Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 04-18-2017, 01:12 AM
ruadh ruadh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Baile Átha Cliath
Posts: 7,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Very few people consistently want something - or rather, very few people want all of a particular ideology.

Many feminists still prefer that the man be the one initiating dates or proposing marriage or otherwise taking the initiative, rather than be the one asking men out, etc., for instance. Few MRAs consistently abide by 100% of the principles of MRA-ism either.

People pick and choose what they want, like a buffet line.
It's probably more accurate to say that many feminists still lack the confidence to be the one initiating dates or proposing marriage or otherwise taking the initiative, rather than be the one asking men out.
Advertisements  
  #52  
Old 04-18-2017, 01:31 AM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 13,871
So feminists are meek, submissive, strait laced traditionalists? Too scared to take initiative?

Last edited by AK84; 04-18-2017 at 01:31 AM.
  #53  
Old 04-18-2017, 03:21 AM
Rick Sanchez Rick Sanchez is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helena330 View Post
It's not that "poor career choices" pay less. It's that female-dominated occupations pay less than male-dominated ones. If 88% of men were social workers the pay would be higher.
That's not how markets work.
  #54  
Old 04-18-2017, 03:29 AM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 13,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helena330 View Post
It's not that "poor career choices" pay less. It's that female-dominated occupations pay less than male-dominated ones. If 88% of men were social workers the pay would be higher.
I am going to have to ask for a cite for your second assertion. There are lots of examples of jobs going from male dominated to female dominated. How much has the monetary compensation and perceived value of said jobs changed. I am sure you can provide copious cites and peer reviewed studies.

Last edited by AK84; 04-18-2017 at 03:33 AM.
  #55  
Old 04-18-2017, 03:58 AM
panache45 panache45 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NE Ohio (the 'burbs)
Posts: 39,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helena330 View Post
If 88% of men were social workers the pay would be higher.
Don't you mean if 88% of social worker were men? If 88% of men were social workers, there'd be so damn many social workers, they'd have to be paid not to work.
  #56  
Old 04-18-2017, 07:39 AM
chaika chaika is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
I am going to have to ask for a cite for your second assertion. There are lots of examples of jobs going from male dominated to female dominated. How much has the monetary compensation and perceived value of said jobs changed. I am sure you can provide copious cites and peer reviewed studies.
Although this post was not addressed to me, I will answer anyway. Here is an article from The New York Times that discusses research into this phenomenon: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/u...rops.html?_r=0

A comprehensive study conducted by researchers from New York University, the University of Haifa, and the University of Pennsylvania "found that when women moved into occupations in large numbers, those jobs began paying less even after controlling for education, work experience, skills, race and geography."

Quote:
A striking example is to be found in the field of recreation — working in parks or leading camps — which went from predominantly male to female from 1950 to 2000. Median hourly wages in this field declined 57 percentage points, accounting for the change in the value of the dollar, according to a complex formula used by Professor Levanon. The job of ticket agent also went from mainly male to female during this period, and wages dropped 43 percentage points.

The same thing happened when women in large numbers became designers (wages fell 34 percentage points), housekeepers (wages fell 21 percentage points) and biologists (wages fell 18 percentage points). The reverse was true when a job attracted more men. Computer programming, for instance, used to be a relatively menial role done by women. But when male programmers began to outnumber female ones, the job began paying more and gained prestige.
The article does not ignore issues of "choice" or social factors. But this study certainly seems to suggest that when women begin to dominate a particular occupation, salaries decrease. Food for thought.
  #57  
Old 04-18-2017, 07:41 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 36,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Put it another way, if a behaviour would be seen boorish in a non-date context, why would it not be so in a date? And if the person reacts badly to it, then the answer is not to go on future dates with them.
+1. Or, if we make it one for every date I had where "the gentleman" did something that would be considered terribly boorish in other contexts and expected it to get him brownie points... we have enough brownie points to get a whole team of Girl Scouts their cookie badges.
  #58  
Old 04-18-2017, 08:19 AM
JackieLikesVariety JackieLikesVariety is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Nevada
Posts: 2,186
Quote:
Fixating on this issue, particularly as indicative of ''what women really want'' reflects a massive misunderstanding about what feminism means. What I want is to be pregnant without worrying I'm going to die because of some archaic abortion law, to be taken seriously when I report being sexually assaulted instead of blamed and villainized, to not bear 100% of the responsibility -- and the career penalty -- for taking care of children, and for my concerns not to be discounted, minimized or trivialized by men who have never lived those realities.
QFT
  #59  
Old 04-18-2017, 08:23 AM
puzzlegal puzzlegal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaika View Post
Although this post was not addressed to me, I will answer anyway. Here is an article from The New York Times that discusses research into this phenomenon: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/u...rops.html?_r=0

A comprehensive study conducted by researchers from New York University, the University of Haifa, and the University of Pennsylvania "found that when women moved into occupations in large numbers, those jobs began paying less even after controlling for education, work experience, skills, race and geography."



