But I'm in the majority on this one. I'm all for equal rights for females, but if I can birth the baby, my husband can open my door. LOL! It's just nice and it makes me feel special. I love it when a man opens a door for me. I am actually teaching my sons to do it, because though their father leads by example, he's never actually said, "Pssst....open the door for you mother." So I ask. "Son, will you please hold the door for me?" And I ask him to do it at restaurants for others as well.
Awww, I totally and completely love this. You are raising wonderful guys. :-))
I find it all interesting, but not particular irritating. I am fascinated by other cultures, so I love learning about the customs of other cultures. The more cultures you learn about, the more interesting it is - and the more tolerant you become to even customs that would seem bizarre, meaningless or even rude to you.
Nothing irks me more than when people make fun of other people's custom's because they don't understand them...I think it's just sad. Just because I may think it's odd doesn't mean it's worthy of criticism...That doesn't apply to anything here I'm just saying
As far as men holding doors for me, I'm OK with it, but I'm OK if they don't as well. I do think it's common courtesy to look around and see if anyone is coming behind you and then hold the door open for them..man..women...or whatever. I do get a bit miff if I'm walking RIGHT behind someone and they don't bother to hold the door open while they pass through.
I am beginning to think either viewpoint can be taken to an undesirable extreme.
If we single women out for special courtesy, it can get ridiculous. "Always walk on the outside edge of the sidewalk." No longer applies. It used to be so, to protect the ladies from being splattered by mud from the street. I've heard it said nowadays that it's actually better for the man to walk on the inside edge, in case some thug jumps out from an alley way. "Always stand when a lady approaches or leaves." Now THIS one makes no sense! What is the reason for it? "Always tip your hat to a lady." I'm actually trying to research the reason for that one, and I can't seem to find one. And the practice of gentlemen helping ladies with their coats, seating ladies at the table, or (when smoking was fashionable) lighting her cigarette for her certainly, to me, seems to imply that she cannot do those things herself.
It's not that I don't believe in good manners. But I definitely don't believe in rules existing just to exist. When I was a child and asked why I must do this or that, "because I said so" only left me seething with resentment. I still don't like that answer. If a "why" cannot be answered with a practical, logical reason, I question the need for the rule. And in my mind, such answers as "it's just common courtesy," "that's the way things are done," or "that's policy" show the same kind of thinking as "because I said so."
On the other hand, taking women's equality to extremes can get stupid. I certainly don't plan to change the spelling of "woman" so that the letters m-a-n aren't in there. "Man" is not a dirty word! I gladly call myself Mrs. Brady, and I'm proud to be my husband's wife. Yet some feminists object to a woman taking her husband's last name. I remember the "Ms." movement from the 1970's. They thought it was unfair that a woman's title, Miss or Mrs., shows her marital status, while a man being called Mr. does not. Some even object to the word "lady," although I don't understand that one. Likewise, I don't care if my husband's name comes first, or mine does. Marriage makes us one, anyway, so what's the difference?
Sometimes, these "unconscious acts", acts which are ingrained in our culture, do perpetuate inequality.
Women fought very very hard, particularly in the 60's and 70's, for political freedom - this act seems to be ignoring all of that hard work.
I could see how it would be irksome to experience someone saying "Let's let the women go first" - still fundamentally implying that there is a DIFFERENCE between men and women (they need help from the men, they are not equals). And yes, this exact behavior does find itself mirrored in the more important, political arena. That is where it REALLY hurts women.
Of course though, it is not the man himself that bothers me - he is most likely unaware of his actions. What is bothersome, is the fact that this 'old-fashioned behavior' - a behavior that may be unconscious, but is also quite powerful - upholds a bifurcation of gender roles.
Small, seemingly unimportant actions can have large implications.
Women and men *are* different, but not in a way that women should need special assistance from the men. Their (traditional) roles in the family are different but of equal importance, and one should not belittle the other's role.
I find it interesting that those who advocate special consideration for women call it "showing respect," while those who advocate absolute equality also call it "showing respect." And I think the fact that we all have respect as our motive is the reason this conversation, though full of disagreement, has been civil. (And I'm glad for that.)
One note on equality though: "Equal" and "identical" don't mean the same thing. Four quarters equal a dollar and have the same buying power, but they aren't made the same, and don't look the same. Likewise, by saying that men and women are equal and that neither should have preferential treatment over the other, I am not saying that men and women are the same.
ETA: Some people, of both sexes, think feminism is about women trying to be men. I disagree. I think what women have fought for so valiantly is the equal importance. The right to *choose* whether she wants to get married, have a career, or do both. The right to vote, either with or against her husband or father. The right to own property, which used to be considered her father's until she got married, when it became her husband's. The fight is NOT to beat men into submission, or to "prove" we don't need them. We want to be equal, not better. Where radical feminism goes wrong is in 1.) refusing to be feminine, 2.) bashing men in order to uphold women, and 3.) refusing to acknowledge any gender differences other than reproductive.
Last edited by LovebirdsFlying; 02-12-2010 at 06:49 AM.
Hmm... I am NOT a feminist, and I DO think women should get preferential treatment, all the little things included. I think women are very special, and frankly physically weaker, so it is a good idea to teach young men to respect and deffer to them before they grow up to a size where they could harm a woman with their stupidity.
I am a stay-at-home spouse and I stick to very traditional roles, but I have odd views on it. I think MOST women MOST of the time stick to their stereotype, not because they must, but because honestly, stereotypes are there for a reason. Typically people conform to them. Does this mean a woman can't do a man's job (or a man a woman's)? Of course not! For instance, in the military, they do not let women in the special forces. I think this is wrong. If a woman can meet the physical requirements (nearly impossible) she should be allowed to do the job.
On the other side, women are not expected to meet the same requirements as men in the military at large. This is also wrong. If a man has to do 35 push-ups to do the job in their opinion, a woman should also. In the non-physical aspects, the question of stay-at-home dads might come up. Do I think that there isn't the occasional dad out there who could do the job admirably and help the kids thrive? No, of course not! That being said, most men (nor every woman) do not have that level of nurturing instinct, and would be very stressed.
Basically what it boils down to is women are better (typically) than men at some things and vice-versa, but if someone comes along who cannot/will not conform to the stereotype, they should be able to do what ever makes them happy without ANYONE giving it a second thought, and in general, the stronger should care for the weaker, whatever that strength or weakness may be.
(Edit: I was obviously born WAY after women had all the basic rights, so I suppose I am taking them for granted. When I say I am NOT a feminist, I am referring to the radical man-bashing types.)
Last edited by eratosthanes; 02-15-2010 at 06:11 PM.
Reason: Note:
