a definition of sexism that works for all values of "sexism"=reality.

[Cat Fight]

Wouldn't it be strange if women expected to be escorted to the door when arriving to Skald's? Upon driving up and parking, they would then call Skald to inform him that they'd arrived so that he could come out, greet them at their cars, and then walk with them to the house. Wouldn't that be a weird expectation?

I'm still trying to figure out how these lady motorists made it all the way across town unescorted.

[Huerta88]

Wouldn't it be strange if women expected to be escorted to the door when arriving to Skald's? Upon driving up and parking, they would then call Skald to inform him that they'd arrived so that he could come out, greet them at their cars, and then walk with them to the house. Wouldn't that be a weird expectation?

And also . . . there's an argument that getting into the car, depending on how you do it, is a more vulnerable moment than getting out -- if only because the "let me get situated" portion of the activity (gathering your keys/bag/parcels) can take place within a locked car until the moment you're ready to exit, whereas getting in, you're inherently exposed to the elements/third parties as you fumble for your key, shift your parcel from one hand to the other (wasn't she carrying a mixer she had lent him?), get your bag onto the seat/floor, etc.

[Sudo Intellectual]

I'm a female and I walk my guests out. Male, female, it is just a habit learned from my parents growing up. We would hug inside and walk out to the cars (which were often parked in the driveway, 20 feet from the front door, and we'd hug again. Then we would wait until they drove off before going back to the house. I like the closure it gives to a great evening.

In my not so great neighborhood, it is a somewhat of a safer option to have me (a girl) walk someone to their car because it's MY Neighborhood. Although there is a lot of issues where I live, I'm known to the crack heads and crazies that live there. They treat me with respect and will leave me be. That respect will extend to my guests as well.

I think that a lot of time, the origins of the courtesy outweigh the fact that someone is trying to be courteous. I would rather people be polite to me and open my door or walk me to my car, just because I'm a woman, (even though it is unnecessary and kind of silly) than to have people who are impolite or rude out of some fear that their actions could be considered sexist.

[maladroit]

Without reading the other posts yet, she does have a point imho. She told you how she feels, and how she feels is how she feels. But personally I don't feel the same way she does. I think it shows consideration to watch out for people's safety and health. If it bugs her enough to mention then you should abide by her wishes, it's such a small thing.

eta: My family doesn't gather often and so we end up having lots of last minute conversations at the door, with the door open, left-overs in hand. Seems normal to walk people out to say goodbye.

[maladroit]

I suppose it's sexist but I still don't think it's bad. When I'm dropping of anyone, male of female, I always make sure they get inside safely before aI leave. It's just curteous.

[Skald the Rhymer]

I'm still trying to figure out how these lady motorists made it all the way across town unescorted.

Hey, they're Rhymers. They're FIERCE. When my baby sister was in 3rd grade, two 4th graders jumped her for some strange reasons, and she kicked both their asses (in the process destroying my Planet of the Apes lunchbox).

[Enderw24]

Wouldn't it be strange if women expected to be escorted to the door when arriving to Skald's? Upon driving up and parking, they would then call Skald to inform him that they'd arrived so that he could come out, greet them at their cars, and then walk with them to the ouse. Wouldn't that be a weird expectation?

I am from Holland. Isn't that vierd? Yesh!

In Soviet Russia, Female walk YOU!

[ianzin]

It's one half of a U LOSE pair.

If you do walk her to the car, you are being 'too smothering'.
If you do not, you are 'thoughtless / uncaring / inconsiderate'.

Either way, guess what? U LOSE.

Some people like to be judgmental and they have these U LOSE pairs all ready to go in their heads, so that no matter what you do they can deliver a negative verdict and... no surprise... U LOSE!

It's not a uniquely female trait. Some women do it, some men do it. Fortunately, if my personal experience is anything to go by, not many people behave like this, and most of the time people are a little more reasonable in their views.

