To think ladies first has no place these days

[Idreamofalandrover]

They've used it twice on the apprentice tonight, why? We aren't in the 50s anymore!

I was on the bus with my son yesterday in hideous Westfield traffic and he gave his seat to a woman in her 40s. I didn't have to tell him. He is 14. He is not unusual in this. This kind of thing gets reinforced with them at school

My son at 14 would have given up his seat to an adult. He still would on crowded public transport as he is still younger and fitter than most people.

I started at the beginning of this thread thinking I'm not keen on "ladies first" but not that bothered.

Having read through it I am actually quite depressed by the number of women who think it is charming or chivalrous or polite to behave in this way for no reason other than the recipient of their chivalry etc is a woman.

And who can't or won't understand this simple point.

If you open the door for someone because they are a woman, then there's an issue.

If you open the door for someone regardless of sex, then that's courtesy and good manners.

I like it.

well no, he would probably not have asked if it was another man because that would be patronising to the man.

But this does not mean offering to carry stuff has to be patronising to the woman because AS A GENERAL RULE women are less physically strong than men

But not all men are strapping 6ft+ tall and not all men are physically strong.

So, if he were to see a man who were 5ft4 and slightly built, would he also offer to help that man? Or would he feel it was patronising?

If the woman in the queue were 5ft 11 and broad and muscular would he still offer to help her? Would he realise she could do it herself? Or would he still feel the need to offer simply because she were a woman?

Because if his offer of help, or lack thereof, is based on their sex rather than their perceived strength and, therefore, ability to manage in a given situation, then it is patronising.

It means that a smaller, less physically capable man has to struggle on his own because offers of help aren't forthcoming to him because he is a man and it means that a woman who is clearly managing gets "can I help you with that, Love?" based on an assumption of her perceived weakness rather than her need for help.

I must admit that I was very surprised when Karren Brady interjected during the coin toss to say "ladies first!" That was very unexpected from Karren, as I have always seen her as a modern, successful woman, equal to any man. So I wondered why she would perpetuate the somewhat archaic notion of "ladies first."

The phrase comes from an era where women were regarded as being in need of special protection, like children, unable to look after themselves or their own interests. It just didn't sound right coming from Karren!

If you open the door for someone regardless of sex, then that's courtesy and good manners.

I’m not really sure about this (of course what you’re actually saying is correct) but my DH always opens doors for me, because I’m a woman. He just thinks it’s polite.

Contrary to what PP say, this doesn’t stop at other times with other people. He is often the only one to sprint across doctors surgeries to open doors for the elderly, offers seats to mums with babies, pregnant women, people with sticks on the train etc too.

So it doesn’t follow that he thinks women are ‘lesser’. He’s just been raised that way. He treats me and all the women in his life as equals, even perhaps a little more special than himself. It doesn’t disadvantage me in any way so I struggle to see it as ‘sexist’, even though I consider myself a feminist.

I think he is aware of his physical size, he is vastly bigger than the average man even and he naturally takes this into account. He would hold the door open for ANYONE behind him but would also behave in a ‘ladies first’ way (although the term he’d use would be, “go on love” which I know lots of women would find patronising.

It’s something he doesn’t think about or pick over. I think there are lots of men like that and it really doesn’t follow they are sexist and wouldn’t do the same for anyone else even though they may be doing it on occasions where it’s ‘because it’s a woman.’

I’m in my 50s and I see this as something my father’s generation did. Thankfully, our family’s younger generation in their 20s are polite and helpful regardless of gender. DS is a strapping 6’ and would think your DH’s attitude weirdly unreconstructed and outdated. Is he in his 80s?

Are you talking about my post? Where I just said he’d do it regardless of gender?

Sorry by ‘do it’ I meant hold the door open, offer a seat etc to anyone. He just said he’d be more reluctant to offer to help a man with bags in case it was misconstrued. He’s younger than you.

Men who are gentleman in general (i.e. towards other men, the elderly, etc) are more likely to be more gentlemanly towards women. The two are not mutually exclusive.

There are all types of women and men but behaviours and social norms exist for a reason. Imagine a world in which men had no concept whatsoever of giving special consideration to women - ever. It was all about size (as PPs are claiming here) not sex. Who do you think would lose out in the rush to get on trains, to move heavy stuff, or to get a seat? It would be women as a rule because IN GENERAL women are smaller and have a relative physical disadvantage in some areas of general life.

Similarly, what if there was no societal message that not only is violence a bad idea in general (or between men) but it's particularly bad if it's directed by a man towards a woman? Do we just say, "oh she's the same size as that bloke, what's the difference if he hits her or him?"

It's no wonder there is still inequality when so many women actually expect to be treated like 'ladies'. My partner isn't a 'gentleman' but he does do the housework and is happy to take a career break to look after our children. He also believes that a lot women claim to want equality but only when it suits them and reading this thread I have to agree with him!

social norms exist for a reason

Yes. But not for the ones you think.

Similarly, what if there was no societal message that not only is violence a bad idea in general (or between men) but it's particularly bad if it's directed by a man towards a woman?

How about if men just stopped hitting everyone full stop and then we'd all be safer.

And it's only been in very recent years that hitting women was seen as a bad thing. Up until very recently, men were permitted by law to hit their wives to keep them in line and make them behave according to their wishes.

Rape was still legal in marriage until 1991 and it's there are still some today who struggle with it because not only was it permitted for so long but because the wording of marriage vows reflected it until very recently.

When I was growing up in the 1980s (which wasn't that long ago in the history of time), men could beat 7 shades of shit out of a their wife/partner/girlfriend and the police wouldn't get involved because it was a domestic. In fact I read a thread this week where a woman had received a 'traditional' response to reporting male violence against her.

These were also societal norms, and ones entrenched in law. Yes, legally some of those things have changed, but you only need to read the news/follow threads on here to see that society hasn't changed to keep up with it.

If I were to go out with a man who insisted on paying for everything because it's the 'gentlemanly' things to do, I would always be wondering what other 'traditional' expectations he might have.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Gender stereotypes and gendered expectations of behaviour are not natural law or inevitable.

These discourses of masculinity and femininity are perpetuated by the authority group in a society (in ours that's white men) in order to protect their position of privilege.

I was very surprised when Karren Brady interjected during the coin toss to say "ladies first!"

Karen has always been very sexist, she has form for this. Not sure why so many have ignored it until now?

He also believes that a lot women claim to want equality but only when it suits them and reading this thread I have to agree with him!

I also agree with him.

I don't believe all "gendered behaviours" are socially constructed, Snow.

I have 2 boys and 2 girls - four very different individuals. However, from day one, there were differences in the way the boys played with exactly the same toys. If I throw one if the DSs out into the back garden with his friends and watch how they play, it's very different to how the girls would play in the same setting. The girls can be physical, but they'll be doing gymnastics or something, they're rarely, if ever, physical with each other in the way the boys are. And my boys aren't particularly wild or anything, but it's normal for them to play at slide-tackling each other and play wrestling. If left to their own devices this is what they do, but they need to learn that girls may not appreciate it in the same way as their friends. I guess this is the nature v nurture debate, but, from my limited sample, it's not all about nurture.

OH always holds door open for me. I like it. I'm not going to compete with a man over it either. Or lecture any man that his good manners towards a woman mean he deserves a dressing down/must think she can't open a door for herself. I can live with it.

It’s a fascinating subject (for me anyway) and one that I personally don’t believe has a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ side to come down upon because, as Snowglitter says, gendered behaviour is a social construct and nothing ‘natural’ or ‘inevitable’.

Therefore any meanings attached to social norms cannot be the same for every individual in society. We are not one homogenous group, each of us are fragmented along age, ethnicity, cultural diversity, religion, age, geography etc etc and as such our interpretations differ.

We make allowances of all kinds for people, disabled, elderly, children, different faiths etc. For some people, this will mean reinforcing inequality. Others will experience it as making allowances for different needs while maintaining equal economic and political rights.

Our experiences of the various components that constitute our identity are not the same and therefore how we interpret these behaviours can’t be fully reconciled.

I guess this is the nature v nurture debate, but, from my limited sample, it's not all about nurture

Unless you raised your children in isolation entirely away from societal norms around gender - and given you believe in 'gentlemanly' behaviour I think this is pretty unlikely - then your sample shows nothing either way. Studies have shown that we start gendering children's behaviour while they're still in utero, so we really don't know what they'd be like without that unconscious societal input.

I noticed my son was much gentler than my daughters who are far more ‘rough and tumble’. I just put it down to their personality’s.

And yet when it is the other way round for other people’s children it is automatically assumed it is because of their sex

The nature/nurture debate is pretty obsolete now. There are things that we are predisposed to, from genetics, like mental health problems for example. But the brain is constantly changing in response to our social environment, it's like a sponge. Social context can bring out or suppress what is predisposed in us.

The thing is, if a behaviour were innate in us, you would expect to see it across cultures, just as you observe the same behaviour amongst a species of animal, but that's not the case.

You do see certain behaviours across all cultures - male violence, for instance.

I don't believe all "gendered behaviours" are socially constructed, Snow.

Except that all the research into the subject has observed that people generally use different language around boys and girls and people interact with boys and girls differently and encourage and explain different behaviours differently. So it's never truly 'neutral'.

It's an interesting debate, but it's a real factor and it's also one of the reasons that people get so uncomfortable when there are instances of parents who have a child and refuse to tell other people whether the baby is a boy or a girl, allowing them to choose their own clothes and toys.

It's because they don't know how to interact with the child that makes them feel so uncomfortable.

How we interact with children, and the expectations we have, influences the behaviour we elicit from them.

Using Neiflrttes point, that is likely to be because societal norms bring out predisposed behaviours in us.

Increased testosterone brings out more instances of aggression and dominance for example. But the subjugation of women as a structural part of society is primarily because the foundation texts of religion were written and crucially, transcribed by males, giving them political and economical dominance.

Anthropologists and historians have pointed to civilisations around before religious scriptures where females played far more equal, often more dominant roles in society.

It has been argued this is the reason that cultures based more strongly on religion are far more patriarchal.

Sorry my reply was in response to pp post about male violence being cross cultured.