Chivarly = ''benevolent sexism'

Wolfe Tone

If women want to be treated like men and to be expected to behave and act like men, thats grand, it doesn't really bother me that much. But it is not equality. If it makes you happy though...

Sameness does not equal equality.

Do you feel it would be fair to treat everyone as an androgyne? Or would it be better to embrace the differences between the sexes, which are not just physical?

HellFireClub

Morgase wrote: »

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.

Yeah back on topic is right, an engineer on a building site is an exclusively administrative & managerial function. I ask again, why have the builders scaffolds not been 50% occupied by women, or even 1% occupied by women???

We are all equal apparently, or so I'm led to believe by the feminists who post on this site, so if we are all equal in every concievable way, how on earth have we gone through a housing boom where hundreds of thousands of properties have been built without a woman lifting a single brick???

metrovelvet

Morgase wrote: »

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.

The bbc have a quiz on their site asking are 'you more male or female brained?' so my guess is its a popular conception.

Wolfe Tone

bluewolf wrote: »

You have yet to establish that possessing those attributes means "acting like men"

I believe got the list from a feminist book, or it may have been a journal, I can't remember. When I get access to my physical longhand notes (probably some time next week I am afraid) I should be able to provide the name of the publication I got them from. (if its a journal I should be able to give you a PDF too) There was an explanation accompanying them I believe.

Besides, its pretty clear that, historically at least, those are positive, typically male attributes. Masculine attributes that men were always expected to possess. Feminists, such as the one I mentioned earlier, and to a degree Leslie Bender, would argue that in law, and by extension in society as a whole, to make a standard which is MALE is unfair to women as to live up to it, or to be "reasonable" requires a woman to be masculine or possess masculine traits.

Of course you can flip this all on its head, but seen as things have been male dominated rather than female dominated for so many years this is a concern for women mainly.

Wolfe Tone

Funnily enough one of the characteristics of the reasonable man, the standard which many feminists claim it is unfair for women to live up to, is that he drives “in as good a manner as a driver of skill, experience and care, who is sound in mind and limb, and who makes no errors of judgment, has good eyesight and hearing, and is free from any infirmity” – Nettleship v. Weston [1971]

That said I can't drive at all, but I did laugh when that was pointed out, ironic!



(just to point out I don't believe the stereotype that all women are bad drivers, just thought it was funny)

iptba

Morgase wrote: »

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.

I'm not sure many men actually think women physically need help putting on their coats.

I_am_LOST

iptba wrote: »

I'm not sure many men actually think women physically need help putting on their coats.

How would a man respond if I, as a woman, tried to help a guy put on his coat?

Dravokivich

I_am_LOST wrote: »

How would a man respond if I, as a woman, tried to help a guy put on his coat?

Thanks.

iptba

I_am_LOST wrote: »

How would a man respond if I, as a woman, tried to help a guy put on his coat?

If you were working in a hotel/similar, I might think it was part of the service.

HellFireClub

All I can say is I'm so grateful I've never met a woman who objects to a bit of respect being afforded to them, this deference shown to women by some men is often in acknowledgement that the female sex is somehow considered more superior or worthy of these small tokens and gestures of respect, not unlike how a judge might be afforded more courtesy than an ordinary man, by virtue of his elevated rank within society.

For example, I've often seen men in my company stand up from their chair when a woman arrives at a dinner table, out of respect to her, or standing up to shake hands with a woman. There is no assistance whatsoever provided to a woman by such acts, but yet they still happen, out of a need to show respect to a woman.

How some women take issue with this is something I will never understand, as I said, I'm just so grateful that the women I've met in my life genuinely appreciate the bit of respect and courtesy that I have afforded them.

I half suspect a lot of the time, that the women who take the most serious exception to acts of chivary are the very women who are actually never on the receiving end of these acts, and the real issue on their part is not one of gender equality or implied benevolant sexism, but is in fact deep seated jealous.

parker kent

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

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.

The word in bold is important. They are seen as male attributes as social norms dictated that to be the case. Not because men somehow got a courage gene that women don't have.

Wolfe Tone

parker kent wrote: »

The word in bold is important. They are seen as male attributes as social norms dictated that to be the case. Not because men somehow got a courage gene that women don't have.

Don't you get it? The ideal person, over the years which has been built up, is MALE. Perfect example is the "reasonable man" test which has been put together over the years via case law.

Had women been the dominant force for centuries the ideal would have FEMALE characteristics.

To say that some traits are not, to a large degree at least, gender specific(or at least stronger in general for one of the sexes) is wrong.

Meh, this is all off topic, maybe I will start a separate thread elsewhere and explain it better.

tbh

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Meh, this is all off topic, maybe I will start a separate thread elsewhere and explain it better.

not in this forum, please.

Pherekydes

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Besides, its pretty clear that, historically at least, those are positive, typically male attributes. Masculine attributes that men were always expected to possess. Feminists, such as the one I mentioned earlier, and to a degree Leslie Bender, would argue that in law, and by extension in society as a whole, to make a standard which is MALE is unfair to women as to live up to it, or to be "reasonable" requires a woman to be masculine or possess masculine traits.

Please explain how these are 'typically male 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.

And how are the standards you speak of 'male'?

Just so's you know, I don't find these 'pretty clear'. You can't just use the term 'pretty clear'. You'll have to actually show it.

Can you use some scientific method to do so, rather than just a bunch of opinions.

Pherekydes

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I disagree, as do many feminists.

Then it's just a matter of opinion?

Wolfe Tone

tbh wrote: »

not in this forum, please.

Why not? Its to do with the two genders being treated unequally, by in fact being treated the exact same. They may be treated the same, but thats not fair, its not substantive equality.

