I kind of get this, but this also on some level creeps me out…I mean, I definitely spend time on looking good, but it also puts me in mind of the whole “women are meant to look good,” unreasonable standard of beauty crap that I already get every minute of every day.
Actually, I posted something in the eating thread that kind of makes me realize why I hate the word “ladylike” so much. There’s a moment in “Gone With the Wind” where Mammy is making Scarlet “pre-game” (stuffing her with food) before they go to some picnic, the point being that if Scarlet is already full, she won’t stuff herself with food and look unladylike–it’s ladylike to seem delicate and to only pick at your food. It’s been years since I read that, but it disturbed me so much, I’ve never been able to forget it.
And there’s also the argument that “gentlemen” were meant to treat “ladies” with respect, chivalry, etc…the only problem being that “ladies” meant the white upper class echelon of society. And then that puts me in mind of Sojourner Truth’s “Ain’t I a Woman” speech.
I understand where you’re coming from here. Don’t get me wrong, if viewed from the perspective of only specific aspects, anything can be ugly. It’s like how some women have this (OPINION ALERT)really fucked up belief that chivalry and women’s lib are mutually exclusive. They are not. Or rather, they don’t have to be. I make $4 more and hour than my husband does in his regulard job (he makes more than I when he is on active duty with the military), but I still expect him to open doors for me, etc. The two have nothing to do with one another.
What cracks me up about your reference to the Scarlett O’Hara thing is that one of the things drilled into our heads in some of the etiquette classes I took as a child was that we should never pick at our food on a date. We should eat – with proper manners and not stuff ourself, but eat nonetheless. Never order only a salad, or worse, order a full meal and only pick at it. That is rude to the man (or woman) with whom you are dining (assuming they paid).
Again, though, it all boils down to what notion you have of the words. Definitions are flexible and it’s pretty obvious in this thread and the other that we all seem to have different definitions here. For me, growing up and now as I teach my own children, ladylike and gentlemanly are generic terms for “civilised people” or “how you should act in public.” Not some fucked-up gender role idiocy. My daughter is a tomboy of the highest order. She can throw a hell of a punch and likes to pick up toads and throw them at the Not-Boyfriend™ (mainly because he squeals like a girl when she does!), but in public? She acts like a lady. She says yes sir/no sir/yes ma’am/no ma’am/please/thank you/etc. She allows the men to do the things like opening doors and lifting heavy objects and she smiles and is polite. It’s the way she has been brought up, and, no doubt the way she will bring her children up – if she decides to have any!
Chivalry isn’t always about subjugating women, it’s also about allowing the man to feel useful. Can I open a door for myself? Of course I can, but then why the hell do I keep my husband around, right?
All jokes aside. Times change. People change. Attitudes change. We all have choices, and my choice is to not be with a man who doesn’t see me as an object of desire for whom he should do the small things. It’s not a one-way street for me, either. It is a trade-off, like featherlou said. I cook, I clean (although he helps…occasionally), I do most of the taking care of the kids stuff, and I don’t mind. There are some things women are simply more naturally inclined to than men, and vice versa – chivalry is an outreach of that. Meh…I am rambling, sorry. It’s a long weekend and I am eager to be by the pool basking in the sun, so I will jump off my soapbox and pretend to do some work for a few more hours.
Best response yet. I am not sure why some folks think that these two terms carry some sort of gender-oppressive overtones, but when I was raised in the 1960s and 70s, and when I raised my own kids, in the 80s and 90s, (yes, there was quite a big gap between the two kids ages, why do you ask? :D), the above is all the two terms meant, no other hidden meanings.
If people believe otherwise, they’re likely projecting their own feelings onto the words.
Maybe this is a bit of a hijack, but I’m mind-boggled by your examples.
1.) Married people of both sexes are at least socially, if not legally, restricted in having lovers on the side, and why should they NOT be? If you want a polygamous lifestyle, you should not deceive potential partners into thinking you are monogamous!
2.)Do you have hard data to back this up? I have no idea if this is true or not, it seems that I have heard and read of many women who take advantage of sperm banks, if there are restrictions, from what I understand, they are not for the gender of the person being “restricted” but rather to ensure that the potential child will be taken care of.
3.) ??? Back to what I said on #1, it’s frowned upon (not to mention illegal), for people of EITHER sex to murder their wife or SO, lover or no lover. Men don’t have carte blanch in this area.