But it's always worth watching out for U LOSE pairs. They crop up a lot in the workplace as well. If you pretty much just do as you're told and don't bother to hatch ideas, you get faulted for 'lacking initiative'. If you show buckets of initiative and want to introduce new ideas and do your own thing, someone will come along and say you 'aren't a team player' or 'can't follow simple procedures' or 'has a non-compliant nature' or 'has a problem with authority'.

Never get trapped in these U LOSE pairs. Just say you don't accept the judgment because if you had done X they would only have said Y.

[amarinth]

Hey, they're Rhymers. They're FIERCE. And yet, cannot make it out of the driveway.

Your yard sounds dangerous.

[Skald the Rhymer]

And yet, cannot make it out of the driveway.

Your yard sounds dangerous.

She wasn't there.

Upon reading the thread and thinking things through, I have decided that my wife has a point. (I always thought she might.) Oddly enough, the posts most persuasive to that POV were Huerta88's.

[Huerta88]

Oddly enough, the posts most persuasive to that POV were Huerta88's.
Happy to be of help, I guess.

I still think that the point, if any, would be a very minor one that someone motivated to working on fixing things would ignore in favor of the big issues that count (I know I bit my tongue a lot of times on non-central peeves in troubled relationships that I was trying to save), but good luck.

Here's a no-cost going-forward screening device, BTW: I assume you'll have future interactions with her. If my posited theory, that she was picking a fight on a contrived issue to assuage her guilt, to generate drama, to express her disgust at a relationship in which she no longer feels attraction, has any truth to it -- this won't be the last time a heretofore unknown and allegedly-festering gripe, character flaw of yours, need to change, comes up. See if this pattern repeats itself, and if it does, ask yourself: how many hitherto-unremarked but fight-worthy character flaws could one man suddenly discover? How many things that I thought were nice gestures could actually turn out to be tools of oppression? How many vague and unfalsifiable pejorative adjectives like "smothering" could I turn out to be guilty of qualifying for?

Now, if this fact pattern never happens again -- great, she's simply saying what she means, and means what she says. But again, know that for many women, that is not the default mode; women's reputation as great communicators is mostly self-coined -- great users of words would be a better description, and you do see the difference . . . .

[abbeytxs]

A lower threshold of pain.

Could you please post your research on this? I have a really hard time believing that women have a lower threshold of pain. I also wonder how something as subjective as pain could be quantified and measured in an objective way.

[OleOneEye]

I still think that the point, if any, would be a very minor one that someone motivated to working on fixing things would ignore in favor of the big issues that count

Feeling smothered is minor?

[Huerta88]

Could you please post your research on this? I have a really hard time believing that women have a lower threshold of pain. I also wonder how something as subjective as pain could be quantified and measured in an objective way.

It doesn't take much imagination for me to figure out objective protocols, and I'm apparently not alone.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51160
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050705004113.htm#

[Huerta88]

Feeling smothered is minor?
"Feeling smothered" is or can be a generic meaningless synonym for "I don't value your attention anymore so I am going to turn any attentive or kind gesture or service on it's head and make it a negative."

Being walked out to the car is (1) not a big deal in and of itself; (2) positively-motivated if I am reading the OP right; (3) not a big deal. "Feeling smothered" is BS more times than not. Married people spend time together, as do friendly people not married or not together but still friends. They do nice things for each other. She never called this "smothering" before. Either she's a long-suffering martyr, or too terrified to speak up till now, or, something's changed, which I posited were her feelings toward him and her diminished attraction.

"Feeling smothered," that is, generally doesn't mean anything real.

[Freudian Slit]

She wasn't there.

Upon reading the thread and thinking things through, I have decided that my wife has a point. (I always thought she might.) Oddly enough, the posts most persuasive to that POV were Huerta88's.

How exactly did you get that from Huerta's posts, if you don't mind my asking?

[Huerta88]

How exactly did you get that from Huerta's posts, if you don't mind my asking?

