Chivarly = ''benevolent sexism'

parker kent

kayos wrote: »

I remember all to well having to do Jane Austin's Emma for the LC and all of her work for the pre-dip for the London College of Music. So I don't know where you did your schooling or if they have changed the LC English course that much as to get rid of all female writers.

There are lots of female writers and poets on the Leaving Cert English course.

Edit: Here's a quick list of some on the course:

Standalone Text:
Wuthering Heights - Emily Bronte

Comparative Study:
Emma - Jane Austen
Circle of Friends - Maeve Binchy
The Last September - Elizabeth Bowen
Wuthering Heights - Emily Bronte
How Many Mile to Babylon - Jennifer Johnston
The Secret Life of Bees - Sue Monk Kidd
Purple Hibiscus - Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie
My Sister's Keeper - Jodi Picoult
How I Live Now - Meg Rosoff

Poetry:
Eavan Boland
Emily Dickinson
Adrienne Rich

metrovelvet

parker kent wrote: »

There are lots of female writers and poets on the Leaving Cert English course.

Edit: Here's a quick list of some on the course:

Standalone Text:
Wuthering Heights - Emily Bronte

Comparative Study:
Emma - Jane Austen
Circle of Friends - Maeve Binchy
The Last September - Elizabeth Bowen
Wuthering Heights - Emily Bronte
How Many Mile to Babylon - Jennifer Johnston
The Secret Life of Bees - Sue Monk Kidd
Purple Hibiscus - Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie
My Sister's Keeper - Jodi Picoult
How I Live Now - Meg Rosoff

Poetry:
Eavan Boland
Emily Dickinson
Adrienne Rich

PK- I know all about it now. I didnt go to secondary school here. I went to a Jesuit school in the US.

As to that list above, I would certainly have a couple of question marks about a few of them being on a curriculum.

parker kent

metrovelvet wrote: »

PK- I know all about it now. I didnt go to secondary school here. I went to a Jesuit school in the US.

As to that list above, I would certainly have a couple of question marks about a few of them being on a curriculum.

I know you were in school in the States (stalker alert :pac:), I was just replying to the other poster who was unsure about the current curriculum.

I'd ask what your problems were with some of the women, but I don't want to derail another thread talking about literature :P

coffee_cake

metrovelvet wrote: »

As to that list above, I would certainly have a couple of question marks about a few of them being on a curriculum.

which ones?

Wolfe Tone

I always help women lift things, heavy stuff out of trollys into boots, bales of briquettes etc etc... Today when was out I saw a woman being dragged around by her dog who was trying to get across the road to another dog, I helped her by taking the dogs lead and holding it till the dog across the road was out of sight and her dog calmed down... Should I be wary of doing such things in the future in case the woman turns out to be a headcase feminist? Should I stop because its sexist?

Its a simple fact that women are weaker than men. Even the Amazons had to have surgery to overcome the handicap of their sex in order to try and compete fairly with men. (they had a breast cutoff so they could use weapons such as bows properly) In most sports women cannot compete fairly with men(Nina Carberry being an exception, she has won me quite a bit of money over the years!). As such I think its right for men to help women out with physical tasks such as lifting things and opening doors. (some can be very heavy and difficult to open)

I_am_LOST

I wouldn't go as far to say that it's sexism and I'd never make a big deal out of it. As a woman, if a man held a door open for me, offered to carry something for me etc. I'd be very polite and grateful.

But, while I am quite tall and skinny, I am a lot stronger than I look so I do hate the attitude that 'Oh, you're a woman, you must need help carryin that cos I'm a man arrrrgh im a tough man' :rolleyes:

I do not particularly admire chivarly, I admire MANNERS and POLITENESS. i.e. someone offers to carry something for someone who looks like they're struggling with it, be that a woman, man, boy, girl, old or young.

HellFireClub

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I always help women lift things, heavy stuff out of trollys into boots, bales of briquettes etc etc... Today when was out I saw a woman being dragged around by her dog who was trying to get across the road to another dog, I helped her by taking the dogs lead and holding it till the dog across the road was out of sight and her dog calmed down... Should I be wary of doing such things in the future in case the woman turns out to be a headcase feminist? Should I stop because its sexist?

