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'm not going near that batshit crazy board again.

Hehe that really made me laugh. It's the mordor of Mumsnet. I'll never venture there....

OP, YANBU I find it old fashioned and naff. It's polite to let other people go first but it's out dated to say 'ladies first'. A simple 'after you' is much better and suitable for everyone.

OP, YANBU I find it old fashioned and naff. It's polite to let other people go first but it's out dated to say 'ladies first'. A simple 'after you' is much better and suitable for everyone.

Exactly.

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.

Yup.

I totally agree that religious texts are the primary cause of the subjugation of women - definitely. The point is though, the human predisposition towards male aggression / dominance was exactly what engendered these texts in the first place. It existed anyway. Religion was just an attempt to justify male dominance and to structure society accordingly.

If women had ever had equality, religion could not have been conceived in the way it was. This holds across all cultures and religions so it's no accident.

I like it when men are courteous and hold doors open etc. MY DH does.

If women had ever had equality, religion could not have been conceived in the way it was. This holds across all cultures and religions so it's no accident.

Let's just say that this is right. And you are right.

Do you not think then that, with the wisdom we have now, we should not be fighting for gender equality for all rather than perpetuating an archaic model because that's how it's always been? Because it's 'traditional'?

g1gitterati yes I take your point there. It is likely that people with highest testosterone (I.e men) will have always behaved more aggressively and as such, been more likely to enforce texts that had been written to their advantage.

Structural sexism could be eradicated by changing many of the gendered expectations that are socially constructed though. In particular, in childhood when testosterone levels are the similsr between the sexes.

I think we would still see male pattern violence because of adult male physical differences but the deep structural inequalities women experience would be greatly reduced.

Wishful thinking though. For as long as men largely hold physical power they will probably continue to hol political and economical power as the two mutually construct one another in some way. You only have to read some of the comments from men on the gender pay gap such as, “Don’t know what women are moaning for, you just have to tell your boss you want a pay rise” to see it. The testosterone and aggression probably makes you feel a whole lot braver!

Until men realise they should pay as equally without us demanding it then it won’t change. A PP said things won’t change unless men make the changes, not women. Sadly I agree.

I think if your interpretation of equality is to argue that men and women are essentially the same, you will only ever scratch the surface because that assertion misses the point.

I do actually believe that for the most part we are the same, but there are some intrinsic differences (with the obvious caveat that there are a wide range of behaviours within each sex anyway).

I just don't see how you can explain the way the world is otherwise or how we have struggled to get to this point.

It's very easy in a relatively safe society to argue that there are no intrinsic differences between the sexes and to gloss over the whole issue. If you found yourself in a war zone, on the front line or in some other crisis situation you might very quickly decide differently.

I think there are certain physical differences absolutely. And perhaps some mental and emotional ones. Science hasn’t yet come up with any real undisputed evidence.

I think what is being argued is that are social constructs that reinforce and perpetuate inequality that ‘play’ on physical differences, excusing them or placing greater importance on them as a way of subjugating others in society. Hence my point about religious societies with greater gendered based violence.

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. To be fair this also depends on the police officer. I remember men being prosecuted for DV in the 70s and 80s. I worked for a DCI who was very rough and ready and he swore like a trooper. We had a series of prostitute rapes where I worked and he found them, arrested them and they did prison time. One young detective made a nasty remark about prostitutes and the DCI ripped him to bits. To all the normal markers he wasn't much of a gentleman but he actually viewed women as important whatever their life choices and importantly just as important as men. I often found the most judgemental officers were women.

And for me, ‘physicality’ is one difference I do think men have over women so that’s why I don’t see them holding doors open for me as sexist in isolation. I see it as an acknowledgement of physical difference. I think it can be seen as sexist because it occurs in a wider cultural context of men seeing women as weaker and therefore inferior.

Fascinating programme on BBC recently, Extreme Wives. One society they visited was a matrilineal society in India. The women were head of the house, ran the businesses and inherited the family wealth, interestingly it was the youngest daughter who inherited. One of the women who was interviewed was a very tough senior police officer. She was the victim of DV.

street - if a man sees women as inferior because they are weaker, then this will be his attitude, whether he holds doors or not. It is perfectly possible to respect differences, rather than exploit them. For instance, it's obvious I'm not as strong as DH but he respects the fact that as a woman, I have carried and given birth to 4 of his DC and breastfed them because clearly this is something he could never have done! It's not about who is weaker or stronger, that's just one aspect of physicality.

The only time I have an issue with men holding doors is if they are doing it to check you out as you go through, but again, a creep is a creep regardless.

I like it when men are courteous and hold doors open etc. MY DH does.

Does
He hold them open for other people or just 'ladies'.

You can be courteous without saying 'ladies first'.

I am, I always hold doors open for people as do
My DC and DH but it's not a gesture to females it's a gesture to whoever wants to go through the door.

Ladies first is outdated.

My DC and DH but it's not a gesture to females it's a gesture to whoever wants to go through the door

Ladies first is outdated

"After you" is far more corteous. It's a courtesy to other people.

I like to think I am courteous to everyone, regardless of who they are. It's the way I was brought up.

Fascinating programme on BBC recently, Extreme Wives. One society they visited was a matrilineal society in India.

I listened to a podcast about this. It was really interesting. Some researchers wanted to see if women would behave differently to men, if societal roles were reversed. This group gave them a great opportunity to see if the traditional “macho” type behaviours which are thought to be driven by nature rather than nurture, would be displayed by women in a matriarchical society. They found that women did indeed treat men there, the same way as men treat women here. Especially where finances came in to it. The conclusion was it was the pressure to provide for their family and societal expectations which leads to inequality rather than any physicality.