Kind of curious myself. My initial guess was that my citation to the ancient history of chivalry might have convinced himself that it must be part of the Big Bad Old Days, which we're told are Generally Bad. But my speculations as to the man's thought process are . . . unworthy of the phosphors.

ETA that regardless of what he does, I'm curious and hope he'll share on the point I add -- if he does/not abjectly apologize for rank "sexism," does that cure the problem and win back her good grace, or do we somehow see a series of new gripes emerging following the same pattern?

[OleOneEye]

"Feeling smothered" is or can be a generic meaningless synonym for "I don't value your attention anymore so I am going to turn any attentive or kind gesture or service on it's head and make it a negative."

Or it can mean "Your behavior makes me feel like a helpless child instead of an equal." At least that's what I mean when I say it about my family.

She never called this "smothering" before. Either she's a long-suffering martyr, or too terrified to speak up till now

My money's on this one. Maybe not terrified, but people sometimes have trouble articulating their feelings and asking for what they want. Especially when other people react instead of listening and responding.

[Huerta88]

Or it can mean "Your behavior makes me feel like a helpless child instead of an equal." At least that's what I mean when I say it about my family.



My money's on this one. Maybe not terrified, but people sometimes have trouble articulating their feelings and asking for what they want. Especially when other people react instead of listening and responding.

And Occam's money's on she didn't complain before because there was nothing real to complain about.

Always amazes me how people will multiply assumptions to justify (possible) bad female behaviot. We had a poster in the Hofstra fake rape case inventing out of nowhere the likelihood that she's consented to sex with one guy bur, like, the other four were nonconsensual. Going to special lengths to protect and justify vulnerable women? I'm surely not alone in savoring the irony of the primo chivalric impulses behind those defending the "aggrieved" women.

[you with the face]

And Occam's money's on she didn't complain before because there was nothing real to complain about.

This doesn't make any sense. She left him. Why would she do that if everything between them was okay?

Oh because she's a woman! What could I ever be thinking by questioning this logic?

Always amazes me how people will multiply assumptions to justify (possible) bad female behaviot.

It's like you're a broken record. Almost every post of yours reads like some anti-female screed dripping with contempt and bitterness. Consider, if you can, that this is exactly why Skald is leaning towards his wife on this. It's hard to be sympathetic with any side that you're advocating for. Even though you're siding with him!

[Huerta88]

This doesn't make any sense. She left him. Why would she do that if everything between them was okay?
Let's be real precise: neither you nor me thinks everything between them is okay.

She left him, and I am on record as saying, she fo' real meant that.

My "Occam" statement was about her post-breakup and apparently unprecedented supplemental nitpick about his terrible horrible car-escorting habits. Maybe I mis-read the OP (not kidding, I do sometimes) but nothing therein told me that she WALKED OUT ON THE MARRIAGE while citing his "car-walking" or "smothering" ways -- I kinda sorta inferred she walked out with a "it's just not working out" excuse. None of my business, but AFAICT, the record was clear of any "smothering" allegations till last week, which strongly suggests some ex post facto rationalizing.

So, you and I agree that everything between them was "not okay." All I posited was that what had changed to being "not okay" was that she lost her attraction for him.

It's speculation on my part -- for sure. I am right (60%, in my estimation) or wrong (40%). But it's a coherent theory.

And, it does not challenge Occam. When he made her tingle -- she didn't resent his attentiveness. When he stopped -- what the Hell is this guy doing "hovering" over me?

Oh because she's a woman! What could I ever be thinking by questioning this logic?
Women are not men. At least one of the data points I cited to demonstrated this. One can like and advocate dating women, and still understand the differences.