Its a simple fact that women are weaker than men. Even the Amazons had to have surgery to overcome the handicap of their sex in order to try and compete fairly with men. (they had a breast cutoff so they could use weapons such as bows properly) In most sports women cannot compete fairly with men(Nina Carberry being an exception, she has won me quite a bit of money over the years!). As such I think its right for men to help women out with physical tasks such as lifting things and opening doors. (some can be very heavy and difficult to open)

It's funny how you never see women on building sites. How come is they are so equal in terms of ability and strength, that they are not building 50% of the houses out there???

Stheno

HellFireClub wrote: »

It's funny how you never see women on building sites. How come is they are so equal in terms of ability and strength, that they are not building 50% of the houses out there???

I've seen women on building sites, usually engineers and h and s inspectors. Know a couple of female electricians as well, but no brickies tbf.

Kinda similiar to other occupations like Firefighters, I used think no women worked as firefighters, until I worked with a fire brigade as a consultant and came across a few women working there.

Now that's a role that requires strength, ability, teamwork, decision making to name a few and women have started to make inroads into it.

Conversely you could look at professions like HR, Nursing and teaching which are dominated by women and ask why 50% of those aren't men? Are they lacking something in that they are not at that level in those workforces?

In relation to chivalry, in the sometimes unmannerly world we live in, I like it, I like that someone stops to think and hold a door, ask if I need a hand carrying stuff etc. With older men, they often let me out of a door/lift first, and that's fine with me, it's how they were raised, no problem with that either. Doesn't affect them one jot when we go into meetings or training classes, and have differences of opinions, it's just a manner of behaviour for them

Conversely I've stopped on roads to ask male motorists if they need a hand to change a tyre, but I've had male motorists stop to ask me the same I've held doors open for guys etc.

parker kent

^ I wouldn't call that chivalry, I would call it just being nice and mannerly.

Wolfe Tone

Its not sexist or incorrect to point out the fact that women are weaker than men and less suited to physically demanding jobs then men are.

Stheno

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Its not sexist or incorrect to point out the fact that women are weaker than men and less suited to physically demanding jobs then men are.

But and using a specific example how do you then explain women doing orthopedic surgery (which is accepted as the most physically demanding aspect of that profession) or working as firefighters and passing the same tests as men?

Even in terms of police students, there are no different criteria for them?

On the flip side, I'd wonder which gender is best suited to jobs which require frequent time away from home. Now I'm female and a right homebird, and when I'm away from home fill the gap with work, I ring my OH a couple of times a day to say hello etc, but as much as possible I avoid being away from home, and if that means a 150 mile commute each way I'll do it.

BUT, I've worked with both male and female colleagues who have children, and their primary aim after work had finished away from home, was to ring home and talk to their kids about the things the kids wanted to talk about. Dinners were arranged around kids bedtimes so colleagues could say goodnight, special calls were made on special occasions as soon as they could be, everything.

parker kent

Just because there are some women who are fire fighters does not mean that women as a whole are as physically as strong as men. There will always be exceptions, but there will be a greater number of men capable of jobs requiring physical strength. Of course the amount of jobs that rely purely on physical strength are in decline.

Wolfe Tone

Are you honestly trying to say that there is no difference in physical ability/strength between men and women?

HellFireClub

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Its not sexist or incorrect to point out the fact that women are weaker than men and less suited to physically demanding jobs then men are.

Well, apparently it is sexist and incorrect to point out that women are a physically weaker sex, and there are several posts on here made by women who have indicated that they take offence to a door being held open for them as it implies that they are weaker than the person that is holding the door for them.

So all I ask is that if women are equal in every sense, as they appear to insist that they are on this thead, then how come, of those that are up on scaffolding actually building houses, how come 50% of them are not women???

In fact, now that I mention it, how come not even 1% of them are women???

While we are having a debate on what is essentially gender equality here, is there any chance we could have an explanation for this, seen as we are all apparently equal in every little tiny sense of the word equal???

metrovelvet

HellFireClub wrote: »

Well, apparently it is sexist and incorrect to point out that women are a physically weaker sex, and there are several posts on here made by women who have indicated that they take offence to a door being held open for them as it implies that they are weaker than the person that is holding the door for them.

So all I ask is that if women are equal in every sense, as they appear to insist that they are on this thead, then how come, of those that are up on scaffolding actually building houses, how come 50% of them are not women???

In fact, now that I mention it, how come not even 1% of them are women???

