Anybody whose understanding of feminism is so off-base that he thinks it’s about holding doors open should not claim to be a feminist on a date. Or at any other occasion. In fact, this person should just stay silent when the subject of feminism comes up.
oh, I see what you mean.
the OP is wrong! 
+1
It’s always the door thing for people who struggle with feminism. It’s like that’s their sum total of gender relations.
Try to imagine a man whining “Why didn’t you leave the toilet seat up for me?”
The toilet lid should be closed, not because “feminism!” but so that you don’t spread shit all over the bathroom. :rolleyes:
If dude is making a point of telling me what kindly gestures he’s NOT going to do for me, it actually doesn’t matter what his rationale is. It’s gonna be a turn off regardless. Women aren’t looking for men who politicize something as petty as opening a damn door.
It would be like a woman telling a first date that she is never going to cook or make herself look sexy for him, not because she can’t but because she’s a “true feminist”. Sane people don’t talk like this.
If a guy didn’t announce his aversion to these gestures and simply didn’t do them, I probably wouldn’t notice it unless he was being rude. Like, asking me out and then suggesting I pay. Or just standing there watching me carry things without offering a hand. In other words, basically not even showing me same level of courtesy a normal person would show a stranger.
Not a woman, but if one of my friends asked my advice about someone who did that, I’d tell her to run like hell.
Life is too short to be dating a bitter man who can’t figure out how to navigate life better than that.
There are people who don’t understand that a guy can carry something heavy simply because he’s the stronger one and it’s not a reflection of his politics and it doesn’t instantly mean that locks him and her into every outdated stereotype from the 1950s?
Actually, I’d tell her to drop him because he sounds too much like my brother-in-law and having one misogynist that I’m forced to interact with is too much.
I personally dislike men calling themselves feminists anyway, but men who appropriate the word feminist in order to justify refusing to do nice things for women are a special kind of asshat.
I fully agree that making a point of telling people about it is the issue. It just cannot come off well. It just inherently seems bitter or haughty. If you think it’s not the thing you should be doing, just don’t do it. Maybe, if feminism comes up in conversation, then it makes sense to talk about it.
I’m definitely of the persuasion that most of the stuff that survives today is just stuff you should do either way. I’ll hold the door for anyone behind me if they’re close enough that my going in would mean the door would close in their face. (Though, if possible, I do the whole “door handoff” thing where you open the door wide and let them grab it.)
And, if I’m dating someone, I’m going to be doing little things to be nice, just in the context of dating. If I were to ever date a man, I would do those same little things. Unless, of course, he tells me (verbally or through nonverbal signals) that he prefers me not to do them, just like I would with a woman.
Anyone can SAY they’re anything. What do their actions indicate?
Seat, not lid. I’m pretty sure my wife would comment if I left the lid down, too. But, no, nothing to do with feminism in either case.
When I was dating, I always paid my own way. I would never expect anyone to open a car door for me. “Being protective in potentially hazardous situations”? Like what? I can’t think of any situations in my life when I have been protected by a man.
But if a man declared that he would not do these things because he was a feminist, I would (like others in this thread) seriously question whether he understood what feminism actually meant. To me, it sounds more like a) a misunderstanding of ordinary human relations and b) a generalized hostility toward women (“I know exactly what you women want but I’m not going to do it, so there!”). Yeah, I think I’d run a mile from a guy like that.
Cite?
Did you read as far as this, in the article you linked?:
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?”
Granted, if Astro’s guy is going to say “true” feminist instead of just claiming to be a feminist, that invites the sort of dong-measuring and litmus tests that ideological weirdos get off on whether they’re feminists, Christians, liberals, conservatives or Star Wars fans.
It is perfectly legitimate for a male person to take the stance that he does not subscribe to different behavioral norms based on sex, and that therefore he does not perform standardized deferential / chivalrous male behaviors on dates.
I would not recommend that he explain this by saying “I am a feminist”. Being a feminist is generally understood to be aligned directly with women’s self-defined interests. It is 100% true that feminism is also the primary expression of a disavowal of sexism in general and on principle, but to say “because I am a feminist” positions oneself as doing things (or, in this case, NOT doing these things) in support of women. Far better to explain that he embraces sex-neutral behavioral standards for his own reasons and that he doesn’t think he is doing women a favor by not opening the door for them, etc.
