mzungu wrote: » It is reciprocated. I have often had a door held open for me and been told to go first etc.
ivytwine wrote: » Well you could also accurately come to the conclusion that this is because women are the "weaker sex" who need men to protect them. I mean the not hitting girls thing is fair: equally you shouldn't hit boys, but I'm physically tiny and a blow from a big man could feasibly kill me. I do think kids should be taught to not hit anyone, and women hitting men is not ok either.
Ladies first is going out with the ark I'd say. I think it's literally only ever been said to me ironically.
It's all very paternalistic in the old sense, the stuff we teach boys. You know why it was women and children first on the Titanic? Not necessarily because women were more important- their opinions certainly weren't given the same weight as men's- but because they'd get in the way of the men's work to try and save the ship. Molly Brown tried to take practical action was shut down. Look it's not right. Any of it. Men were often seen as expendable in war, disaster etc, but it's not because they were less important socially: because they were seen as stronger, more capable, stoic, brave, more intellectually rigorous- things women were not seen as being. The legacy of this which remains should be challenged by good parenting. I was just young enough for the "boys are stupid..." thing and I distinctly remember my mother detesting it- and telling me exactly why it was wrong.
ivytwine wrote: » Sinead is an example of that "messy" thing I was getting at. People do often lose patience with her but she is an example of what someone with a long-term condition can actually be like, and unfortunately that can mean self-destructive and not pleasant to be around. Some of the stick she gets though is very cruel and often comes out of the mouth of people who will then turn around and praise Bressie. (Not a criticism of him, but he does fit what maybe some would like to think as a "perfect" mentally-ill person; articulate, sensitive, and above all, not a "mess" in public).
ivytwine wrote: » Welllllll.... I think that was less a gender thing than Hermione had been bullied by Malfoy for about three years at that point and she just snaps. It's written that it's completely out of character for her and a sign of the stress she's under. Probably wouldn't have been written had the genders had been reversed, but Harry, while he doesn't punch Bellatrix in the face, tries to Cruciatius Curse on her, which in the real world would be the equivalent of using thumbscrews on someone. .
Widdershins wrote: » I hadn't thought of it in those terms. I thought of Malfoy as an equal opportunities little sh1t, to everyone! I still suspect there's an element of- badass chick thumps unlikeable boy in the gob, *hilarity*! because it's not the first time I've seen it, only the one example I actually clearly remember at this stage.
Widdershins wrote: » chick thumps boy in the gob, *hilarity*!
ivytwine wrote: » You know why it was women and children first on the Titanic? Not necessarily because women were more important- their opinions certainly weren't given the same weight as men's- but because they'd get in the way of the men's work to try and save the ship.
Arne_Saknussem wrote: »
Widdershins wrote: » That's horrible.
pumpkin4life wrote: » ...
[Deleted User] wrote: » I'd like to see the source for that. As it stands it's a pretty disgusting lie about people who sacrificed their lives so that their families (and other women and children) would survive. There was no saving the Titanic. The ship was going down. In contrast to many maritime disasters at least some form of 'women and children first' protocol was followed, even if imperfectly, meaning 74% of women on the ship survived compared to 20% of the men. I'd like to think that if I surrendered myself to the cold dark Atlantic waters so that others would survive I wouldn't have some anonymous internet poster belittling my sacrifice 100 years later.
ivytwine wrote: » Again, why were men seen as more expendable than women.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » The point is though, girls aren't raised with "gentlemen first" as a *thing*. That's the societal double standards. There's a difference between "hold the door open for people, it's good manners" and "hold the door open for girls, just because they're girls and you're not one".
hatrickpatrick wrote: » I'm sure some of ye know a family in which a brother and sister of the same age would fight as all siblings do, and the brother would always get blamed? I know many such scenarios. It's so deeply ingrained that society simply is blind to it. [/url]
Bambi985 wrote: » I'd know more families where the son can do no wrong tbh, is mollycoddled by his mammy while the housework and any caring duties are left on his sisters' shoulders and he's the apple of everyone's eye in a general sense.