While we are having a debate on what is essentially gender equality here, is there any chance we could have an explanation for this, seen as we are all apparently equal in every little tiny sense of the word equal???

Well they are not so weak that they cant open doors, but it probably comes from a hangover when women had babes in arms or shopping or whatever.

I think people have lost touch with the practicalities in ideologies. Its like the head and face coverings of Islamic women for example. They make sense in the desert, with the hot sun, because it protects your hair and skin to be covered up in that climate, but that practicality has been turned into a political minefield. Or take pregnancy for example. Feminist women yammered on 'it's not a disability! Its a a pregnancy.' Well Im sorry, ma'am, but that third trimester is a goddamned disability. And now you have threads on parenting with pregnant women complaining about not being offerred a seat in the train and bus. Again a totally practical practise got perverted into a political mess and women lost out imo.

Sorry, I think feminism did a lot of good, but it also did a lot of damage and has a lot to answer for. And no one wants to talk about that.

Morgase

Stheno wrote: »

I've seen women on building sites, usually engineers and h and s inspectors.

One of those engineers was me (before the recession and a career change hit, anyway) There were some other female engineers and H&S inspectors on the same site too. Not a one afraid to get their hands dirty!

Back on topic, we're talking about chivalry, not the percentage of women working as brickies or whatever. What we're talking about is why some men and some lazy women seem to think that women need help to open a door or put on their coat.

And I'll say it again, because it needs repeating. There is a difference between chivalry and manners. Manners is helping anybody to carry a big awkward load that is easier for two to manage than one. Chivalry is insisting on carrying the woman's load - just because she's a woman and no other reason.

opinion guy

metrovelvet wrote: »

I mow my mother's lawn for her, is that benevolent ageism?

I find it very funny that whenever a male family member or friend visits us, all of a sudden they insist on mowing my lawn, lifting in the 40 lb coal bag into the house, do DIY stuff, and I do this stuff myself the rest of the year. They wont cook or babysit though.

Lol - if you invite me over I promise not to mow your lawn - I wouldn't even mow my own lawn if I had one :P I just don't get some peoples obsession with neatly trimmed grass

metrovelvet wrote: »

So true. I can carry in a 40 lb bag of coal but I cant change a tire. However, I also know a number of men who can't change a tire either ...and cant even drive now that I think of it.

Then again...I know a lot of men who dont even realise they have to defrost the fridge every so often.

Ok I have to ask - why can't you change a tire ?

metrovelvet

opinion guy wrote: »

Lol - if you invite me over I promise not to mow your lawn - I wouldn't even mow my own lawn if I had one :P I just don't get some peoples obsession with neatly trimmed grass



Ok I have to ask - why can't you change a tire ?

Probably because it doesnt interest me to learn how if Im honest. I know I should.

I have to assemble a sandbox for my son's birthday coming up. I saw the picture of the drill on the instruction manual, gasped, and picked up the phone for the handyman. My neighbor things Im ridiculous so she is going to help me and I will force myself not to be afraid of a drill and put it together myself.

Morgase

metrovelvet wrote: »

Probably because it doesnt interest me to learn how if Im honest. I know I should.

I have to assemble a sandbox for my son's birthday coming up. I saw the picture of the drill on the instruction manual, gasped, and picked up the phone for the handyman. My neighbor things Im ridiculous so she is going to help me and I will force myself not to be afraid of a drill and put it together myself.

You'll feel better once you know how to change a tyre, metro, honestly. Just do it at home a couple of times.

Then when the inevitable happens (in the rain, because it is Ireland!) you'll be glad you did. It's really something that everybody who drives should be able to do.

Actually this reminds me that I should do it too, because I haven't done it in years and have probably forgotten how to do it at this stage.

I'm sure you'll also enjoy putting the sandbox together. A drill is really easy to use and you'll put it together in no time, and have a great sense of satisfaction afterwards

coffee_cake

I made sure I could in my last car but I would not know how in my current car. I keep meaning to practice. Rather now than figuring it out at the side of a road or having to have someone stop and help

Wolfe Tone

HellFireClub wrote: »

Well, apparently it is sexist and incorrect to point out that women are a physically weaker sex, and there are several posts on here made by women who have indicated that they take offence to a door being held open for them as it implies that they are weaker than the person that is holding the door for them.