The article does not ignore issues of "choice" or social factors. But this study certainly seems to suggest that when women begin to dominate a particular occupation, salaries decrease. Food for thought.
Thanks for doing the research, I've seen this documented, too, but probably couldn't have find a good source quickly.

Secretary is maybe the most striking example.

And then there are also tons of examples of very similar jobs with different sex ratios and different pay scales. There was an example I saw about a company that paid the men who sewed shoes more than the women who sewed sneakers.
  #60  
Old 04-18-2017, 11:49 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 74,430
I agree that men holding doors open for women can be benevolent sexism. But how about we work on eliminating all the other kinds of sexism first and put benevolent sexism at the bottom of the list.
  #61  
Old 04-18-2017, 11:58 AM
HoneyBadgerDC HoneyBadgerDC is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Torrance Ca
Posts: 7,075
If a man is not a feminist and like to play the traditional role in a relationship then that is how he should be, if the lady doesn't like it they may not be a good match for dating. If he truly believes he is a feminist and doesn't like the idea of gender rolls then he should act accordingly and expect results based on his role.
  #62  
Old 04-18-2017, 12:42 PM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 36,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I agree that men holding doors open for women can be benevolent sexism. But how about we work on eliminating all the other kinds of sexism first and put benevolent sexism at the bottom of the list.
Why should we do that, when benevolent sexism includes refusing to allow women to vote "so they don't have to worry their pretty little heads" and refusing us promotions because "that way it's ok if she gets pregnant"? How would you feel if you went out to eat with someone you'd never met before, with whom you've never talked about food, who doesn't know anything about your taste or your medical history, and that person chooses your meal without consulting you?

Benevolent bigotry is benevolent only in the heads of those dishing it, not in the lives of the recipients.

Last edited by Nava; 04-18-2017 at 12:44 PM.
  #63  
Old 04-18-2017, 12:51 PM
Manda JO Manda JO is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 10,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I agree that men holding doors open for women can be benevolent sexism. But how about we work on eliminating all the other kinds of sexism first and put benevolent sexism at the bottom of the list.
I don't mind people holding doors for me. I hold doors for people. But over the last ten years, I've know 2-3 men who were actively offended, whose feelings got hurt, if I opened the door for them, or even if I failed to stop and let them go first, so they could open the door for me.

So, does "putting benevolent sexism at the bottom of the list" mean that when I realize a guy thinks like this, I should defer to his paradigm?
  #64  
Old 04-18-2017, 01:25 PM
marshmallow marshmallow is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,633
Generally I'm not impressed by people who cite some ideology to explain their selfish or lazy behavior, such as Christian cheap grace or the hypothetical man in the OP. I'd be more impressed if the believer said they volunteer at a soup kitchen because they're a true Christian, or if the hypothetical man said he doesn't watch pornography because he's a true feminist. Well, he probably shouldn't share that on a first date, but you get the idea.

Last edited by marshmallow; 04-18-2017 at 01:26 PM.
  #65  
Old 04-18-2017, 02:11 PM
Urbanredneck Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,572
A man can still be a gentleman and treat a woman as a lady, and still be supportive of feminist issues like equal pay.
  #66  
Old 04-18-2017, 02:41 PM
igor frankensteen igor frankensteen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,113
Glad to see that many people recognize that this guy is not a feminist. Some even recognize that he is actually an ANTI feminist.

There is nothing that has LESS to do with feminism, than declaring that all women should be treated the same. It is the ANTITHESIS of feminism, which is about women deciding who and what they are for themselves.

I have seen this kind of guy over and over again. He is venting his acquired dislike and disrespect for women by refusing to deal with them even as well as he does with men, and blaming his misbehavior on "feminism."

If he were actually a feminist, and not an anti-feminist, when asked why he didn't hold a door open for a woman, his response would have been "because I did not know how close behind me she was."

