I think it’s really hard to understand it until you’ve been there.
I spent two years in China where I was, on a daily basis, subject to small annoying things that eventually add up. Sometimes it was outright offensive, such as people calling my friends spies and traitors or taxis refusing to pick me up. Sometimes it was entirely well-intentioned, like the inevitable photo shoots that would accompany me every time I stepped outside or the chorus of “Hull-ooooo!” that would echo around me as I walked down the street. The underlying theme, though, is that you are being made aware of your race every day. Your race is always the elephant in the room.
While some people enjoyed the attention at times, I don’t know any foreigner that didn’t eventually get really sick of it. And for quite a few foreigners it was a factor in their leaving. It’s hard to emphasize just how annoying it is.
Being back in the US as a white person is no comparison. None at all. I’m reminded of my race here maybe a couple times a year. I walk through the world without anyone thinking about my race. It’s not a part of my daily awareness. From my perspective, it’s just not there. I just get to be me, doing whatever I do, without this race thing being a part of the equation. It’s an incredibly freeing feeling, like having a weight taken off your shoulders.
Why are you assuming that the guy described in that comic is intended to represent all, or even most, men? Where are you getting the message “Men should not hold doors open for women,” from, when the comic gives an explicit moral that’s completely different: “Be polite to everyone regardless of gender,” and then underlines it by having a woman hold the door open for the clueless guy?
People need to lighten up; not everything is about you. Stop using nonsense in an attempt to earn social currency. What is getting offended an maybe an insincere apology going to get you?
There are times when real social change is needed (voting rights for everyone). Maybe we’re running out of the obvious stuff so people have started using their imaginations. The “champions” of this cause aren’t at the forefront of an egalitarian society, they have trouble dealing with reality.
The white guy part of me isn’t allowed to have any say in this type of matter, but I’m handicapped, and I have to use a wheelchair. How much credibility does that get me? Something about me that I have no control over does not define who I am as a person. Some places are not accessible. It would be nice if they were, but that’s life. Any of these ideas of what “should be” are arbitrary anyway.
Even places that are designated as “accessible” don’t always work for me. It wasn’t done intentionally as an attack against me personally. It sucks, and it is not uncommon. Everyone has their own challenges. Focus on what you can do to better your own situation instead of trying to control the behavior of others.
People treat me differently because I’m different. This ranges from sometimes being a benefit to me, to others when it’s awkward for everyone involved. Every second of my day could be filled with “microaggressions” if I really wanted to look for them. I have better things to do.
People are free to do what they want. However, if, after having been politely informed (as we are doing here on this very website) that there are certain behaviours that are inconsequential enough that from the “Doer’s” point of view they seem a trivial or jovial thing, but that are also so commonly done to them that from the “Reciever’s” point of view they are boorish, troublesome and kind of insulting, and you don’t stop doing it, then you are not a very nice person.
I understand that it’s difficult to put yourself in the shoes of others, but it doesn’t cost you anything make small accomodations to others feelings instead of accusing them of being thin-skinned or liars.
Question: put aside the word for now. Would you agree that we are seeing the need to have a different discussion around prejudice? Because of the video evidence we are now seeing too much of, the investigations showing structural prejudice in police forces, and the use of social media to mobilize groups who have some traction? A lot is going on, right?
Things have changed, and we are figuring out what that means. The discussion about the “microagressions,” by any name, is part of that.
You can argue that “microaggressions,” (again, by any name), should not be “in scope” for this new discussion of deep-rooted prejudice.
The real argument, though, is about how much we need to look at ourselves and our daily habits. If this deep-rooted prejudice is real, and we see daily reminders that have to change, e.g., removing a Confederate Flag, or addressing Woodrow Wilson’s racism on campus, is it surprising that this type of behavior is, at least, being questioned in that same way? What “little habits” are so deeply woven into our communities that we can’t see them? For a long time, that was the argument keeping the Confederate Flag in place, right? As person in the white “majority” I am at least trying to listen to the voices I am hearing. Some of it does sound Precious Snowflake, but I can’t throw out the whole discussion because there is some overshooting going on.
Because, for the third time, how on Earth does the woman having the door held for her know that the man doesn’t hold the door open for everyone? All she knows is that he held the door open for her, and the rest is some sort of weird fantasy world.
Nobody holds the door open only for women. The fact that this comic drew a fedora wearing non-existent stereotype notwithstanding.
It’s not the holding the door, it’s the gendered comment “After you, my lady”, which is there to make it very clear to the woman that he’s holding the door specifically because and only because she’s a “lady”–not just female, but the right kind of female (young pretty women get so many more comments like that than middle aged or unattractive women) That’s the micro-aggression–by walking through the door, she’s accepting the comment, she’s tacitly approving of the idea that she should get little stupid favors because she’s a weak female, and that she’s supposed to be grateful. But she can’t react to the comment because if she does, she’s a bitch.