Hey, interesting point: one of the possible reasons, on my theory, why the OP's wife might fib to him about her motives? COMPASSION. I assume she's not some sultana of evil. If her real problem is (as I guess, I don't know) that she's lost some attraction for him -- what the Hell is a nice easy way for her to let him know, hey, I'm less tolerant of your flaws or "flaws" because you no longer make me tingle? Isn't it easier to pick a dramatic fight that will stage a final blowup? I can actually marginally sympathize with that approach from a woman, schooled as women are in needing to provide a simulacrum of "nice behavior."

It's like you're a broken record.
It's like I am advocating on a logically-consistent basis! I can understand that don't work on Sadie Hawkins night, which seems to be every night in relationship threads at SDMB.

Consider, if you can, that this is exactly why Skald is leaning towards his wife on this. It's hard to be sympathetic with any side that you're advocating for. Even though you're siding with him!
I've considered that -- the guy has a clear choice, and I may be wrong, and I may be right. And he may take the chivalric forgive-and-apologize-for-her-rude-conduct route.

I hope he does well. He can choose the female-apologist-friendly route, crawl back to the woman who isn't certain she wants him, and see how that works, or he can say -- you know what, I'm not invested in finding (chivalric) excuses for what is superficially rude. I may be wrong in my handicapping. If I am, and if Skald comes back and tells us that kowtowing saved his marriage, I do promise I will come back and make a post saying (and this is OTT, because to be fair, I know you, ywtf, have not yet advocated for his ex, specifically): "Good on you Skald and Mrs., and to those who defended Mrs., I was wrong in this case." Call me out if he does and I don't.

And, good luck to the OP.

[OleOneEye]

My "Occam" statement was about her post-breakup and apparently unprecedented supplemental nitpick about his terrible horrible car-escorting habits. Maybe I mis-read the OP (not kidding, I do sometimes) but nothing therein told me that she WALKED OUT ON THE MARRIAGE while citing his "car-walking" or "smothering" ways

Or this had been bothering her for a long time, but she didn't know how to put it into words. And I'm guessing if she's feeling "smothered", this is probably not the only behavior that has made her feel that way - it's just the most recent.

So, you and I agree that everything between them was "not okay." All I posited was that what had changed to being "not okay" was that she lost her attraction for him.

Behavior that makes you feel bad can be(come) unattractive.

And, it does not challenge Occam. When he made her tingle -- she didn't resent his attentiveness. When he stopped -- what the Hell is this guy doing "hovering" over me?

I don't know. It may have started with tiny little things that she dismissed at the time. People don't always trust their feelings.

I had a friend once whose behavior made me feel smothered. It started with little things - I'd ask him to help me with homework, and he'd take over and do the assignment for me - and I didn't trust my feelings. It only escalated over time.

If I am, and if Skald comes back and tells us that kowtowing saved his marriage

Who said anything about kowtowing? He needs to decide whether the benefit he gets from his behavior is more important than her feelings.

[Huerta88]

And I'm guessing if she's feeling "smothered", this is probably not the only behavior that has made her feel that way - it's just the most recent.
Skald has the total ability to make me look like a tool, but otherwise -- I revert to my Occam note -- your "I'm guessing" amounts to "I'm multiplying assumption upon assumption to make the lady seem awesome when otherwise she comes across as . . . . not ."

Why would you (as a default) "guess" that way? What about the OP, who seems the consummate nice guy nerd, hardly some drug dealer dominator biatch-slapping pimp, whose sole expressed desire is to save his marriage, inclines you to such a "guess?"

[OleOneEye]

Why would you (as a default) "guess" that way? What about the OP, who seems the consummate nice guy nerd, hardly some drug dealer dominator biatch-slapping pimp, whose sole expressed desire is to save his marriage, inclines you to such a "guess?"

Because I'm not inclined to think she's lying about her feelings. People sometimes feel smothered - even by "nice guy nerds".

[CrazyCatLady]

She never called this "smothering" before. Either she's a long-suffering martyr, or too terrified to speak up till now, or, something's changed, which I posited were her feelings toward him and her diminished attraction.