I don't care what the "ism" is, it's simply a fact that you CANNOT defeat prejudice with more prejudice.
  #67  
Old 04-18-2017, 04:49 PM
JR Brown JR Brown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Feminism is inversely proportional to chivalry?....
Yeah, pretty much. "Chivalry", as pointed out later in the thread, is fundamentally about men doing special favors for women because they are automatically weaker and more helpless, and need men to help them through life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFidelius View Post
I hold doors open for people, I help with heavy loads, if I invited someone someplace I pay for them, and I protect others to my best ability.

This in and of itself does not make me a feminist. It makes me a decent human being.
This. Be as nice and helpful as you want, to people, all people, not just to women. I seriously think that one of the big reasons* so many men are so resistant to letting go of "chivalry" and replacing it with "being a considerate person" is that it would require them to be nice to other men, horribile dictu.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
A man can still be a gentleman and treat a woman as a lady, and still be supportive of feminist issues like equal pay.
True, for what it's worth, but "being a gentleman" and "treating a woman like a lady" are predicated on sexist views of the capabilities and proper role of women, so they don't match up well with "being a feminist".

* the other big one IMO being that if men are just being generally considerate to everyone rather than going out of their way to do special favors for us women, we would no longer automatically be on the hook to repay them with our gratitude and attention.
  #68  
Old 04-18-2017, 05:57 PM
Urbanredneck Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR Brown View Post
Yeah, pretty much. "Chivalry", as pointed out later in the thread, is fundamentally about men doing special favors for women because they are automatically weaker and more helpless, and need men to help them through life.
Well sometimes being a "man" is important because most often its the man who is larger, stronger, and taller and therefore when 2 big guys come around causing trouble, its a big guy who can protect his woman. Also its the man who can often carry in heavy packages or reach up and get something

Now that doesnt mean that small woman doesnt have her own superior qualities.
  #69  
Old 04-18-2017, 06:10 PM
Fredescu Fredescu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jophiel View Post
That sounds like grilling someone who claims to be a Christian what their favorite tomes of theology are. 95% of them are going to say "Uh, I hear the Bible is pretty good?"
It's not grilling, it's just starting a conversation about what on the surface appears to be a shared interest. It would be like a guy being honest about something, and saying he was honest because he's a christian. His date is too! She wants to say grace before their meal, but he refuses because he doesn't believe in god.

Just picking one of the ten commandments and doing nothing else means he is not a christian. Just as picking one feminist issue and knowing nothing else about it means he is not a feminist.

So to be clear, it is wrong for this guy to say that he is a feminist on his date because on the information provided he is not a feminist.
  #70  
Old 04-18-2017, 06:40 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 74,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
Why should we do that, when benevolent sexism includes refusing to allow women to vote "so they don't have to worry their pretty little heads" and refusing us promotions because "that way it's ok if she gets pregnant"? How would you feel if you went out to eat with someone you'd never met before, with whom you've never talked about food, who doesn't know anything about your taste or your medical history, and that person chooses your meal without consulting you?

Benevolent bigotry is benevolent only in the heads of those dishing it, not in the lives of the recipients.
It takes more to be benevolent than just claiming something is benevolent. The sexism you're describing is not what I or any reasonable person would call benevolent.
  #71  
Old 04-18-2017, 07:11 PM
Spice Weasel Spice Weasel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I agree that men holding doors open for women can be benevolent sexism. But how about we work on eliminating all the other kinds of sexism first and put benevolent sexism at the bottom of the list.
I see it as the symptom of a problem rather than the cause of one.

I've been trying to think about this idea I'm having, and how to put it. I know Sr. Weasel views me as his equal. If he treats me deferentially or pulls out a chair for me, it makes me giddy. I know it doesn't stem from a view of women as the weaker sex, but rather because I am his lady. People, including feminist women, have their own proclivities, and I personally enjoy being feminine and engaging in a bit of role play. It's similar to a woman being submissive in bed -- has nothing to do with her views on gender equality and everything to do with personal preference. That's kind of what I mean by no one feminist view -- some girls like being girly, and that's just fine. Some men like being manly, and that's also fine. The problem is when we force people into those boxes against their will or shame them because they don't fit.

I once knew a guy who self-identified as a radical feminist, and I've never been so consistently 'mansplained'' about feminism in my life. He treated women completely differently, and you could argue it was a kind of benevolent sexism, because he would shut down any man who disagreed with him on a feminist issue but always defer to women. He consistently tried to explain to me why my views were wrong because I wasn't upset enough about certain things he decided I should be upset about, even though he would give no man such 'leniency.' It pissed me off because it became clear women were basically a prop in his White Knight crusade. On the flip side, I know a guy about as far from liberal as it gets, who would never self-identify as a feminist, but he so completely embodies equal respect for women that I couldn't describe him any other way. He probably pulls out a woman's chair when he goes on a date. Then there is my writer's group, which is full of men in their 50s and 60s (I'm in my 30s), some of whom identify as feminist and some of whom do not, but all of whom listen to me when I tell them their work displays some blind spot or other with regard to women.