I promise, it’s the comment, not the door. And maybe you think that no one actually says shit like that, it’s hyperbole, like the fedora, but I promise you, it’s not.
Has this actually ever happened to you? On a frequent basis?
I ask, because I generally hold the door open for anyone in my vicinity and let them go first, and I’ve not had anyone get outwardly upset, much less confrontational. At most, I may get a “thanks, I’ve got it”, then I let them get it and go about my business. Do some people see this as rude? I’m sure they do, but dwelling on it any more than that is unnecessary, in my experiences. I’d be damned if I stand there and start explaining to anyone why I’m holding a door open-- we’d both have better things to do.
Thus, I’ve not once been made to feel like an ironclad asshole, but that’s probably because most people are reasonable/civil, in person. On the internet you’ll certainly find a host of vocal and unreasonable people, but when encountered in real life, it’s infinitely more easy to placate the situation and disengage.
You’re opinion seems to be the minority. Everywhere I look, the simple act of holding the door is a microaggression regardless of intent. So, the word means everything and nothing. The act of holding the door for people is “chivalry” which is defined by the author as “microaggressions: small acts of condescension, steeped in implicit and explicit assumptions that women are delicate, incapable, and need to be tended to.”
People make comments when holding the door all the time. It’s an awkward moment, which men often handle, with men and women, by making some awkward comment. Just because a man says to me, “After you, sir!” (which happens once in awhile) doesn’t mean he is trying to subjugate me. A fedora wouldn’t change my opinion. You don’t get to pretend to be able to read minds in order to make a point.
Also, as long as anecdotes = data, wouldn’t my experiences be equal data? The flip side, as a man, would be that I should be experiencing the other side of this? Notably in the form of men who are only holding the door open for women, and thus having doors consistently closed in my face (by men wearing fedoras, apparently)? I haven’t experienced this, so why should my data, which you could have no experience with, be discounted?
No, we’re on the same page. Your experience is identical to mine because this is an internet comment board (and apparently everydayfeminist.com comic) problem exclusively unless you really want it to be a problem, in which case it can be invented as one.
Presumably, to please some, you should never have any interaction, even indirect, with anybody else without asking first . Although I assume they mean it to only apply to men interacting with women (and if they don’t, then logically nobody can interact with anybody since how can you check if your interaction is welcomed without interacting?).
So that. Of course, in the strip, they set the situation so that the man is opening the door only to women he’s attracted to. But the woman doesn’t know that and still it’s assumed she’s right to be unhappy about the situation (and the reason given “not forcing yourself in her space without checking first” applies equally whether or not the man only hold the door for attractive women). This is obviously added to frame the character as unsympathetic, so that a message that otherwise would be deemed nonsentical by pretty much everybody (someone holding the door for someone else is an asshole because he’s intruding into personal space and asserting dominance).
Odd setup to enable the condescending feminist fairy lecture. It has to turn the door opening man into a lecherous clown vs the 99.9999% of men who (if they hold or proactively open the door) do so for both sexes as a culturally wired in polite social behavior.
Even in that article, the author makes a clear distinction between holding a door for someone, and holding a door for a woman because she’s a woman. There is a difference. Stripped of context, it’s impossible to tell, but 99% of the time, things aren’t stripped of context. I work with people who hold doors for people and people who hold doors for women. The difference is pretty noticeable over the years.
So now you know. A lot of women don’t like gendered comments when you hold a door. Don’t stop holding doors. But don’t say things to a woman you wouldn’t say to a man.
I don’t think we are saying men get doors slammed in their face. The issue is with door-holding that is exaggerated or prolonged or made ceremonial. The same man might hold a door for another man, but he doesn’t make a deal out of it. It’s the deal that can feel icky and manipulative.
Because it’s not talking about the 99.999% of door holding men. It’s talking about the 1% who make it a point to draw attention that they are holding the door for you because of a male/female dynamic and that they wouldn’t think of holding a door for a man in the same way.
So, again, the article is not claiming that holding a door for someone is always a microagression regardless of intent. You’ve also ignored the context of the article, which is specifically about men the author is already dating, and not random dudes she happens to encounter near entrances to buildings. Which means she’s not just “imagining” or “inventing” these attitudes, as you claimed about the previous comic.
*"I often have the experience of explaining that I am a feminist and that social equity is very important to me. Men (particularly men who have some type of potential romantic interest in me), will frequently respond by affirming their approval of gender equity and then, IN THE SAME BREATH, will say something patently sexist.
It goes like this:
Me: “I’m a feminist and social justice advocate. Social equity is really important to me and social justice education is one of my passions.”
Man: “Yeah, that’s cool. Equality is great. I totally believe in that. As long as you’re okay with me holding doors for you/me paying for your dinner/taking a guy’s name when you get married/you shave your armpits/ you are not always talking about feminist stuff.”
