Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Feminism forced gentlemanly manners into hiding? Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    As usual, addressing the wrong point and wrong about that anyway, lol
    As usual, a great reply. Feminism just fits in with your wish to look liberal and lefty.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Meus)
    Inequality is sometimes a grey area in this context though. For example, women can get maternity leave regardless of the impact it may have on her workplace. Men however cannot. Women are considered 'mothers' and hence given full power over abortion regardless if the father/husband may want to keep the child. And yet, the men are expected to pay "child support" for a child they themselves do not want. Where is the "equality" in that?
    I don't disagree with your points. At its best feminism should examine and address all inequalities which are based on sex or gender, including those which discriminate against men. Obviously, however, for historic reasons, and because much of the inequality in relation to sex and gender affects women, this tends to be the general orientation. Nobody is perfect.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Chivalry is dead, women killed it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    I don't disagree with your points. At its best feminism should examine and address all inequalities which are based on sex or gender, including those which discriminate against men. Obviously, however, for historic reasons, and because much of the inequality in relation to sex and gender affects women, this tends to be the general orientation. Nobody is perfect.
    I just outlined the correct word for someone who wants to address all inequalities. Given that feminism has never petitioned or had a break through for male rights I refuse to believe it's about equality for both sexes. Furthermore there is no proof that Western society unfairly discrimates against women any more than it does men.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    I don't disagree with your points. At its best feminism should examine and address all inequalities which are based on sex or gender, including those which discriminate against men. Obviously, however, for historic reasons, and because much of the inequality in relation to sex and gender affects women, this tends to be the general orientation. Nobody is perfect.

    What's interesting is that all those points I've listed, although can easily be classed as inequality, make sense on a sentimental level. For example, mothers and children are almost synonymous with one another. Our mothers are known to be the more maternal than our fathers - they are more emotionally synced with their children than the men, "mother knows best", and this stereotype is in most cases very true hence why we class in our culture, and even in our legal system occasionally, that the mother is the first parent of the child. She can leave work to tend to her children as she will probably be better at it than the father who've we've always associated with being the provider to a family - doing what he does best; labour etc. It's mixed with something we call masculinity, which we identify to this very day. This even stretches to the attire both would wear. Skirts, are seen as feminine, associated with an agile "lady" who would walk with 'elegance' as opposed to the trousers designed for comfort in running about, for working in etc.

    Whether people realise this or not, there are so many aspects to our society in physical terms and psychological terms which stems back from the beginning of civilisation. Even in this day and age where women have rights - we're still unprepared to follow through "equality" to the nth degree and what we call "equal rights" are actually "similar rights" because they are anything but identical in every sense.[/I]


    I think that's important to remember before we start rallying about equality between genders. There is no black and white, and there are somethings which - technically can be considered unequal - that will not change as long as we identify what masculinity and feminity are.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I generally hold doors open, etc., for everyone. I barely register peoples' gender anymore, at least not consciously. Maybe I should move to Thailand, make a game out of trying to figure it out...

    (Original post by Meus)
    Our mothers are known to be the more maternal than our fathers
    I should hope so, too. :p:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fraternité)
    I generally hold doors open, etc., for everyone. I barely register peoples' gender anymore, at least not consciously. Maybe I should move to Thailand, make a game out of trying to figure it out...


    I should hope so, too. :p:
    It was either that or paternal :o: But you know what I meant though..
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amy***)
    I'm pretty sure most feminists care more about stuff like the glass celing, the (worsening)gender pay gap and the increasing acceptance of women's flesh as a commodity to be bought and sold than men holding doors open...

    Personally, I'm a feminist and if anyone holds the door open to me I just see them as being polite (unless of course they are a smarmy mysoginist).
    :ditto:

    I hold the door open for people also. I can't see the issue here.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Meus)

    What's interesting is that all those points I've listed, although can easily be classed as inequality, make sense on a sentimental level. For example, mothers and children are almost synonymous with one another. Our mothers are known to be the more maternal than our fathers - they are more emotionally synced with their children than the men, "mother knows best", and this stereotype is in most cases very true hence why we class in our culture, and even in our legal system occasionally, that the mother is the first parent of the child. She can leave work to tend to her children as she will probably be better at it than the father who've we've always associated with being the provider to a family - doing what he does best; labour etc. It's mixed with something we call masculinity, which we identify to this very day. This even stretches to the attire both would wear. Skirts, are seen as feminine, associated with an agile "lady" who would walk with 'elegance' as opposed to the trousers designed for comfort in running about, for working in etc.