4.) Pregnancy and all of the issues it entails is a hot topic, not just abortion, and brings pressure to bear for both sexes. A husband or lover pressuring a wife or SO to have, or keep a baby is not a “restriction” any more than a woman hiding the fact that she’s stopped taking birth control and has tricked the man into having a baby is a “restriction”. And that is most CERTAINLY is against a man’s will. Unless the man drugs, binds and delivers the woman to the abortionists location (or birthing center not to be released until the child hatches) himself, he’s not “forcing her against her will”. His pressuring her, whether threatening to leave her, or whatever is merely part and parcel of the lovely and sucky world of relationships in this brave new world.
5.) Ya got me there. Now that is a true restriction.
Women are not allowed to volunteer for Submarine duty in the US Navy.
Not including pilots and aircrew, from what I understand, women are not allowed to be in direct combat arms specialties in the Armed Forces (Air Force lets women be Security Forces, but I’m not sure if that is officially considered a combat arm or not).
Until very very recently, women could not fly for the US Air Force Thunderbirds (due to the fact that, until relatively recently, women could not fly in combat, and only combat pilots could fly for the Thunderbirds).
And I don’t know if there are any female Army Rangers or Navy Seals or Force Recon Marines or Para-Rescue Airmen running around, but if you see any, let me know.
The Selective Service thing, if anything, is more a problem for males than the lack of their ability to participate in it is a problem for females.
Judith: [on Stan’s desire to be a mother] Here! I’ve got an idea: Suppose you agree that he can’t actually have babies, not having a womb - which is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans’ - but that he can have the right to have babies.
Francis: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother… sister, sorry.
Reg: What’s the point?
Francis: What?
Reg: What’s the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can’t have babies?
Francis: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
Reg: It’s symbolic of his struggle against reality.
Cute, and on the surface, a refutation of equality. Then you move on to whether men have the right to apply for ‘maternity’ leave after the baby has been born. What happened here was the usual jokes, a bit of discussion and then the realisation that men can care for infants even if they can’t incubate them. Parental leave entitlements followed.
I was just making a joke. On some Latin thread, I’ll have to post the exchange where the Roman makes Brian write “Romans go home” correctly, 100 times.
I haven’t read the rest of the thread yet, but to this I have to say, “NO.” I do not expect deferential treatment. Sure I expect a man to hold the door open for me, I but I would expect a woman to hold the door too, and I also as a habit hold the door open for anyone behind me. I don’t think this is unusual, is it? It seems to be a habit of most people to hold doors for other people.
In terms of carrying things, I hate it when men offer to carry things for me and unless I’m actually struggling with something too heavy for me, I’ll say no, that’s ok, I’ll carry it. The presumption that I am weak is rude. One instance is when my husband and I were moving, and my father-in-law helped. He saw me pick up a small table, which was not at all heavy, and said “don’t lift that, I’ll get it.” He swooped in and carried it inside and I was left standing there and thinking, ok, if I’m not supposed to lift that, then what am I supposed to lift?
My mom tried to get me to behave when I was little by saying things like, “if you do that, you’ll never get your prince!” Unfortunately for her, I had no interest in getting a prince, particularly not at the age of 6.
Not surprisingly, I would not use the term ladylike or gentlemanlike with my (future) children. I wouldn’t yell at someone if they chose to use those terms when correcting my children’s behavior, but they would not be my terms of choice. After all, why use a word like “ladylike” which certainly does have baggage associated with it, when you could use “good manners”, “polite”, or a host of other equally good words?
Forgot to respond to this. As a woman in a male-dominated science field, I can tell you that there are plenty of men who think that women are inherently not as capable in science/math as men. I’ve had one man, who was otherwise a nice guy, say this directly to my face. There was also the whole Larry Summers controversy. And finally, there’s the example of my own department where one of the professors is a single mother. Every time she does not attend the pub after seminar, I hear a comment about her from one of the other (male) professors, and they are never kind. There is an obvious dislike of her in the department and from what I can tell it is only because she has obligations outside of work. None of the male professors, including those with small children, seem to have this problem.
So, no, legally, no one restricts the actions of girls/women very much, but socially, hell yes there are expectations, biases and pressure that come from being female. Sure, there are pressures for males too, but those pressures tend to be mostly of the “do” rather than the “do not” variety.