What I hear: “I don’t know what feminism is. I’m going to tell you that it’s okay so I don’t look like an asshole, but I still expect you to submit to small acts of condescension and injustice in your daily life so I don’t have to be made uncomfortable with reckoning with you as my true social, economic, and intellectual equal and so I can feel like I’m a good guy.”*
She is not limiting it to men who she is romantically involved in. All men who hold the door open for her are assholes unless they actively interrogate their motives each time.
You know what’s macroaggressive? Thinking you get to tell me what my motivations are and trying to pretend you get to tell me when and how I interrogate them. I know why I hold the door open. I don’t need anyone to tell me why. I’ll continue to hold the door open for everyone, only because this is, again, not a real issue in the real world, but a pretend issue, though for what purpose it makes people feel good to pretend that this offensive, I wouldn’t begin to understand.
And making up motivations in my head for other people’s actions is not my thing, as I’ve mentioned.
That’s “holding doors for you” in the context of all these other traditional assertions of a system the author is uncomfortable with. It’s “Me being the one that takes charge of everything, from opening doors to defining our family with my name”. It’s a spectrum, and insisting on opening doors–on being the default door opener–is the beginning.
I’m perfectly happy to admit that many times men opening doors for women are just being friendly and there’s nothing gendered about it. I tend to assume that’s the case. But can you be open to the idea that there is an incorrect way to open a door, that there might be a time or a place that a man could open a door and his body language, his words, his pattern of behavior towards others might suggest that when he opens a door for me, he’s asserting something unpleasant about his attitude toward me because of my gender?
I’m not saying it’s impossible, merely that all the accounts of these apparently common doorway microaggressinos, including your own:
require you to read another person’s mind and, I don’t think you’re any better or worse at that than anyone else. If someone is making a face when you hold open the door, it might (and probably does) have absolutely nothing to do with you.
It reminds me of another microaggression where men shouldn’t tell women to smile. I mean, who are you to tell this person that he has the wrong facial expression?
That’s kind of the point. I don’t know it about any one guy. I can’t assume it about any one guy. I wouldn’t. But when it piles up, day after day after day, am I bad person, a presumptive bitch, if it gets to me?
And understand, I don’t feel like door-opening rises to my level in my life. But I know how I feel when someone seems upset with me for opening the door for them, and I can imagine what it would be like if there were little moments like that every day, every week. I can imagine how helpless and powerless you’d feel and I’m happy to talk to them about the experience and help them come up with ways to stop it without just making people angry, or to accept it with a better frame of mind. I’m eager to be educated if I am part of the problem.
What I hear you saying is that if someone feels like these sorts of things happen a lot, they are being over sensitive, or imagining things, or being a bad person because they see a pattern when they can’t be positive, in any individual case, that there is one. And it’s true. No (or few) individual cases are the smoking gun. But that doesn’t mean that they are making it up, and that many, many of those cases aren’t rooted in bigotry.
Okay, “dating” wasn’t the most accurate word. But you’ve been arguing that women complaining about this issue are just making assumptions about why men hold open doors, and the part you just quoted demonstrates precisely the opposite: she’s not complaining about every time a man holds a door for a woman, but only when men do it out of a particular motivation, which she has ascertained they hold through talking to them.
Likewise, you keep misconstruing that comic you linked to earlier as being about any guy holding a door open for a woman, completely ignoring the part where he berates a woman for not being grateful to him. Why are you completely excising this part of the comic from your analysis? Do you berate women who don’t say thank you when you hold doors for them? No? Then, again, why do you think that comic is about you?
Jesus. When you see anti-domestic violence PSAs, do you have this same reaction, because you have never hit your girlfriend? Yeah, you’re not a sexist when you hold open a door for a woman. Neither am I. That doesn’t mean that no man who ever holds a door open for a woman is doing it because they’re at least a little bit sexist, and calling out those men, in particular is not a criticism of men in general.
Again, this isn’t about your head. This is about a particular behavior exhibited by some (not all, not most, but some) men, that’s annoying and unappreciated. If you do not exhibit this behavior, than neither that comic, nor that article, applies to you.
And if she is confirming her suspicions through discussion and the guy really is trying to exert some form of dominance, then I have no problem with her considering him an asshole. Largely because he’s an asshole.
So, we’re in agreement here.
I think we’re also in agreement, that very often, men just hold the door open for women, and there is no nefarious intent.
So, we’re agreeing on the vast majority of human interactions! That ain’t bad!
The only place we’re disagreeing is the grey area where some aggression is being assumed. I’m willing to concede that there probably are times when there is some odd sort of psychology at play. But, I also think that most of the time offense is being assumed when none is there.
I’m considering that I have an odd psychology because I really take almost nothing personally!