Benevolent sexism - should men hold doors open?!

Obviously, that condition was imposed by strong union branches, rather than the employers themselves.

A closed shop was where membership of a specific union was a condition of employment. That made unions very strong both in the public and private sectors.

It was changed along with other laws relating to union membership under employment legislation in the early '80s. Some I agreed with, some I didn't.

Union membership and the image of unions can be said to have gone through the same trashing as feminists and the image of feminism and by the same people - those with a vested interest in portraying both as bad, shameful and irrelevant in order to keep power in their hands.

I've got to work now. I'll probably be back. It's a pet subject.

swallowed Print works were scary places in the '80s and before. My managing editor and production editor dressed it up as chivalry but their biggest fear was a walkout if they dared to discipline a printer.

This was pre-Wapping when the NGA was incredibily strong. Not only was printing a closed shop but they wouldn't allow women. Ostensibly it was because they said women would depress the wages. But in reality they wouldn't allow anyone who wasn't a white, working-class male.

The NGA was destroyed in the Wapping dispute and though I'm pro-union I don't miss those particular bastards at all.

Probably a bit obvious.

But how to interpret if a man opens a door for another man?

I mean what's the hidden symbolism behind that?

Or is that supposed to be some kind of subconscious gay emotion in play?

Or is it just because, hey, its just helpful, and being humans who live in a society, sometimes, just sometimes we all act...well human.

If a man opens a door for me, well that's nice. But I will open the door for a man, a woman, watch men open doors for men.

Do I need some kind of spreadsheet to work out what all the possible permutations mean? When or when not to feel insulted, betrayed, a victim of the 'patriarchal system'.

I open the door for my cat. How should I interpret that?

The 'symbolism' of things is taken a little too far on occasions; trying to find meaning in everything.

And then, before you know it, you tip over the cliff and end up in a David Icke world, similar to the American loopiness linked below, with the 'patriarchy' sounding horribly similar to SPECTRE from James Bond. When that happens (and regrettably I see and read it a lot) every, absolutely every single interaction between females and males is determined to have some sort of hidden meaning with an associated conspiracy theory.

Lady Gaga?s ?Alejandro?: The Occult Meaning

ps MoreBeta Those police officers and my production editor believed they were being benevolent and protecting me from nasty men. Nasty in different ways, more like.

When pressed about their obstruction of my right to do my job, they professed bafflement at my attitude and when pressed 'jokily' expressed the opinion that I was over-reacting and a 'feminist' ho-ho-ho. I believe that was their way of warning me that I was in danger of becoming unattractive, man-hating and unnatural in their eyes.

I've no idea whether that was their genuine view. In truth, I think they were too muddle-headed and threatened to hold any coherent views.

princehumperdinck it would get in feminist-friendly media but it wouldn't get in mainstream newspapers and that's where it should go - because it's the practice in mainstream papers. And let's go round again...

To explain the sick reasoning: Years ago a friend was covering one of Jack Nicholson's jaunts to London for a tabloid. He attended a lap-dancing club accompanied by a baying entourage of paps.

At the end of the night he left for his hotel suite with two dancers. The next morning one of the women ostentatiously posed for photos pulling open the curtains of his suite naked.

My friend got chatting to her and it transpired that Nicholson took the bed and ordered them to sleep elsewhere in the suite. He couldn't get it up. Not that bad for a tired 60-something in a big hotel room but the horrible thing was that she said he'd stiffed them over their payment for the night (negotiated at a modest rate owing to his celebrity) and told them to fuck off when they argued.

My friend thought it was laughable that a billionaire Jack the Lad was not only impotent but bilked sex-workers over their cut-price fee. Her news editor disagreed and tiring of her arguments said: 'Jack Nicholson is a fucking legend. People (meaning the news editor and his fragile, limp-dicked ego) don't want to read from a fucking whore that he can't get it up.'

MoreBeta that's why I was motivated to post. I would have liked it if the authors of the research had concentrated on the stories of people like me and your wife rather than concentrating on vague stories about opening doors that are ripe for ridicule. However, seeing as you knew these things happened, it would have also been nice for you to have told of your wife's experiences.

With her permission, of course.

limitedperiodonly - the examples you gave of overt and benevolent sexism in your industry make a lot more sense to me than the academic paper cited in the article. Its obvious how the examples of benevolent and overt sexism you describe are interlinked. DW faced similar when she worked in The City.

You should write about it.

Reading all these posts, all but one or two people understand the concept the researchers are getting at.

So I've decided to no longer tolerate or make excuses for those people. In words they might understand: 'You are being mulish and wilfully offensive, but that's all right. I'll let you off, Lovies.'

What I wish the researchers had explored were other examples of benevolent sexism that actively exclude women from jobs and other status activities rather than create a climate of exclusion in general.

Few examples from my experience as a journalist which I bring up because it's always angered me but also because I'm appalled by the attitude of that Telegraph journalist. Maybe she was happy to report on shoes and kittens. I wasn't. This was a while ago but it still happens. They've just learned to be a little more subtle about it.

So: not being allowed to attend the print works to sign off final proofs because 'printers are animals, Love'.

Insisting on visiting the print works, because it was my job and a path to promotion and better pay, and having obscenities, plastic bags containing fuck knows what and metal objects thrown at me and being told: 'I told you they were like that, Love.'

Obviously no question of disciplining the offenders under HR rules [joke] or calling the police for assault.

Actually, I don't think the police would have been that bothered since I've been told countless times by male police officers that 'this isn't a very nice story, don't they have a bloke in your office?'