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.

I think there's a more practical side to this. I suspect this isn't just sexism, but that there used to be a solid biological reason for doing this.

When I was pregnant I got SPD after ignoring the advice to not carry heavy stuff and injurying myself lifting a heavy bag. It's no joke! I was in pain for months.

Back before women's sexual revolution, reliable contraception was hard to get hold of, so women would have been pregnant A LOT. Also women wouldn't have had access to moderm medicine to help recover from damage from childbirth.

Before becoming a mother, I only saw "ladies first" as sexist bollocks.

But after realising what a strain pregnancy puts on your body (if not lasting damage), now I get it. In the old days women of childbearing age would have been pregnant a lot more. Men couldn't very well go around asking everyone "are you pregnant - or have you recently had a child or sustained lasting damage from childbirth" could they?!

So, in the old days, maybe, saying "ladies first" could be seen as both reasonable and fair - equity rather than equality.

If I had no access to contraception and was pregnant a lot, I'd certainly appreciate living in a culture that made allowances for that.

I'm not saying that women weren't infantalised, we were of course, but that there may be more to "ladies first" than just that.

BUT anyway - we're living in modern times now with access to decent contraception. It's not reasonable to expect many women are pregnant - or recently pregnant - any more, so it's time we stopped doing this. It's not polite, its patronising!

My husband would always hold the door for me, always walk on outside of the pavement, offer me his jacket if I were cold, defrost the car in the morning and stands up if a woman entered a room when he was sitting. He doesn’t think I’m a lesser person or incapable; he is just being courteous. I don’t feel demeaned; it’s more aboutcherishing - and that is part of the traditional wedding vows. I suspect I’m treated a lot more equally than many who get cross about doors.
Our elderly male neighbours would always remain standing until women are seated at supper, would be offended if a proffered seat was refused and refer to females as ladies. It’s just how they were brought up
My son also would offer seats, hold doors, stand when a female enters a room and would go to the bar rather than expect his partner to. His job requires no less of him.
There are bigger things to fret about.

Absolutely lovely; long may it continue

Surely manners don't mean you just look at sex? How about if it is a fit healthy woman in her 20s, let's say she an olympic athlete, and a man in his 70s with a walking stick who is clearly struggling to walk let alone hold open doors. Is it still ladies first?

Well, of course it doesn't. In the above scenario the man in his 70s comes first. Honestly, it only requires a bit of common sense

It's really not difficult not to be a complete arsehole about all this!

I work with a lot of young (30 somethings; it's young to me ) from a variety of different countries. We have people from over 100 countries in our organisiaton. It's very common practice for those from outside the UK to open doors for ladies in the office. Plenty of British guys do it too, but it is more prevalent amongst our non-British nationals.

If I were to answer be churlish about this, it would represent neither the country nor my organisation in a positive light. I happen to like it anyway but even if I didn't, a simple 'thank you' will always suffice.

This isn't hard really, is it?

Do you not think then that, with the wisdom we have now, we should not be fighting for gender equality for all rather than perpetuating an archaic model because that's how it's always been? Because it's 'traditional'?

Of course we should. But this has less than fuck all to do with gender equality!

Just wondering if I should change my name to Trevor, you know—in the interests of gender equality? Or may I be my permitted to keep (what is generally accepted as) my feminine first name?

Actually, Stevie is not such a good example of that, come to think of it. Bugger But hopefully you get the picture.

The thing is, arguing of the minutiae of opening doors and saying "ladies first" is missing the point somewhat.

It' belies an attitude towards women that, generally, isn't helpful.

A couple of weeks ago, i had a problem in the house and needed someone to come and look at it. Two men came. One had a look and the other oversaw it. I explained the issue and said "I think it's X. Will you have a look please?"

The overseeing man tried reassuring me that it wouldn't be X but was probably just Y. I said I'd already looked and it definitely wasn't Y. "Nah nah love, X is really unlikely. It's going to be Y".

Explained again that it wasn't Y and gave reasons and asked him it check again. "Love, I know you're worried. We don't need to check it. It's going to be X. It's not going to be Y. You really don't need to worry about it."

This went on for another 5 minutes when the other chap said, "you need to come and look at this..."

Guess what..?

I've had this before. Had someone to come out and look at something a few years ago and he just wouldn't engage with me at all. I actually had to get my boyfriend to come round from so that the man would use big words and whole sentences and I actually knew what was going on.

This is the problem with it. I'm single and more than capable of doing things on my own but feel like I have to fight my way through a fog of "l'il lady" where I'm perceived as a yippy dog or an "anxious woman" if I challenge their manly authority or question their judgement.

I won't employ men to do stuff if they don't talk to me like I'm a competent person. The women I've had to do work have all been very good and obviously they didn't treat me like an idiot/ invisible!

I was just thinking, if it's courteous to help women, should men pick up their work and do it for them, if they've got a lot? I mean paid work, not housework. And should a man refrain from giving a stressful project or a difficult customer to a female employer, to make her live easier?

It could easily be argued that they should.

Re the men standing up when a woman enters a room, this implies rather that women don't enter rooms very much, doesn't it? At my work everyone would be up and down like yoyos

Our office is based on a circle, so you can walk round and round. I could fuck with the men by going round and having them all stand up in and down and up and down like some kind of besuited Mexican wave

I think having hordes of men leap to their feet whenever I entered a space would also male me feel a bit like Darth Vader which I suppose wouldn't be so bad 😂😂😂