Lately there's been a bit of a controversy on social media about men relate to and act around women. It's started with women complaining that men in the workplace either are strictly formal with them and don't interact beyond specifics about business, or that they treat them like one of the guys (insults, off color jokes, arm punches, etc). Then we started getting women complaining that men won't hold the door for them, or won't give up seats on public transportation. Personally, I think it's pretty obvious. It's women getting what they said they wanted, equality. If men and women are equals then why wouldn't a man treat a woman as he treats other men in the workplace? Yet, given the very real fear of a complaint, why wouldn't men err on the side of caution and of not doing anything that could be misconstrued? Finally, if you wouldn't hold a door or give up a seat for a man, why do it for a woman, if they're really equal.
It sounds like (some) women want an unequal equality. They want an equality that's biased towards them. They don't like the term chivalry, but they sure do like the effects of chivalry.
18 comments:
? Do you actually know women who are complaining that men don't hold the doors open for them?
Doesn't sound like real data. It's certainly not true for the strong progressive and moderate women i know, who regularly hold doors open for others if they're the first one there.
Dan
It's the leftist way, and I would posit that these concerns are from radical feminists or their supporters who are, as you indicate, are realizing the logical consequences of their feminism.
Did you not read the post? Or did you read it and ignore what I wrote because you wanted to engage in this bullshit fantasy?
Because, of course, you know and can speak for all "progressive women", as you believe that you can speak for all sorts of groups of people.
I think it's really simple. Feminism (first and second wave) focused on "equality" for women. Now that women have this "equality" they've chased, they want to redefine "equality" to keep some aspects of chivalry they kind of liked.
As the majority of feminist "true believers" tend towards the left, it seems safe to conclude that the women I've seen likewise tend towards the left. Of course these are the same types of women who bought the feminist notion that "equality" involved having lots of meaningless sex (just like the stereotype of men), and now lament the fact that men won't marry them because of their high body count.
I could be wrong, but equality means equality. Equality means that men act exactly the same way with women that they act with men. One way men show friendship or respect is to "insult" other men. I comes pretty naturally to most men, yet most women aren't going to respond in the same way as men.
As I mentioned, given the higher likelihood than ever of a man being accused of sexual harassment at work for saying something that might be "offensive" to a particular woman has pushed men to keep all work contact with women limited to work topics only. It's better to be safe than sorry, as it were.
Did I not read the post??
??!
Yes. YOU WROTE...
"they treat them like one of the guys (insults, off color jokes, arm punches, etc). Then we started getting women complaining that men won't hold the door for them, or won't give up seats on public transportation."
And because YOU WROTE that, I asked the reasonable question, Do you actually know actual women in the real world who are literally complaining that men specifically are not holding doors for them?
I'm telling you, I've not seen ANY women complaining about that. Maybe Louisville is just a nicer place, but here, people regularly hold doors open for one another... men for men, girls for men, men for a family walking through, etc.
And in my world, I've not heard of the lack of holding doors specifically for women, specifically by men being a source of complaints.
So, when you say...
"Now that women have this "equality" they've chased, they want to redefine "equality" to keep some aspects of chivalry they kind of liked...."
I'm asking the reasonable question, Have you actually heard any women say this?
I'm not saying you haven't. I'm asking if you had, and I ask because I've not heard anything like that since at least the 1970s. And then, I think it was a sitcom.
Dan
Also...
"they treat them like one of the guys (insults, off color jokes, arm punches, etc)."
In my progressive circles, that isn't how men behave (except maybe in high school locker rooms). Now, I'm sure there are plenty of conservative and "traditional " types of men who might behave that way, but it's not universally a "guy thing."
Dan
So, you only ignored part of what I wrote, I guess that's something.
Had you read or been able to comprehend the first line of the post, you'd have known that I was not referring to anyone I know. Either you're incapable of reading/ comprehending or you just needed to make some shit up to set up your straw man.
That you always reduce everything to what you've personally seen, in a small city in the south, and the extrapolate/impose your biased observations of a small sample size on the entire rest of the country, says so much abut how you operate. That you're incapable of thinking that your tiny little bubble represents the whole of reality, just reinforces my conclusion that you are incredibly arrogant.