So ''I am a feminist'' is a pretty meaningless statement, absent context. And also, one individual pulling out a chair (or not) isn't the best insight into what a man thinks about gender equality. A cultural norm to do so, however, says a lot about what the culture thinks about gender equality.
  #72  
Old 04-19-2017, 12:38 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 36,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR Brown View Post
True, for what it's worth, but "being a gentleman" and "treating a woman like a lady" are predicated on sexist views of the capabilities and proper role of women, so they don't match up well with "being a feminist".
Classist as well, as it refers to expectations of and about specific social classes.

Last edited by Nava; 04-19-2017 at 12:39 AM.
  #73  
Old 04-19-2017, 12:45 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 36,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
It takes more to be benevolent than just claiming something is benevolent. The sexism you're describing is not what I or any reasonable person would call benevolent.
It was considered benevolent for centuries. Heck, it was considered benevolent within our lifetimes, in our countries. And the choosing my meal for me is something that I've had happen on dates in the US, and the dudes involved couldn't understand why I'd want to decide what to eat. I swear you guys have a foot stuck in the late 19th century when it comes to courting mores (let's not go into where the other foot is): if some guy tried that anywhere between Gibraltar and Lapland I wouldn't merely state my own choice, I'd get up and walk out.

Last edited by Nava; 04-19-2017 at 12:45 AM.
  #74  
Old 04-19-2017, 02:05 AM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 13,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR Brown View Post


True, for what it's worth, but "being a gentleman" and "treating a woman like a lady" are predicated on sexist views of the capabilities and proper role of women, so they don't match up well with "being a feminist".

No. They are predicated on courtesy, and social graces. You are expected to be a gentleman with women (and others!) who are your social superiors just as much as you are supposed to with your "lessers".
  #75  
Old 04-19-2017, 02:41 AM
ruadh ruadh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Baile Átha Cliath
Posts: 7,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
So feminists are meek, submissive, strait laced traditionalists? Too scared to take initiative?
Feminism is a belief system, not a personality trait. And believing that women should be perfectly entitled to take the initiative doesn't always translate to having the nerve to do it yourself.

Kind of surprised this needs explaining tbh.
  #76  
Old 04-19-2017, 02:44 AM
ruadh ruadh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Baile Átha Cliath
Posts: 7,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spice Weasel View Post
I once knew a guy who self-identified as a radical feminist, and I've never been so consistently 'mansplained'' about feminism in my life. He treated women completely differently, and you could argue it was a kind of benevolent sexism, because he would shut down any man who disagreed with him on a feminist issue but always defer to women. He consistently tried to explain to me why my views were wrong because I wasn't upset enough about certain things he decided I should be upset about, even though he would give no man such 'leniency.' It pissed me off because it became clear women were basically a prop in his White Knight crusade.
This. Male "radical feminists" are the absolute worst in my experience.
  #77  
Old 04-19-2017, 10:57 PM
trapezoidal jellyfish trapezoidal jellyfish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spice Weasel View Post
I'm married to a feminist man, and I honestly cannot remember a single time the words "I'm a feminist" came out of his mouth. His commitment to women's equality is evident in the way he shares household responsibilities, in the way he wishes to share child-rearing duties, in how he talks about women he knows, in how he validates my frustrations when I encounter misogynist attitudes. In return, I give him a safe space to be sad or scared or insecure, ensure that the burden of breadwinning does not fall entirely on him, and make sure he knows every day that I appreciate him for what he is, and that his worth is not defined by how well he measures up to some arbitrary standard of manliness. I think that's what people often miss about egalitarian relationships - they are reciprocal. We both get something out of this. We are a team with the advantage that our roles in each others' lives, and in the rest of society, are not limited by gender stereotypes. That is our feminism.
Just popping in to say that this is one of the nicest things I've ever read.
  #78  
Old 04-20-2017, 01:03 AM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 27,715
My daughter has been mentioning her experiences with feminism lately (mostly in the context of having to interact with a particularly obnoxious subset of MRAs calling themselves "meninists"). I think I'll try to persuade her to read this thread, especially the excellent contributions from Spice Weasel.

Last edited by kaylasdad99; 04-20-2017 at 01:04 AM.
  #79  
Old 04-20-2017, 03:21 AM
Filbert Filbert is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Well sometimes being a "man" is important because most often its the man who is larger, stronger, and taller and therefore when 2 big guys come around causing trouble, its a big guy who can protect his woman. Also its the man who can often carry in heavy packages or reach up and get something

Now that doesnt mean that small woman doesnt have her own superior qualities.
Being bigger or stronger is sort of the relevant bit, not being a "man". I was exactly the same height as my last boyfriend, and, as I was in better shape than the couch potato he was at the time, I could lift and carry heavy stuff easier than him.

Common responses to me saying this seem to be either that this makes him "not a real man", or that I'm either delusional or some freak that's probably not really a woman. Whichever way, at least one of us should apparently have been ashamed at not fitting the stereotype. It's not benevolent, and it is sexist.
  #80  
Old 04-20-2017, 02:21 PM
JR Brown JR Brown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post

No. They are predicated on courtesy, and social graces. You are expected to be a gentleman with women (and others!) who are your social superiors just as much as you are supposed to with your "lessers".
If it was merely a matter of "courtesy and social graces" then you'd behave exactly the same way towards men. Being extra special "courteous and gracious" towards women is predicated on a specific (and obnoxious and outdated) view of women.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Filbert View Post
Being bigger or stronger is sort of the relevant bit, not being a "man". I was exactly the same height as my last boyfriend, and, as I was in better shape than the couch potato he was at the time, I could lift and carry heavy stuff easier than him.

Common responses to me saying this seem to be either that this makes him "not a real man", or that I'm either delusional or some freak that's probably not really a woman. Whichever way, at least one of us should apparently have been ashamed at not fitting the stereotype. It's not benevolent, and it is sexist.
What she said.
  #81  
Old 04-20-2017, 02:35 PM
Lamia Lamia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 13,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spice Weasel View Post
I tend to interpret anything astro posts related to feminism as some kind of ''Gotcha Ya.''
I think you're being too generous here. Pretty much any thread astro starts that's related to women at all -- and he's started a lot -- boils down to "Women sure are dumb, aren't they?", "Women sure are slutty, aren't they?", or "Women sure are a bunch of dumb sluts, aren't they?"
  #82  
Old 04-20-2017, 02:56 PM
Mithril Mithril is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 881
Soon after my boyfriend of over a year and I started dating, he said, "It's sometimes hard to know how to be a man with you." It was a little hard to hear, but I get it. His dad takes his mom's car to fill it up with gas so that she never has to. My dad wouldn't let me take the family car if I didn't know how to change the tire. I'm an engineer who supervises construction sites at times. I get it.

My boyfriend probably wouldn't call himself a feminist if asked, because people have such strong opinions about what that means. But the things he does in terms of traditional gender roles reflect that he is looking at me as a person, not just some alien mass of femininity. When a super creepy guy tried to get me into his murder van and we came across him later, my SO let me decide how to handle it instead of going on a macho rampage. He opens jars when I bat my eyelashes comically and say, "I need a man." We do a martial art together. He throws me around as much as anybody when on the mat. But off the mat, if he steps on my toe, he seems to worry that he might have crippled me forever.

I had to adapt, too. When I am carrying four bags and his hands are empty, I let him have a couple. Not because I can't carry them all, but because sharing my burden doesn't mean I'm weak - it means we are a team. I go to him for advice, not because he is a man and therefore knows better than me, but because he has a different perspective that informs my decision. I let him take me out for Valentine's Day instead of saying it's a made up holiday.

When I was young, an older guy was telling me that men should open doors for women on dates. I harrumphed and asked, "But when there are two sets of doors, I get to the second one before him. What am I supposed to do about that?" He said, "You adjust your pace." It has stuck with me for years, and I try to have that attitude in more things as I get older. Small gestures matter, and adjusting yourself to allow for the give and take of small gestures matters even more in a relationship.