So all I ask is that if women are equal in every sense, as they appear to insist that they are on this thead, then how come, of those that are up on scaffolding actually building houses, how come 50% of them are not women???

In fact, now that I mention it, how come not even 1% of them are women???

While we are having a debate on what is essentially gender equality here, is there any chance we could have an explanation for this, seen as we are all apparently equal in every little tiny sense of the word equal???

Its ridiculous, and in fact most feminists would argue that in order for there to be substantive equality(imo feminism is not about equality, but thats for another day) the differences in physical and mental capability need to be taken into account. I.e it wouldn't be fair to treat women the same as men in certain jobs because they are physically weaker, or it wouldn't be fair to subject them to the "reasonable man" test, as the "reasonable man" has male mental traits, such as objectivity etc.

Pherekydes

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

... the differences in physical and mental capability need to be taken into account.

What differences in mental capability?

Morgase

The reasonable man test? You're having a laugh.

Wolfe Tone

Morgase wrote: »

The reasonable man test? You're having a laugh.

How so?

Bloody Nipples

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Its ridiculous, and in fact most feminists would argue that in order for there to be substantive equality(imo feminism is not about equality, but thats for another day) the differences in physical and mental capability need to be taken into account. I.e it wouldn't be fair to treat women the same as men in certain jobs because they are physically weaker, or it wouldn't be fair to subject them to the "reasonable man" test, as the "reasonable man" has male mental traits, such as objectivity etc.

Any mental differences between men and women are so slight as to be irrelevant. Also, any generalisations such as "men have better spatial awareness etc etc." doesn't apply to ALL men and ALL women so their application as a method of discernment between the sexes is totally useless.

Wolfe Tone

Bloody Nipples wrote: »

Any mental differences between men and women are so slight as to be irrelevant. Also, any generalisations such as "men have better spatial awareness etc etc." doesn't apply to ALL men and ALL women so their application as a method of discernment between the sexes is totally useless.

Lets look at the reasonable man test in law shall we...

Feminists like Elizabeth Grosz would say that it is phallocentric...

“a strategy for collapsing representations of two sexes into a single model, called human or man, but which is in fact congruent only with the masculine. It is the universalisation of particular features of masculinity, as if they were generally representative of both sexes”


The "male standard" would have these attributes;
rationality,
objectivity,
intellect,
prudence,
courage,
ability to be dispassionate or calm in time of crisis,
ability to deal with principle and avoid the personal,


Behavior such as much of the above is typically male, and is portrayed as the positive ideal. Therefore a woman, in order to be "reasonable" would have to be masculanised. Of course thats reducing the female sex and simply saying that if women want to be equal they must, essentially, become male.

Men and women are not the same.The ideal created both here and in society in general is a male ideal. Instead of the differences in sex being celebrated and embraced, women are increasingly trying to, essentially, "become male" in an attempt to get equality. Men and women are not equal, and, it can be argued, that treating them equally involves holding people up to an unfair standard, or heaping unfair expectations on them, both of which are typically "male" standards and expectations.

At the end of the day men and women are different, and the way they are treated should probably reflect that.



EDIT: You can see examples of the above everyday, typical example would be a woman refusing help from a man to lift something as she is not a "little weak woman". She perceives her femininity as a weakness and masculinity as a positive which she feels obliged to strive to attain in order to be "equal".

opinion guy

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

The "male standard" would have these attributes;
rationality,
objectivity,
intellect,
prudence,
courage,
ability to be dispassionate or calm in time of crisis,
ability to deal with principle and avoid the personal,

None of these attributes are dependent on gender.

coffee_cake

taking a bunch of attributes and arbitrarily deciding they're male?
i could as easily repost them and call them feminine attributes and decide you're being feminised if you match them

Wolfe Tone

opinion guy wrote: »

None of these attributes are dependent on gender.

I disagree, as do many feminists. Those attributes, historically anyway, would be typically male. (maybe not intellect, but I didn't come up with the list) Maybe not dependent, but they would be typically male and would be attributes men would be expected to have.

Morgase

It is worrying to me that you think that those attributes which you have listed are held by men and not women. Do you really believe that the brains of men and women are so different?

Edited to add: It's not good enough to say "I didn't come up with the list". If you're going to claim that such attributes are male, you really need to say why. I know that I can claim to have all of those attributes (bar courage) and I'm no less a woman than any other female.