“Insidious?” Coming it a little strong.
“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.
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.
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?
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.
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:
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.
I vote sexist, but it is rude not to unless asked not to.
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.
Emphasis added. You’re seriously quoting this as an example of this sort of behavior **not **being sexist?
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 alludes to 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.
Eye on the ball, please. Did you not note that I was responding to
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.
Highly probative.
Parenthetically, her father, brothers, and husband sound like horrible people.
Cool. We can get rid of restraining orders, VAWA, alimony, police force? Neato!
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.
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.
I’m still trying to figure out how these lady motorists made it all the way across town unescorted.
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.
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.