To the original question, I wouldn't respect anybody who thinks that feminism means he can let a door slam in my face. But I wouldn't respect anybody who lets that happen, regardless.
  #83  
Old 04-20-2017, 03:33 PM
Urbanredneck Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,572
I have to ask, do these "feminist" men still turn into blubbering idiots when they see a woman flashing alot of cleavage or otherwise, showing off alot of skin? Are they even turned on by big boobs or does that part of man-think go away?
  #84  
Old 04-20-2017, 03:51 PM
Manda JO Manda JO is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 10,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
I have to ask, do these "feminist" men still turn into blubbering idiots when they see a woman flashing alot of cleavage or otherwise, showing off alot of skin? Are they even turned on by big boobs or does that part of man-think go away?
So if I'm walking ahead of a guy and I hold the door for him and he isn't offended, you think that means somehow he loses his libido? How does that work, exactly?
  #85  
Old 04-20-2017, 03:53 PM
jsgoddess jsgoddess is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: DC area
Posts: 29,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
So if I'm walking ahead of a guy and I hold the door for him and he isn't offended, you think that means somehow he loses his libido? How does that work, exactly?
Duh, he turns girly and... stuff.
  #86  
Old 04-20-2017, 04:07 PM
Ambivalid Ambivalid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In my head
Posts: 12,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
I don't mind people holding doors for me. I hold doors for people. But over the last ten years, I've know 2-3 men who were actively offended, whose feelings got hurt, if I opened the door for them, or even if I failed to stop and let them go first, so they could open the door for me.
Imagine what it's like to be a woman using a wheelchair, re doors being held open for them. Gahh, I can't even. If it is as prevalent as it is for young, athletic men using wheelchairs, it's got to be absolutely non-stop with women using them.

While men are overwhelmingly usually the ones who respond in the overtly negative manner (being offended, behaving condescendingly, etc.) the only person I've ever had actually refuse point blank to go thru a door I was politely holding open for them was a woman. She had to be the one holding it for me and she wasn't going to budge until I relinquished my hold on that door and let her do it. I just shook my head and said "okie dokie" and turned and went thru the door. /anecdote
  #87  
Old 04-20-2017, 04:10 PM
jsgoddess jsgoddess is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: DC area
Posts: 29,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
While men are overwhelmingly usually the ones who respond in the overtly negative manner (being offended, behaving condescendingly, etc.) the only person I've ever had actually refuse point blank to go thru a door I was politely holding open for them was a woman. She had to be the one holding it for me and she wasn't going to budge until I relinquished my hold on that door and let her do it. I just shook my head and said "okie dokie" and turned and went thru the door. /anecdote
I hope you ran over her toes.
  #88  
Old 04-20-2017, 04:31 PM
astro astro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Taint of creation
Posts: 33,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamia View Post
I think you're being too generous here. Pretty much any thread astro starts that's related to women at all -- and he's started a lot -- boils down to "Women sure are dumb, aren't they?", "Women sure are slutty, aren't they?", or "Women sure are a bunch of dumb sluts, aren't they?"
I posted a question quoted below that if someone claimed to have absolutely no gender bias and operationally and consistently behaved that way, treating female SO's in relationships as pure equals with no gendered based deference given, could that person justifiably claim to be a feminist based on existing definitions of the term and how would he be perceived? I did not ask if that kind of behavior was morally right or wrong only if was it enough to meet that definitional standard.

There were a lot of different and thoughtful answers on what it means to be a feminist in that context and in general the consensus was that someone just being actively non-gender deferential, almost to a fault, was not enough in and of itself to meet that definitional standard.

The article referenced in the OP addressed the question on one level of "What is feminism?" per the header quote below. It made me wonder on a tangential basis if non or anti-sexist behavior would be enough for a man to be to be considered a feminist and so the OP was asked. I'm not sure how you dragged "dumb and slutty" out of the OP quoted below.

Quote:
Fearless Girl must go: It’s a tourist attraction and an appealing fantasy — but a terrible symbol for feminism - Fearless Girl may look cool, but it's a toothless work that does nothing to confront the realities of sexism
Quote:
In reading this article about the Wall Street Bull and Fearless Girl by author Amanda Marcotte and what appropriate feminist reactions should be I wondered just how much latitude a man would be given if he deliberately ignored gendered male role "manners" like opening car doors, taking on heavier physical tasks, being protective in potentially hazardous situations, paying for first date dinners and a host of things large and small that men are expected to do in their standard gendered roles when dating or being in relationships.

If accused of being rude or oblivious to expected social manners when dating he explains he is a feminist and refuses to engage in standard chauvinistic patronizing behaviors as this denigrates women. He says they are equals and can open their own car doors, carry their own heavy boxes, pay for their own dating dinners, and kill their own spiders etc. His desire is to be a co-equal partner and respect women's own agency in being able to do these things without him getting involved unless asked.

In all other ways he is a decent and honest person but he will not step into the expected protective or deferentially mannered man's role in relationships.