The real question is semantic. Does "heard" (in your little mind) limit my sample size to only those I've heard in person? Does "heard" also include what I've read, that is written by the people complaining?
To be clear, I have both heard (via the magic of video) and read people expressing everything I've written about. Given all of the other things I could write about, why would I make shit like this up?
Again, the arrogance to believe that "your (tiny) progressive circle" represent the entire spectrum of "normal" behavior by men. Maybe it's artificial/arbitrary limits you place on things that renders you oblivious to so much that happens in the great big world outside of your little "progressive circle".
And of course, men are less likely to act less than strictly professionally, or let their guards down in mixed company, because of the hell they invite upon themselves for not restricting themselves. Also, Dan likes to think women don't engage in such behaviors just as much as do men, with some even more so.
But I also know people who never do (or let themselves been seen doing so), so Dan pretending he lives among Christ's apostles is just Dan pretending he's a better person (despite all the evil he supports, enables, celebrates and defends).
I'm going to suggest that conservative women would be more likely to complain about a lack of chivalry because they aren't the kind to find God's roles for the sexes to be demeaning or an indication of inequality, while lefties who complain simply think they mustn't be treated differently until it serves them to do so.
Again, I quite literally did not say my sampling represents the entire spectrum of behavior, normal or otherwise. As evidenced by my noting there may be plenty of men who behave in that manner.
Dan
Art, I see where you're coming from. In this case, I believe that you have women convinced that "equal" means that women get more than men. It's simply some women who want to have their cake, eat it too, and be told how healthy they are when they weigh 300 pounds.
Well, given that your only offer of "proof" was your hunches about how people in your small sample size, biased, group of friends feel, that's a logical conclusion. Especially since you regularly extrapolate on all sorts of things based on your small sample size of like minded people, in a small southern city.
I'm convinced that Dan sincerely believes that his small sample size group of like minded people actually represent some sort of norm that can be extrapolated to infinity. It's one of his stock responses.
The reality is that men and women are different in how they relate to each other and how they relate to the opposite sex. It's not like this is some controversial take with absolutely no "data" to support it. Although, there are more and more limits on how people interact in the workplace.
Men have realized, consciously or not, that their safest course of action when interacting with a woman at work, is to be brief and focused only on work. Like it or not, it's just safer.
Likewise, many men are realizing that they are looking for different things that the women of their age group and that the potential negatives of marriage outweigh the positives. WK has written extensively on this.
Men and women are different, it's not that hard.
Well at least you kind of realize that there are people outside of your cocoon that behave differently. Unfortunately, you're convinced that you're right and everyone else isn't.
Marshal...
"And of course, men are less likely to act less than strictly professionally, or let their guards down in mixed company, because of the hell they invite upon themselves for not restricting themselves."
To be clear, I and the progressive professional and working class workers in my circles have a hilarious, positive, uplifting, sometimes-bawdy time. We curse when appropriate and don't when not and apologize if and when we cross a line. The bottom lines are respect , kindness and decency.
If someone wants me to call them asue one week and Maximus Zee the next week, okay, no problem. If someone wants to hold a door for me and wish me happy holidays, no problem. If someone is telling a joke about the pervert and they use the R word, I/we would politely ask them to not use that word and explain why, if need be. If I accidentally call her, Him (because I grew up knowing Him), I apologize, correct myself and move on. Just respect and kindness. And lots of humor, just not at the expense of the poor and marginalized.
The point is helping people feel comfortable and welcome.
Marshal...
"Also, Dan likes to think women don't engage in such behaviors just as much as do men, with some even more so."
I have not stated this and don't have the data to hold an opinion on specific numbers.
Dan
LOL!
"And lots of humor, just not at the expense of the poor and marginalized."
Spare me the bullshit "poor and marginalize" crap. It's boring.
"I have not stated this and don't have the data to hold an opinion on specific numbers."
Right. All you past references to the "white patriarchy" "rapey behaviors" doesn't imply that at all. Sure.
Post a Comment