Or she was keeping her trap shut so as not to upset him or hurt his feelings, as civilized people tend to do when folks they care about do piffling little things that nonetheless drive them nuts. Especially when those things are stuff that's truly piffling or is meant to be "nice," because saying something about them tends to spur...well, the sorts of comments people have been making about Kim in this thread and nobody likes being perceived or portrayed as a petty bitch actively seeking out offense. It's easier and more pleasant on most levels to just shut up and try to ignore it.

Except that when the time comes that it's driving you so nuts you can't or don't want to ignore it any longer, you look even pettier, bitchier, and more like you're actively seeking out offense because "it never bothered you before." This whole socialization to be nice thing really sucks some serious ass at times.

[Shot From Guns]

Eye on the ball, please. Did you not note that I was responding to [quote snip] to specifically debunk the Women's Studies-induced silliness of trying to cram all of chivalry into a Smith-freshwomyn-friendly, easy-to-understand Marxist interpretation of the Big Bad White Patriarchy, than which (pretending for a moment the BBWP existed) chivalry (whether you like it or not, as you apparently don't in 1 Peter) is thousands of years older.

I thoroughly look forward to your argument that slavery in the U.S. wasn't that bad because slavery in other places and times was different.

[Freudian Slit]

I thoroughly look forward to your argument that slavery in the U.S. wasn't that bad because slavery in other places and times was different.

Or that the black civil rights movement originated because lazy blacks had nothing better to do and wanted whitey to feel bad and give them a free ride for the rest of their lives.

[Huerta88]

I thoroughly look forward to your argument that slavery in the U.S. wasn't that bad because slavery in other places and times was different.

You didn't parse it or keep your eye on the ball, like I asked you to -- I never said 1 Peter was cool or not cool (I explicitly said to someone later, apparently you thought those days were bad too) -- I reacted narrowly and specifically to the knee jerk "white upper class women" trope that someone lazily introduced as the source of chivarly, when "white, upper class" privilege doesn't explain or account for (not justify -- account for) all chivalry (or, as you may see it, all "sexism").

[Huerta88]

People sometimes feel smothered
I "feel smothered" when someone's holding a pillow over my head.

Oh, and the other complaint I hear women making about their SOs is "he doesn't pay enough attention to me and doesn't seem interested in what I'm doing."

Stupid guys! Always getting it wrong at one extreme or the other!

A guy I knew a long time ago, let's call him Huerta44, once endured and attempted to participate in a two hour conversation with a young inamorata who launched the dialogue (such as it was) with the complaint that she "didn't feel that our communication styles are sufficiently grounded." Why yes, she was a graduate of a small women's liberal art school. Huerta44, young fool that he was, attempted to process (ha! that might well be another good vague word), sympathize with, and apologize for, the English-like FemGriev plaints emitting from ArtsyChick but then his aneurysm popped. Huerta88 would say, "I feel grounded when in electrical contact with Earth," and would be far less shocked (get it?) when ArtsyChick blew him off for a date two weeks later to go "applepicking with my ex-boyfriend, the opportunity just suddenly came up."

"Smothered." "Grounded." Why do I have the feeling that the people who use words about feeling these feelings are using words about feelings for reasons other than actual communication?

[you with the face]

I "feel smothered" when someone's holding a pillow over my head.

Oh, and the other complaint I hear women making about their SOs is "he doesn't pay enough attention to me and doesn't seem interested in what I'm doing."

Stupid guys! Always getting it wrong at one extreme or the other!

Newsflash: women are individuals. I know, it's hard to believe! But trust me on this. The reason why women don't march in lock step with each other is because--hold on to your seats cuz I'm about to go deep--they aren't all the same. What one finds to be smothering could be perfectly fine for another one because they are different people with their own likes, dislikes, and tolerance levels! Isn't that amazing?

Why yes, she was a graduate of a small women's liberal art school.

Wow, what a revelation.