Does this behavior and his position that this makes him a true feminist make him more or less attractive as a potential SO?
  #89  
Old 04-20-2017, 05:17 PM
Lamia Lamia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 13,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by astro View Post
I'm not sure how you dragged "dumb and slutty" out of the OP quoted below.
I'd consider this to be one of your "Women sure are dumb" threads, for basically the same reasons that Spice Weasel considered it an attempt at a "gotcha" about feminism. It's not a "dumb and slutty" one at present, although given enough time it would probably get there.

I note that this thread currently happens to be just below one you started about high school students working as strippers, a juxtaposition that nicely encapsulates your posting history with regard to women.
  #90  
Old 04-21-2017, 01:51 AM
CairoCarol CairoCarol is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 4,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
I have to ask, do these "feminist" men still turn into blubbering idiots when they see a woman flashing alot of cleavage or otherwise, showing off alot of skin? Are they even turned on by big boobs or does that part of man-think go away?
So what you're saying is, you turn into a blubbering idiot when you see cleavage?
  #91  
Old 04-21-2017, 05:48 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 19,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
I have to ask, do these "feminist" men still turn into blubbering idiots when they see a woman flashing alot of cleavage or otherwise, showing off alot of skin? Are they even turned on by big boobs or does that part of man-think go away?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CairoCarol View Post
So what you're saying is, you turn into a blubbering idiot when you see cleavage?
I consider myself to be a feminist and frankly yes, I sometimes do. Some things just bypass all rational function and light up the underlying monkey brain.

Which doesn't mean I can't make a conscious effort to not stare at the person's chest, to carry out a civil conversation, and to treat the woman in question as an adult and an equal, but we all have our base selves lurking in the background. The trick is keeping them back there.
  #92  
Old 04-21-2017, 06:59 AM
Tee Tee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by astro View Post
In reading this article about the Wall Street Bull and Fearless Girl by author Amanda Marcotte and what appropriate feminist reactions should be...
I like Fearless Girl, what she is and how she was created, and I think it's a great piece. The pose is not fearless. It's acknowledging fear and facing your adversary anyway, because you can. We women were all that little girl once, were we not? The world can be scary at any age. There is nothing “infantile” about planting your feet and standing tall, so I disagree with the author of the article on that point and several others.

We can and often do disagree with one another, but we can't kick each other out of feminism. It can't be done to your hypothetical guy either, if he has good intentions and he wants to be there.
  #93  
Old 04-21-2017, 07:57 AM
astro astro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Taint of creation
Posts: 33,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamia View Post
I'd consider this to be one of your "Women sure are dumb" threads, for basically the same reasons that Spice Weasel considered it an attempt at a "gotcha" about feminism. It's not a "dumb and slutty" one at present, although given enough time it would probably get there.

I note that this thread currently happens to be just below one you started about high school students working as strippers, a juxtaposition that nicely encapsulates your posting history with regard to women.
And the totality of that question addressed (specifically) the ability and limits of a public school's institutional power to force a high school student to comply if the 18 year old student was doing something they did not like, or was possibly embarrassing to the school and upsetting parents, but was fully legal on their own time.

The answer was (generally) that there were no limits (by a public school) on the agency of an 18 year old to pursue whatever legal jobs they wanted.
  #94  
Old 04-21-2017, 10:35 AM
Pantastic Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
I have to ask, do these "feminist" men still turn into blubbering idiots when they see a woman flashing alot of cleavage or otherwise, showing off alot of skin? Are they even turned on by big boobs or does that part of man-think go away?
While I am a big fan of exposed female skin, my brain continues to work even around women who are strolling around naked or mostly naked. This is a learned behavior exacerbated by living a life that doesn't involve seeing much skin, it's not something inherent to being male. If this was really a 'man' characteristic and not learned behavior, hunter gatherer and tribal societies where the women don't wear tops would not function, nude beaches would only be able to hire female lifeguards, and porn would only be directed by women. Also, not all men are turned on by big boobs, that's another behavior that's mostly learned. If you look at what was considered sexy historically and even across societies now, the ideal breast size varies a lot.
  #95  
Old 04-22-2017, 08:20 AM
Urbanredneck Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
So if I'm walking ahead of a guy and I hold the door for him and he isn't offended, you think that means somehow he loses his libido? How does that work, exactly?
Wow, are you clueless on men's brains.

Let's say a guy drops something, you being the helpful person, bend over to pick it up for him and he gets a good look down the front of your shirt at your beautiful and ample busoms. When you stand up he stutters slightly and says thank you, or maybe... thank you!
  #96  
Old 04-22-2017, 09:07 AM
Filbert Filbert is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Wow, are you clueless on men's brains.

