Benevolent sexism - should men hold doors open?!

[RedHotPokers]

Just heard an interesting discussion on R4 about 'benevolent sexism'. Did a quick search and foundthis article which is rather less measured than the R4 discussion.

Interested to know what people think.
First post on Feminism topic so hope I haven't repeated a previous topic or put my foot in it!

Isn't the point it shouldn't be a choice. The decision should not be sexed based

Are you being deliberately obtuse, Beta?

Of course we would prefer a culture in which people sometimes stand up for women: if the woman were pregnant or was elderly or looked ill or appeared to have trouble standing or had lots to carry or was encumbered with children who could sit on their lap if they had a seat.

All the exact same reasons why one might give up a seat for a man (men can't get pregnant but if they could I imagine they'd like to be able to sit down).

Able-bodied unemcumbered people should give up their seats for people who need the seat more. Simply being a woman does not mean that you need the seat more. Suggesting that it does is patronising and will have the effect (even if unintentional) of making the woman feel weaker and less capable.

Oh I see, so the point is we have to pick between 'them over there' or suck up what we have here. How about we just work towards a world where we don't have to have these discussion? How about we don't play oppression Olympics as some sideshow to addressing inequality?

:o at Oppression Olympics

OK. I'll come off the fence.

I think women who get offended by a man giving up his seat, opening a door, waiting for them to be seated or taking their coat really need to get over themselves.

Politeness in society seems to have been replaced by casual ignorance and selfishness and just because a man makes a polite gesture should not elicit suspicion or hostility from a woman.

If a woman opened a door for another woman it would never cause offence but if a man did it then it might. That is just plain silly.

I don't want to see a return to 1950s attitudes but we seem to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

I would never be offended by a man opening a door for me, I'd think 'ah bless, what an old-fashioned chap' - it's the sort of thing my grandad would do.

However, my grandad also says things like 'ladies never understand how hobs work', and I generally find that opening doors isn't really the issue: it's the subtle gradations between that and 'do you want me to guide you out' and 'would you like me to reverse that out for you' and then 'ha, ladies and parking, eh!' - and those things are offensive.

And indeed, unthinking references to 'a man and his wife'.

irksome - while your Grandad's old fashioned attitudes are obviously very annoying and for obvious reasons. Surely though, you can separate his door opening politeness from his other less admirable traits? One does not necessarily lead to the other.

I just dont want to live in a world where I have to think twice before I open a door or offer a woman my seat just in case she might get offended. There are a lot bigger issues out there.

yes, that's exactly what I am saying: I think it's missing the point to say that the world is full of strident crop-haired feminists who would castrate a man for opening a door. And it seems to be being used as an excuse for saying that feminism is impossible to understand, because how would all those ladies like it if we smashed their faces into doors instead, hmmmm?

Open doors for people if they're nearby: I do it all the time, it's common courtesy. Don't open doors for them because they are women.

I wouldn't offer a seat except in cases of obvious need - and being a woman isn't one of those. It's just patronizing.

MoreBeta I don't think anyone on this thread has said that it's offensive for a man to hold the door open for them or offer them a seat.

It's only offensive when it is accompanied by some element of being patronising (which includes "I'm holding the door/offering you my seat because you're a woman and therefore inherently weaker").

You can safely continue to hold doors open and offer seats. Just do it for men as well.

Some years ago I worked in the UK, US and in Europe. In the US, there was a lot of what I call 'PC jumping through hoops' that went on. The fear of lawsuits had reached such a pitch that men used to go through all sorts of ridiculous contortions on what gender neutral words they chose in a sentence, deliberately looking at the floor or walls as women passed in corridors and yet at the same time thinking nothing of excluding women frm key meetings, schmoozng on all male golf/fishing weekends and attending lap dancing clubs at regular intervals.

The danger is we get to such a pitch that men won't dare offer any kind of polite gesture to a woman and it still won't make a jot of difference to how women are treated on the issues that matter.

I know perfectly well what you mean by the patronising connotation that goes with some door opening but I think I agree with the article:

"Much more serious, however, is the damage that this sort of overwrought hand-wringing does to the name of feminism, by making people believe the old canard that it?s all about women scowling if a man is courteous enough to hold open a door for them. There is plenty of material for both women and the numerous men who care about the dignity of women to get properly angry about."

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

"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.

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