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.
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.
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?
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.
A man can still be a gentleman and treat a woman as a lady, and still be supportive of feminist issues like equal pay.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Classist as well, as it refers to expectations of and about specific social classes.
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.
:rolleyes:
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”.
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.
This. Male “radical feminists” are the absolute worst in my experience.
Just popping in to say that this is one of the nicest things I’ve ever read.
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.
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.
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.
What she said.