Depends on the individual woman.
Is that his real reason for doing this, to impress egalitarian women? Sorry, but that’s kind of naive bordering on stupid. Perhaps you believe this is already a world largely scoured of sexist attitudes and expectations or perhaps you don’t; let’s look —
• If she’s feminist in attitude and expectation and yet she doesn’t typically encounter a lot of sexist behavior on dates, she will be oblivious to the fact that you/he is not acting like a chivalrously sexist old-fashioned male; she will not expect otherwise and you don’t get brownie points for not being a dinosaur; at best you don’t get negative assessments
• If she’s old-fashioned herself, she will feel slighted or insulted or otherwise unpleasantly surprised by your behavior;
• If she’s aspiring to a feminist viewpoint but still encounters a lot of sexist behaviors including the chivalrous condescending type, she may be bracing for the probability that he/you will do them too. If you/he don’t, while at the same time managing not to convey a sense of waiting to be awarded brownie points for not doing so, it may work in your favor, but that depends on her noticing the absence of a behavior when the behavior is one she doesn’t appreciate. I’ll be charitable and say in this situation you have a chance for some positive recognition and not just the absence of negative ones
• Whether she is feminist or old-fashioned nonfeminist, in any situation where the chivalrously sexist rules just happen to concide with an opportunity to be courteously nice to someone (holding the door for someone because you happen to have gotten to it first and not because you have male parts and she has female parts, for instance), and you don’t do it, you may be perceived as a not very thoughtful or courteous person, on top of which you may be perceived as someone who is deliberately not doing chivalrous things, which to the nonfeminist woman can be unsettling and experienced as insulting, whereas to the feminist woman it can be seen as waiting for those brownie points, which is irritating and especially so if it goes in conjunction with you being discourteous in the process.
In short, if you don’t want to do the male-chivalry conventional gendered dating behavior thing, do so for yourself, for your own damn reasons. Don’t expect it to impress women. Explaining it (once, and not as a challenge or a solicitation for approval for being such a wonderfully nonsexist fellow) is not a bad idea, but I’d totally do so as part of a larger conversation about not buying into sexist expectations and gendered role scripts.
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.
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.
I normally split or alternate dinner checks on dates, and don’t do the ‘manners’ style of opening doors (that is, I’ll hold the door when we’re both trying to go through, but I don’t walk around the car to open her door, or open one door, let her through, then rush to the second door). I’ll tend to take tasks that require more strength or especially height, but on more of an ‘even split’ or ‘it’s no trouble’ than ‘it’s my duty as a man’ basis.
Like everything else, whether a particular set of actions makes someone ‘more attractive’ or ‘less attractive’ depends on whose attraction you’re looking at. I know a lot of women who strongly prefer to split the bill and won’t go on a second date if the guy insists on paying the first time, so the hypothetical guy is obviously going to be more attractive to them. To answer the thread title, the actions other than the argument are certainly ‘OK’ for a lot of the dating pool, and especially for the part that’s of interest to me.
I think that trying to measure ‘does this make me more attractive to women/men in general’ is complete waste of time. You’re not dating all of the women in the country at once, you’re going to be looking at a specific pool that’s already narrowed down a lot by things like age, relationship type, religion, drug/alcohol use, financial status, location, and so on. The fact that not doing the ‘chivalrous’ stuff makes you less attractive on average to women in their 50s (as a guess) isn’t really relevant if you’re looking to date women around 30. The fact that not paying makes you less attractive to women looking for a sugar daddy isn’t a problem if you aren’t interested in an arrangement like that.
By the oft-cited definition “Feminism is the radical notion that women are people” then the guy in the question is clearly a Feminist. Other definitions include lots of other ideas, many of which I don’t agree with like ‘trans women are men in disguise,’ or ‘any woman choosing to be a homemaker is not a feminist’, so I generally don’t find the term useful. I avoid the term myself because of that, and you really have to state which version of ‘feminist’ you mean if you want to discuss “true”. Also discussing being a ‘true’ X tends to be a hostile and obnoxious position, so the ‘true feminist’ claim is off-putting on it’s own.
Indeed. If I claim to be a “true feminist,” I’m making a concurrent claim that there are characters gamboling about who are not true feminists. I don’t care to go down that path. It’s both divisive and immaterial.