ivytwine wrote: » Or families where if there was a spare chop or slice of meat the son would get it before the daughter.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » In fairness I had to laugh when I read about that guy that cut off his wife's clitoris and labia and then put them in a garbage disposal right after he found out she had been cheating on him. Yes! ........is something you would never hear said but yet for some reason Sharon O thought it was hilarious.
py2006 wrote: » Skip to 5:10 for the 'apology' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKgwczruOSQ
DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: » Some really interesting points made in the last few pages. Take the egs raised of war or maritime disasters. Sure men are bettered suited to fighting on the front line or lowering lifeboats because of their physical superiority to women but their lives are expendable. Fertile women are more important to the continuation of our race. We're biologically programmed to think this way. As a man I fully accept this reality.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » Honest and probably highly controversial question here but I'll go ahead anyway: Do you think that if, say, an Asian child was raised with the mantra "whites first" any time anything came up that involved queuing or any sort of pecking order, that it wouldn't damage them psychologically - that at least some of them wouldn't go through their childhood wondering why society considered them second class just because they were Asian?
mzungu wrote: » In the Asian analogy, is it a millionaire tycoon from Macau holding open the door for Joe "blue-collar" Bloggs? Or is a quite well off middle class banker from Taipei opening the door for a less well off factory worker? If society offers more advantages and rights to the Asian, then affording a courtesy to a white person would most likely not bother them. Chivalry was based on old ideas of the "damsel in distress" that the likes of the suffragettes wanted to dismantle. Even though it was "ladies first" back in those days, in most unions the man was always in the position of power. So, if anything I would imagine chivalry would have had more of a negative effect on the woman than the man. Most men would not have felt like second class citizens in comparison to women back then, although they would both have been second class citizens compared to the small elite of rich and powerful in society. So, lets say if boys today were being taught chivalry, it would have more of a negative effect on the girls because it perpetuates the "helpless woman" myth of the days of yore. I'm still not seeing how even the chivalry of old could have been detrimental to a mans psychological wellbeing. Thankfully, chivalry today simply equates to courtesy that is afforded to both men and women, and is free (mostly) of any negative stereotypes.
_Jamie_ wrote: » Sharon Osbourne is a classless bitch, what do you expect?
In that interview, though I don't think it's shown in any available clips, Sara Gilbert points out the sexism of the comments some of the other woman make on the topic.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » We're talking about children here, not grown adults. Children don't generally see the deeper societal meaning behind something, not at three or four years old. So again, two otherwise entirely equal kids, one Asian, one white, both three years old, and the Asian is brought up with "whites first" is a rule, without any context. Is anyone going to claim that this isn't going to cause some long lasting resentment? Fair enough if you think it wouldn't, but personally I can't see how anyone could come to that conclusion.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Oh I know, I have experiences of that one long before the public at large have ever heard of her but that doesn't explain the laughter of the audience and it's not the first time such things have been discussed on panel shows chaired by women where there was a sense that the guy deserved it. As can be seen from the second clip I posted where Lorena Bobbitt got a standing ovation before she even spoke. Yeah, that's true, and we should clone Sara she seems sound but listen (at 4m 28s) to the audience reaction to her saying that. Stone cold silence. Then Sharon makes another joke and hilarity ensures: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKgwczruOSQ
mzungu wrote: » Presumably the Asian child would be brought up to let his elders go first too. So, using your example, would this mean that extending that courtesy to grandparents (or the elderly in general) would cause lasting resentment too? Bearing in mind the child would have no context for the "respect your elders" mantra either.
I would be interested to know how you believe such resentment would manifest itself? Is it something that will just irk at a man, or will he have a lifelong inferiority complex, will he be more likely to develop unhealthy attitudes towards women etc?
Other than articles that outline the difficulty of online dating for men in the post-chivalry era, I have found zilch on Google that referred to chivalry having a negative impact on men/boys.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bc8c60b40d617ee953d0955850979f43.svg)