    Whether people realise this or not, there are so many aspects to our society in physical terms and psychological terms which stems back from the beginning of civilisation. Even in this day and age where women have rights - we're still unprepared to follow through "equality" to the nth degree and what we call "equal rights" are actually "similar rights" because they are anything but identical in every sense.[/I]


    I think that's important to remember before we start rallying about equality between genders. There is no black and white, and there are somethings which - technically can be considered unequal - that will not change as long as we identify what masculinity and feminity are.
    This is the political shifting from generalisations to universals that feminists like myself must oppose. There are bad mothers who have little skill or interest in caring and there are fathers who are good at it and enthusiastic for it. Yes, statistically your average healthy male can lift heavier weights than your average healthy female, but this still means that there are plenty of women who can lift heavier weights than plenty of men. Sorry to talk down to you by pointing out the obvious but I get rattled by talk of what women 'generally' do and which is transformed into the idea that it is what women generally should do. We are all individuals and society should treat us as such, feminism has emerged historically as a force precisely because sex and gender has been used to compartmentalise individuals into 'appropriate' behaviour expectations, and where they've been formally or informally 'policed'.

    You should read some Judith Butler, you'd be amazed at how easy sex, gender, sexuality, masculinity and femininity can be deconstructed when we look at real people rather than 'ideal types'.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Feminism isn't about reducing both man and women to degradingly equal positions; that's against our nature. It's about recognising and grasping the fullness and equality of their respective roles. Of course, there is some dispute over what "roles" constitute.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by shamrock92)
    Feminism isn't about reducing both man and women to degradingly equal positions; that's against our nature. It's about recognising and grasping the fullness and equality of their respective roles. Of course, there is some dispute over what "roles" constitute.
    That sounds like 'first generation' feminism. More recent feminism has questioned the 'nature' of roles, often revealing these to be politically and socially constructed and maintained through such forces as socialisation. Modern feminists tend to argue that 'roles' should be as much a matter of choice as possible, not something a human is directed to because they happen to have a particular type of reproductive tackle in their pants.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    That sounds like 'first generation' feminism. More recent feminism has questioned the 'nature' of roles, often revealing these to be politically and socially constructed and maintained through such forces as socialisation. Modern feminists tend to argue that 'roles' should be as much a matter of choice as possible, not something a human is directed to because they happen to have a particular type of reproductive tackle in their pants.
    I agree; my point was to stress that feminists aren't necessarily chasing complete and perfect equality, because that's impossible not least because of the physical differences between man and woman, but that they are looking for equality where it's practical and appropriate.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Does any girl feel embarrassed about it, though? Are things like door-opening seen as a consolation or compensation for weakness? Or is it simply an indication of respect?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andrew_2006)
    What does it actually mean to be a feminist though? You mean you believe in female equality?

    Well sorry to break the bubble, but women have had the same rights for a long time, if not superior rights.

    Now it seems so called 'feminists' are looking for superiority not equality..

    Maybe i'll write a book one day 'the pendulum swings back'.
    I can understand where you are coming from. There seems to be a divide and controversy regarding feminism: some women simply see feminism as a compulsion for a woman to support her own strength and independence; on the other hand, feminism is an extreme faction in which women hate to acknowledge any differences between the genders, often to the point of ludicrousy.
    Personally, I believe a man is obviously less vulnerable than a woman, physically, sexually, often emotionally and in terms of pregnancy, etc.
    A man should not be demonised because he wishes to indicate that he is considerate and respectful.

    I hate the deranged nature of feminism. It seems somewhat obsolete in modern culture, and has actually caused irredeemable damage. Supporting the independence of women is different from claiming that prostitution is a legitimate profession and way of liberating females, as Germaine Greer insists. I was disappointed at that: I love Greer because of her nature and accomplishments (regardless of her being a woman) but I hate her ideas; she seems to be an intelligent woman mislead by the uproar of the sixties.
    The idea of prostitution being legal is repugnant and untenable. It is justifying unjustifiable practices purely because people might deviate from the law if it is illegal. Needless to say, sex should also be commercialised: it is a personal and delicate thing: after all, humans are not animals. It is not good for the woman: it will encourage a subculture probably among poor families and proliferate low aspirations. Sex should not be a profession. Morality also counts for very little nowadays. Furthermore, if a woman chooses to go into that 'profession', she is unlikely to be capable of making informed decisions about her customers and her health. Such an idealised yet abhorrent system of control over the industry would be unmaintainable. It would attract the violent, indecent dregs of society. What sort of decent person would use a prostitute? It is unlikely that anyone would want their daughter or sister - or indeed mother (what about the children of prostitutes?) - to be working as a prostitute or lapdancer.
    Sex has been mishandled by feminists and often unreasonable feminists are women who are not intellectually capable or rational.
    A woman doesn't have to class herself a feminist to denote that she is intelligent, independent and capable, especially as feminism has become somewhat perversified.
    This whole notion of women being free - women being liberated to do whatever they wish, regardless of the 'shackles' of morality is unjusifiable. Feminism is therefore harmful and often unreasonably hostile towards men. It absolves men of responsbility and suggests that women do not need men to be considerate or conscientous - or essentially responsible - because that would somehow be disrespectful towards women! Women aren't weak for being more vulnerable. Women are certainly more intelligent than men as a general rule. And more women join university and get better jobs. In my experience, women are also more severe and focused than men.
    I am ambivalent about whether, fundamentally, women are still subject to male misgony. Is it harmless?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Atlas of The World)
    Does any girl feel embarrassed about it, though? Are things like door-opening seen as a consolation or compensation for weakness? Or is it simply an indication of respect?
    If someone holds the door open for me, I'd just thank them, it's pretty normal to hold the door open if someone's walking behind you. However, if there were a specific person who never did anything EVER for anyone else, and they did it solely for me, I would wonder why I'm getting special treatment, usually if something like that happens it's just because that person fancies you.