Having a coroner's officer (male) suggest I shouldn't be reporting on a case of erotic auto-asphixia because it was 'er, not very nice, but I can't really explain why.' When I said I'd be okay he brought this to the attention of the coroner behind my back. For my own good, obviously. The male coroner told him not to be so ridiculous, so luckily not all men are like that.

Interesting, this one: in a newsroom having men try to intimidate you by swearing and when confronted with the same language having them behave as if you have destroyed their faith in womankind.

Some of these men boasted about not swearing in front of 'real ladies' but wouldn't condemn men who gave uppity bitches a slap when driven to it.

I've hogged this. I'm really interested to hear other experiences of how benevolent sexism holds you back. Not for an article, I promise, but it's always angered me.

There is also a difference between "helping to carry" and "carrying". If there are, say, four bags of shopping and two people who aren't carrying something else or doing something else physical then in the overwhelming majority of cases the most practical option is for both of them to be carrying some of it, with the greater part carried by the stronger/fitter person

"Just by observing me offer to carry a woman's shopping and assuming sexism - well thats madness. A casual observer has no idea why I offer to carry my wife's shopping."

Well we agree there. As does everyone on this thread.

If the Appendix B you quotes lists "offering to carry a woman's shopping" as an example of sexism, then I would disagree with Appendix B and would say that may be an example of sexism but it depends on the motive for offering. Just because Appendix B oversimplifies doesn't mean all feminists do.

Tortoise - I dont understand your question.

Alice - I did look at the link. I know its not about sending threads of track.

I did also scan through the actual research paper cited by the newspaper article in the OP. In appendix B of the research paper, it highlights some examples of Benevolent Sexism that the study participants were asked to note and diarise during a week of study if they saw any examples of it in their daily life. From an academic research point of view, the study is potentially flawed in my view.

To take one example. Offering to help a woman carry heavy shopping bags (or offering her a seat on the train as my friend in the Middle East did) is not always an example of Benevolent Sexism in itself. It might just be an act of kindness. It is also undeniably true that on average men are stronger than women. Observing a man offering to carry shopping for a woman does not prove he is being sexist. He might be and he might not be. Indeed, he might be a sexist who is quite happy to let a woman struggle with heavy shopping and offer no help at all.

I offer to carry shopping for my wife because it just feels wrong for her to carry everything while I walk along with nothing in my hand. I also do it because she is not as strong as me and she genuinley finds it hard to walk a long distance with heavy shopping. She has told me this. I would do the same for my father, my FIL or a male friend. Just by observing me offer to carry a woman's shopping and assuming sexism - well thats madness. A casual observer has no idea why I offer to carry my wife's shopping.

In fact, if I met any of you and I didn't at least offer to help you carry your shopping if we were going in the same direction I would feel I was being very rude indeed.

All I am saying is jumping on innocent behaviour and labelling it as sexist is potentially very damaging when trying to get people to acknowledge and address more important issues.

Morebeta - look at the link. It's not about sending threads off track. It's about how to avoid seeing the point when discussing things with oppressed groups.

You're not pointing out inconsistencies that are uncomfortable. You are repeating the same points, that have been clearly refuted by many people, over and over and over. And the approaches you are taking are typical and covered in the link.

MoreBeta, are you derailed and distracted? Do you find the assertion "if an action, such as holding open a door, is taken solely because the other person in the situation is female, then it is prima facie sexist" to be so ludicrous that you no longer believe in equal pay and not raping people?

Or is it only other men on whose behalf you speak?

Exactly saf

It's not feminists who choose to focus on door holding and seat giving. For feminists these are minor issues which sit at the bottom of a list of major issues.

It's the anti-feminists (for want of a better term) who choose to focus on those minor issues at the bottom of the list rather than the more major issues - probably because the major issues are harder to belittle.

If we took the minor issues off the list, I do not think that would mean the anti-feminists suddenly decide to focus on the major issues and decide that feminists are right about those. They would simply find some other way to belittle feminism instead.

Alice - I am well aware what 'derailing' is. In this case though, I am merely agreeing with an article that I think points out the danger that objecting to men opening doors and offering seats might well undermine and derail focus on more important issues.

I am also pointing out the inherent illogicality and contradictions which is no doubt uncomfortable for some.

SAF - I've never been anyone's quote of the day before! I am so very proud

Morebeta - I think men who think it is for them to tell women what they should and shouldn't be bothered about need to get over themselves.

I nearly posted a link to derailing for dummies earlier, but it seems you don't need it as have been on advanced training.

This whole feminism is so hard to understand stuff and knowing how not to behave is also on a continuum and used as a get out by men in so many situations.

Yes we should clamp down on the major forms as well.

Oh I completely agree with that part of the article - of course there are far, far more important things for feminism to focus on than someone opening the door for you for a patronising/sexist reason.

But they are all interlinked. For example, I know a group of men who are very "old fashioned" who will do things like walking on the outside of the pavement and standing up from the table when I get up to go to the loo . So far, not really an issue - a bit patronising but not a biggy. The thing is, though, these men are also the ones who are likely to do something sexist that is much more major - like employ a man over a woman. I think this is because they have got into the habit of thinking that women are a different species from men - which is partly due to all these "courtesies" that they think women must be paid.

It's all about breaking down the idea that women are different and must be treated differently. Yes of course some forms of differential treatment are worse than others. But I think the more minor forms of differential treatment often lead to the more major forms.

You say that in the US they'd clamped down (probably far too much so) on the minor forms of sexist behaviour - whilst allowing the major forms of sexist behaviour to go unchecked. Obviously that is daft. But the solution is not to ease up on the minor forms, surely - it's to clamp down on the major forms.