[Huerta88]

Newsflash: women are individuals. I know, it's hard to believe! But trust me on this. The reason why women don't march in lock step with each other is because--hold on to your seats cuz I'm about to go deep--they aren't all the same. What one finds to be smothering could be perfectly fine for another one because they are different people with their own likes, dislikes, and tolerance levels! Isn't that amazing?
It's not amazing. Another way I might have put it is that IME when I do hear someone complaining about a SO using extreme language ("smothering"/"treats me like I'm invisible"), it significantly more often is a female speaker than a male one. If you want a stipulation that I also hear many women who are copacetic with their relationships and speak well of their SOs -- sure thing. It's just that the OP was, in this case, dealing with the possibly-OTT variety of complaint.

[Skald the Rhymer]

It's not amazing. Another way I might have put it is that IME when I do hear someone complaining about a SO using extreme language ("smothering"/"treats me like I'm invisible," it significantly more often is a female speaker than a male one. If you want a stipulation that I also hear many women who are copacetic with their relationships and speak well of their SOs -- sure thing. It's just that the OP was, in this case, dealing with the possibly-OTT variety of complaint.

Actually the OP was listening to his wife discuss her feelings in a way both he and she have been encouraged to do in counseling.

[you with the face]

It's not amazing. Another way I might have put it is that IME when I do hear someone complaining about a SO using extreme language ("smothering"/"treats me like I'm invisible"), it significantly more often is a female speaker than a male one.

What is so extreme, in the things continuum of things to complain about, in saying someone's behavior is "smothering"? Don't men complain about women being too needy all the time?

[Freudian Slit]

You tend to hear more women using extreme language about their SOs. So some women feel their SOs aren't attentive enough, and others find their SOs smother them. I don't understand the problem. You're aware of women complaining about their boyfriends/spouses. I think it would be a lot weirder if they all had the same problem.

[Huerta88]

Actually the OP was listening to his wife discuss her feelings in a way both he and she have been encouraged to do in counseling.

I went back and re-read (or read, I forget) your earlier O-OP, which provided useful context.

Good luck, with the counseling, and overall.

[Shot From Guns]

I reacted narrowly and specifically to the knee jerk "white upper class women" trope that someone lazily introduced as the source of chivarly, when "white, upper class" privilege doesn't explain or account for (not justify -- account for) all chivalry (or, as you may see it, all "sexism").

Funny, I could swear that someone was talking about it in the context of sexism in the U.S. (or at least never explicitly stated that that's what started it all). Can you please point to where somebody said in this thread that white, upper-class privilege was the origin of all sexism? Perhaps you just misunderstood because it wasn't explicitly stated that this didn't apply to everything and for all time, because the poster assumed that everyone involved in the conversation would be able to keep up.

Should I make a note to include diagrams for you in the future?

[Huerta88]

Funny, I could swear that someone was talking about it in the context of sexism in the U.S. (or at least never explicitly stated that that's what started it all). Can you please point to where somebody said in this thread that white, upper-class privilege was the origin of all sexism? Perhaps you just misunderstood because it wasn't explicitly stated that this didn't apply to everything and for all time, because the poster assumed that everyone involved in the conversation would be able to keep up.

No one but no one today is walking women (black, white, whatever) to their cars to elevate white women and demean black women. [They never were but]If they ever were, in a segregated world that doesn't exist, that tossed-off tidbit from whoever's sophomore year advanced the debate (or the ability to answer the OP's question) exactly as much as would have a discussion of Indian courtly love poetry in the Mogul years.

[Huerta88]

What is so extreme, in the things continuum of things to complain about, in saying someone's behavior is "smothering"? Don't men complain about women being too needy all the time?

I have used the word high-maintenance . . . in one instance? Jokingly referred to a couple of SOs who wanted a fairly constant stream of attention as medium-maintenance. Never think I've used "needy" -- that has an overtone of self-centeredness or learned-helplessness that hopefully I could have pre-screened for.