The ideal is currently male and women are attempting to live up to that by adopting male characteristics and traits... See the reasonable man. Thats an ideal constructed by men, about men, for men. But women are being expected to live up to that.

We have a situation where it appears that the differences in gender are not being acknowledged, certainly by the law. We may end up with some mish mash where gender is irrelevant, such would, imo, be unfair for both sexes. There would be no substantive equality.

iptba

Wolfe Tone, it is interesting what you are saying about the law. I don't read much feminist literature so I wasn't aware that there was a call by some for men and women defendants to be treated differently. I think it may happen at least now and again in the sentences given (we had a long discussion on this in this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64566921 ).

tbh

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Why not?.

it's not the type of topic that we want to see in the forum. I'd suggest humanities.

Bloody Nipples

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Why not? Its to do with the two genders being treated unequally, by in fact being treated the exact same. They may be treated the same, but thats not fair, its not substantive equality.

The ideal is currently male and women are attempting to live up to that by adopting male characteristics and traits... See the reasonable man. Thats an ideal constructed by men, about men, for men. But women are being expected to live up to that.

We have a situation where it appears that the differences in gender are not being acknowledged, certainly by the law. We may end up with some mish mash where gender is irrelevant, such would, imo, be unfair for both sexes. There would be no substantive equality.

Nothing of what you're posting is making any sense and is not borne out by anything I have ever seen or heard of in today's society, and seems to be in accord with everyone else here. Your "reasonable man" traits are admirable attributes for anyone not just men and while they may have originally been used as an archetype for the ideal man, they are also admirable traits in a woman.
The idea that women are attempting to live up to masculine traits by being courageous, objective etc. is ludicrous.

OT, I use my own gumption when it come to how to treat a lady. I'll carry something heavy, but I won't stand when a woman comes to the table as I find this unnecessarily archaic. I'll hold a door for anyone as that's just good manners and the only woman I help put on her jacket is my nan

Wolfe Tone

tbh wrote: »

it's not the type of topic that we want to see in the forum. I'd suggest humanities.

Why not if you don't mind me asking?

iptba

I think quite a few people in society do say there are differences between men and women - for example, it's one of the reasons given for the need for gender quotas for parties' election candidates (which have become law - in the sense that parties will lose half their State funding if they don't achieve them). Quite a lot of people switch from one side to the other it seems to me: when it suits them, there are no differences between men and women; when it suits them, there are differences.

tbh

First paragraph of bloody nipples post sums it up I think. The stuff you're posting sets a tone for the forum we don't want set. As mods, that's our call to make.

Bloody Nipples

iptba wrote: »

I think quite a few people in society do say there are differences between men and women - for example, it's one of the reasons given for the need for gender quotas for candidates (which have become law - in the sense that parties will lose half their State funding if they don't achieve them). Quite a lot of people switch from one side to the other it seems to me: when it suits them, there are no differences between men and women, when it suits them, there are differences.

I'm suspicious of the gender quotas idea. I'd like to know what % of different political parties membership is female before setting a bar of 30%.

iptba

Bloody Nipples wrote: »

I'm suspicious of the gender quotas idea. I'd like to know what % of different political parties membership is female before setting a bar of 30%.

And it's going to be 40% after 7 seven years : http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0531/breaking32.html

Wolfe Tone

iptba wrote: »

I think quite a few people in society do say there are differences between men and women - for example, it's one of the reasons given for the need for gender quotas for parties' election candidates (which have become law - in the sense that parties will lose half their State funding if they don't achieve them). Quite a lot of people switch from one side to the other it seems to me: when it suits them, there are no differences between men and women; when it suits them, there are differences.

Exactly!!

Imo, to treat men and women the same is not fair. Even worse, to treat women as men, is not fair.


Anyway I'll leave it at that seen as tbh ain't a fan of this topic.

mick.m

As mentioned above, I can't really see how equality can ever be fully achieved if men and women are different in many ways, particularly physically. Are feminists even asking for full equality, or do they want to retain some aspects of the way things are now with regards to the "chivalry" involved?

Also as prieviously mentioned, alot of it certainly comes down to basic manners. Personally, I feel like I have done the right thing after helping someone with something they're struggling with, or holding a door open for someone. Likewise if something is done for me I feel grateful to that person, not that they have basically implied that I'm not capable of doing it myself based on gender or whatever. Political "correctness" gone mad, how anyone could ever take strong offence to someone trying to help them!

Bloody Nipples

iptba wrote: »

And it's going to be 40% after 7 seven years : http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0531/breaking32.html

But if a political party has a female membership of <40% then you're potentially positively discriminating against people who may actually be better for the role.

iptba

Bloody Nipples wrote: »

But if a political party has a female membership of <40% then you're potentially positively discriminating against people who may actually be better for the role.

The main justification for discriminating against men in this way it would appear is that women are different in some way to men.

Galvasean

Bloody Nipples wrote: »

But if a political party has a female membership of <40% then you're potentially positively discriminating against people who may actually be better for the role.

Yeah, there's a big thread about it on this very forum.

SugarHigh

iptba wrote: »

I think quite a few people in society do say there are differences between men and women - for example, it's one of the reasons given for the need for gender quotas for parties' election candidates (which have become law - in the sense that parties will lose half their State funding if they don't achieve them). Quite a lot of people switch from one side to the other it seems to me: when it suits them, there are no differences between men and women; when it suits them, there are differences.

I think the a good example of this is in fitness tests for jobs like Military or Police forces where women have lower standards. If they can't meet the same physical requirements that a man has to meet they obviously aren't capable of doing the job to the same level.