I know a guy who goes to party bars. His intention is to hook up, he wants to get laid. He has, however, been known to indicate to a gal that such is his intention, go back to his (or her) apartment, then change his mind, perhaps deciding she’s a bit of a skank, that she looks less cute in a better light, or that her behavior has changed once he got her away from the bar environment and he doesn’t want anything to do with her now that he sees what she’s like.
No one has been known to make any serious attempt to convince him that, having indicated to these females a desire to have sex with them, and then accompanied them to an apartment, he has forfeited any right to change his mind and refuse sexual services once he gets there.
Do you wish to contend that no one says to females that they are out of line to expect to retain the right to change their minds if they have indicated interest in having sex and gone back to an apartment with a guy they met in a bar and flirted with?
AHunter, you raise a really good point. I’ve also been reading “Real Rape” by Susan Esterich–in a lot of cases like that (woman meeting a man with a bar, going home with him), the case isn’t seen as rape, or isn’t really rape in the strictest definition…to head off the objections of, “But rape is illegal so that doesn’t count.”
Expectations, biases and pressures are not “restrictions”.
I don’t agree that there are NO restrictions or attempts at restrictions, but…a LOT of the analogies or examples provided in this thread aren’t it.
Technical nitpick here (and not just to you two whom I’ve quoted here, either, you’re not the only ones in this thread), the word “restriction” is being used to describe a lot of actions and behaviours that don’t actually fit the definition of “restrict”.
re·strict Audio Help /rɪˈstrɪkt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-strikt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object)
to confine or keep within limits, as of space, action, choice, intensity, or quantity.
NOTE*** That is NOT to say that there are not still restrictions placed upon women which fall under the actual definition of “restriction”, but many of the posts in this thread, including the two quotes above, don’t.
Being snarky, insulting, jackassy and hopelessly stuck in the stone age, male chauvinistic piggyness does not equal “restriction”.
And no matter how someone (horny, soulless, manwhores) whines and blames you, as in the example given above of some guy trying to pressure a girl into having sex after they’ve already gotten home, if they’re wrong, and you have the freedom to do what you want to anyway, it’s not “restriction”. Now, if he bars the door and has his way anyway, hell YES that’s restriction, but griping, bitching and blaming? As long as he immediately backs off, then nope, not restriction.
No, it’s not unusual in my experience either; I do just the same. The first person at the door opens and holds; it’s just easier that way. But I think we’re talking about women who will get to the door first and just stand there waiting until the “gentleman” opens it for her. Yes, it happens. And not just when the woman is physically infirm or something. See post #77:
So here we have a whole family that deliberately makes their invited guest uncomfortable until he conforms to their expectations of deferential behavior. If he fails to do so, never fear! The gentlemanly 8-year-old is there to *publically draw attention to his *(supposed) faux pas. How cute! Miss Manners would be proud!
I believe she’s female, but are you saying that other people (men or women) have the ability to experience your reality?
Men can observe the world around them, just as women can, and it’s more likely that men will miss instances of oppression or restriction that women might not miss. But everyone’s experiences are different, and whether or not CanvasShoes is male or female shouldn’t have all that much bearing on the voice she’s giving to her experiences. Now it seems to me that from the tone of her posts that maybe she hasn’t run into as much female persecution as you might have, but they’re still the conclusions she’s drawn based on her experiences.
Sorry, CS, I wasn’t presuming to speak for you, I just hate when these threads turn into a “well I’m of the (gender/race/religion/language isolate/Antarctican species) that’s being discussed and you’re not, so my statements should be given more consideration.”
My Dad taught me that “holding doors” has nothing to do with who has which bits. Whenever two people meet at a doorway, the door should be held open by those whose holding of it speeds up passage. This means:
a person who’s fit holding it for someone who’s infirm,
a person who’s not carrying packages or children holding it for someone who is,
the person who pulls opening it for the one who’d push.
As you see, gender doesn’t come into play at all. Dad was as old-fashioned as they get, but a guy crossing the path in front of “his lady” in a failed attempt to display good manners that he wouldn’t display for a person in crutches would not have been classified under “G for gentleman,” rather under “M for moron”. I’ve been that “lady” several times and there’s favors I’ll rather do without, thanks.
I’ve spent quite some time with my 2-5yo Nephew this last weekend and thought of this thread every time we called him or my brothers “caballerete,” “caballerito” or “caballero.” That was quite a few times!