As for "smothering" -- I just can't imagine myself saying that, so I'm trying to imagine someone feeling a person's conduct was so extreme as to merit analogy with the fatal deprivation of oxygen (and by extension, with the act of murder). That's right up there with "emasculating," and again, I've never had to get that hyperbolic. Maybe I'm lucky.

ETA that sharing feelings may or may not be all right, but concluding that it is all right, or even good, in no way compels the conclusion that all feelings or expressions of feelings are equally meritorious or have equal claims to be assuaged. If there's a therepeutic paradigm in play in other posters' minds that says they are or do, that would explain a lot of any seeming disconnect.

[Shot From Guns]

Oh dear, apparently this is too complicated for you to follow. Let me break it down.

1.) Extending special courtesies to women is sexist.
2.) In the U.S., this behavior is also tied historically to racism and classism.
3.) The tradition of a certain kind of deferential and special treatment for women was usually not extended to women of non-European heritage or women from lower classes. (You wouldn't lay your coat down over a puddle for a slave, and you wouldn't give your maid a hand down from a carriage.)
4.) The point is not that this is the origin or cause of "chivalry" in the U.S., nor that it is necessarily true of such behavior today, but that it is an inextricable part of the behavior's heritage, extending its discrimination beyond sex and into class and race.
5.) Also found in this history is the proof that there is nothing inherent to having a uterus that makes women so weak that they need to be protected by men: entire categories of women have been excluded from this consideration and somehow managed to survive.

Were any of those words too big for you? I can try to simplify it more, if you like.

Here's a test for you: if you don't think it's sexist to be "chivalrous" to women, try reversing your behavior for a month: perform these actions only for men. See how the men react, and see how you feel about it.

[Shot From Guns]

Never think I've used "needy" -- that has an overtone of self-centeredness or learned-helplessness that hopefully I could have pre-screened for.

Oh dear, another one that went over your head. Here, let me help.

The point was that you were criticizing "women" for saying hyperbolic things like "smothering" (with the implicit statement that men don't talk about things like that, hah hah, Venus and Mars, don'cha know), while ignoring the fact that men make the same style of complaints but use a different vocabulary.

[you with the face]

I have used the word high-maintenance . . . in one instance? Jokingly referred to a couple of SOs who wanted a fairly constant stream of attention as medium-maintenance. Never think I've used "needy" -- that has an overtone of self-centeredness or learned-helplessness that hopefully I could have pre-screened for.

I'm not talking you. I'm talking about men in general. The "she's too needy" complaint or its variations are as common as pigeons.

There's is nothing uniquely extreme or hyperbolic about "smothering". The word has multiple uses and in the context of relationships usually means clingy or overprotective.

As for "smothering" -- I just can't imagine myself saying that, so I'm trying to imagine someone feeling a person's conduct was so extreme as to merit analogy with the fatal deprivation of oxygen (and by extension, with the act of murder).

I can kind of see where your ex- was coming from with the whole grounded thing. Earth to Huerta, it ain't that serious.

[Huerta88]

Oh dear, apparently this is too complicated for you to follow. Let me break it down.

1.) Extending special courtesies to women is sexist.
2.) In the U.S., this behavior is also tied historically to racism and classism.
3.) The tradition of a certain kind of deferential and special treatment for women was usually not extended to women of non-European heritage or women from lower classes. (You wouldn't lay your coat down over a puddle for a slave, and you wouldn't give your maid a hand down from a carriage.)
4.) The point is not that this is the origin or cause of "chivalry" in the U.S., nor that it is necessarily true of such behavior today, but that it is an inextricable part of the behavior's heritage, extending its discrimination beyond sex and into class and race.
5.) Also found in this history is the proof that there is nothing inherent to having a uterus that makes women so weak that they need to be protected by men: entire categories of women have been excluded from this consideration and somehow managed to survive.


Starting from the end does make it a lot easier, I'll concede you that.