    One thing I can't stand is someone pulling a chair out for me when I'm about to sit down. I mean, someone holding the door open for you, can actually mean that you're avoided an inconvenience, but to me pulling out a chair is something that you should only do if the person is incapable of doing it themseves, like to a small child or someone who's infirm.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meus)
    Inequality is sometimes a grey area in this context though. For example, women can get maternity leave regardless of the impact it may have on her workplace. Men however cannot. Women are considered 'mothers' and hence given full power over abortion regardless if the father/husband may want to keep the child. And yet, the men are expected to pay "child support" for a child they themselves do not want. Where is the "equality" in that? Being cheeky for a moment, women are allowed to wear trousers at their work place yet watch a man being fired if he came to work in a skirt
    Women are having the child, though. So why should men have maternity leave? Women are physically burdened if they have to work while pregnant. They must rest for the sake of the child. And yes, if a woman is having a child, she is considered a 'mother'. Are there any cases where they are not?
    There is contention about the abortion and I don't like it but the woman has to face a huge impediment in their lives if they have a baby and only the father wants it. There are no physical effects, etc for a man. But if the father wishes to actually bring up the child then the mother has no right to murder him or her. There is a degree of subjectivism implied, though. And if a man is father to a child, why should he not pay? Leave the mother to struggle? It is immaterial whether they want it. The child is his. He slept with the woman and is bound by that integral involvement in producing the child.
    The skirt/trouser thing is funny. But it is acknowledged that a frilly pink skirt is not appropriate for work, as a pair of men's trousers for women would not be. We should all rally behind a petition requiring most workplaces to allow men to wear kilts. I honestly think they are blessed things.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rlw31)
    If someone holds the door open for me, I'd just thank them, it's pretty normal to hold the door open if someone's walking behind you. However, if there were a specific person who never did anything EVER for anyone else, and they did it solely for me, I would wonder why I'm getting special treatment, usually if something like that happens it's just because that person fancies you.

    One thing I can't stand is someone pulling a chair out for me when I'm about to sit down. I mean, someone holding the door open for you, can actually mean that you're avoided an inconvenience, but to me pulling out a chair is something that you should only do if the person is incapable of doing it themseves, like to a small child or someone who's infirm.
    Yes! The chair thing is unbelievably supercilious and patronising. An archaic remnant of... something. I think that is pushing it. I would feel a fool and pretty offended: I'm not maimed. It's a funny thing but probably comes down to social conventions or norms. Also, walking along and having a man open a door for a girl involves journey and destination: it is an excuse to do so. A boy is doing is for himself but for the girl also.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amy***)
    I'm pretty sure most feminists care more about stuff like the glass celing, the (worsening)gender pay gap and the increasing acceptance of women's flesh as a commodity to be bought and sold than men holding doors open...

    Personally, I'm a feminist and if anyone holds the door open to me I just see them as being polite (unless of course they are a smarmy mysoginist).

    I Totally agree
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jennybean)
    Who said that?! I love having doors held open for me. But not because I'm a woman, because it's a nice thing to do for someone, and I like everyone to do nice things for everyone regardless of sex or gender or any other arbritrary social constructs. And I don't want to swap men behaving a certain way towards me for compromised attitudes and opportunities in society. Good manners do not need to be mixed up with gender domination issues. They should have absolutely nothing to do with being male or female and I think that's a point that so many anti-feminists miss completely.
    I don't know about your reference to 'anti-feminists'. I am female so I wouldn't exactly brandish nor accept that label. Of course gentlemanly manners are nice and many people like them as simply good social conduct, regardless of gender, etc. BUT many feminists look upon gentlemanly manners with disdain because they see it as accentuating a difference betwen the genders, which, for some inexplicable reason, they see as derogatory and not simply realistic. There ARE differences between the genders. This is undeniable. But that does not mean women are inferior to men. If anything, many female traits render women superior to men. I started this quote to debate the irrational feminist view that men being respectful to woment through manners is disrespectful for the above alleged reasons.
    Something you said - "Good manners do not need to be mixed up with gender domination issues" - actually encapsulates the twist radical feminists, like Bakewell, have got themselves into. They are mixing up the two things. So do you think that feminism has been rendered redundant nowadays because of the lack of reason and viewpoints that are actually damaging and disrespectful to women. Having men respect women is not disrespectful in itself. Women are in a more vulnerable position than men, and feminists are unwilling to acknolwedge this truth. Apparently, because many men are disgustingly promiscuous nowadays, women should be like that also. Certain distinctions - reasonable truths - must be acknowledged.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm a woman and I hold doors open for anyone, man or woman.

    I think it's a bit ridiculous to say that feminism by itself has eroded gentlemanly manners. I think manners and common courtesy in general has been eroded away in recent generations.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 2, 2011
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.