Let's say a guy drops something, you being the helpful person, bend over to pick it up for him and he gets a good look down the front of your shirt at your beautiful and ample busoms. When you stand up he stutters slightly and says thank you, or maybe... thank you!
What the hell has that got to do with anything? I don't presume to speak for all women on this, but I don't normally flash my tits when holding doors.
  #97  
Old 04-22-2017, 09:47 AM
Manda JO Manda JO is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 10,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by astro View Post
And the totality of that question addressed (specifically) the ability and limits of a public school's institutional power to force a high school student to comply if the 18 year old student was doing something they did not like, or was possibly embarrassing to the school and upsetting parents, but was fully legal on their own time.

The answer was (generally) that there were no limits (by a public school) on the agency of an 18 year old to pursue whatever legal jobs they wanted.
Right, but instead of asking about a kid working at a head shop or an abortion clinic, you used as your hypothetical a situation likely to inspire a guilty dick-twitch. This is a pattern.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Wow, are you clueless on men's brains.

Let's say a guy drops something, you being the helpful person, bend over to pick it up for him and he gets a good look down the front of your shirt at your beautiful and ample busoms. When you stand up he stutters slightly and says thank you, or maybe... thank you!
What?

You want to know if a man who lets a woman hold a door for him "even likes to look at tits anymore". What the fuck does that have to do with catching a glimpse of someone's breasts when they bend over? Are you saying that men mostly hold doors for women so they can look down their shirts as they pass, and that men who let women open doors must be perversly willing to forgo the opportunity?
  #98  
Old 04-22-2017, 10:02 AM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10,041
ISTM that the gist of the OP is "be careful what you wish for." For an opposite example, some men may like to be in control, and have the woman defer to them - yet would be very annoyed if they asked their wife/girlfriend, "So, any particular restaurant you'd prefer tonight?" and she deferred-deflected, "It's all fine/every choice is equally acceptable/no preference," etc. They'd prefer that she actually have an opinion (i.e., Outback, Ruth's Chris, Applebee's etc.)

So some women may want a man who is feminist, but not like the downsides that come that. You have to take the good and bad with everything.
  #99  
Old 04-22-2017, 11:12 AM
Spice Weasel Spice Weasel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,448
Mithril, that was a beautiful description of your relationship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trapezoidal jellyfish View Post
Just popping in to say that this is one of the nicest things I've ever read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
My daughter has been mentioning her experiences with feminism lately (mostly in the context of having to interact with a particularly obnoxious subset of MRAs calling themselves "meninists"). I think I'll try to persuade her to read this thread, especially the excellent contributions from Spice Weasel.
Gosh, thanks. I'm getting all blushy over here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
I have to ask, do these "feminist" men still turn into blubbering idiots when they see a woman flashing alot of cleavage or otherwise, showing off alot of skin? Are they even turned on by big boobs or does that part of man-think go away?
Feminist men have libidos like any other man. They may have a similar physiological response as a misogynist would to sexual stimuli, but they will behave in a respectful manner, because they view women as equals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
So some women may want a man who is feminist, but not like the downsides that come that. You have to take the good and bad with everything.
Right. That is probably the OP's point, and it is a stupid point.

I have yet to encounter a single ''downside'' of marrying a feminist man. I adore him and he adores me and that has not changed in 15 years. I don't think most non-feminist men really grasp how good it can be in such a relationship. These feminist men so reviled by misogynists are the ones getting all the steaks and blowjobs while their own relationships are falling apart and they will never understand why. But let's assume for the sake of argument that anything resembling chivalry must die alongside misogyny. I would have a million doors slammed in my face if it would have meant not being blamed and ostracized by my family for my own sexual abuse. I would open a thousand jars to have not gone through the unimaginable pain of that experience. It's not even in the same ballpark of relevancy. This idea that women should be willing to make these insignificant sacrifices in exchange for our basic safety is condescending as hell, and indicates a fundamental misunderstanding about why feminism exists in the first place.
Quote:
Applebee's
Protip for the gentlemen: We definitely don't want that.

Last edited by Spice Weasel; 04-22-2017 at 11:16 AM.
  #100  
Old 04-22-2017, 06:11 PM
jsgoddess jsgoddess is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: DC area
Posts: 29,229
These threads aren't a glimpse into the way feminists think; they are a glimpse into the way non-feminists think. People who think there actually is a trade off, that people can't be courteous if they aren't sexist. Apparently that men can't have libidos if they aren't sexist, either.

It's always the same names, too, popping up over and over. As if the board had sexist psoriasis.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017