I was the stay-at-home dad and I still do most of the cooking. I do not believe I am sexist but I will hold a door open for someone. It’s just manners.

There may be patronising twats out there but really, are they the people those of us interested in fighting sexism should be taking the fight to? Is this the way to attack the glass ceiling, help towards a better work-life balance or to deal with the effect of child rearing on people’s careers?

I listened to a piece about this on PM last night. The author of the report herself struggled to find a way it might beneficially be reflected in people’s behaviour. What is left is a piece of social science for academic discussion and little more.

Great article overall; it’s good to see LC publishing sensible pieces on this subject. As regards the use of the term “girls” to refer to adult women, a couple of points:

First, I think this happens at least partly because “girls” is the counterpart to “guys” as well as “boys”. “Guys and ladies” sounds odd. If I said “Are the girls coming to the pub?”, I’d be saying it as the equivalent as “Are the guys coming to the pub?”. I guess the point I’m making here is that people who use the term wouldn’t necessarily ever divide the adult world into “men” and “girls”.

Second, many adult women of all ages use “girls” to refer to themselves and one another, as in “girls’ night in”. So if a woman talks about “the girls” it’s hard to see why it should be bad for her male friend to do the same.

I realise you’re quoting the thing about using the term “girls”, but I just thought I’d stick my tuppence-worth in.

Chaise @ 2

…“girls” is the counterpart to “guys”

“Dolls”, surely?

@ 3

My favourite from old gangster films was “broads”, but I suspect that would be less that well-received.

@2

I think the fact that “girls” as a word for adult women is so ingrained in our linguistic culture is proven by your post… FWIW I (usually) try and make the conscious effort to use “women” rather than “girls” which has led to an amusing scenario where one of my younger female friends said “women?? we’re not that old yet!”

On-topic properly, this article raises some good points and I agree, although I don’t think it’s impossible to change attitudes w/some social conventions. It’s no longer expected that a woman will cook and clean, for example (at least, for my generation (mid-20s)) – sharing of domestic chores is the norm and not the exception.

I just don’t get how when we talk about getting rid of even benevolent stereotypes we go to some race to the bottom in how we treat people. The vast majority of people who hold doors open for women do it not to be patronising, but because of a percieved convention and they want to appear to be polite. Instead of stopping holding doors open for women why can’t we just hold door open for everyone.

Likewise I look like the very definition of a computing-geek, but know jack all about computers and computing, which puts me in the position of needing advice in shops but just not getting it, and facing the shame of hunting down one of the other boys and asking for advice. Like whether GB are bigger than MB because I always forget which way round they are. The shame. Likewise any time any women in the office has a computer issue I get shouted at from across the office, ‘oi Chris you’re good with computers come and fix this’. Nope, I’m not actually, you’ve confused the wearing of glasses with IT proficiency. Again.

“If 60% of British women like having the door held open for them by men, do you knowingly annoy the other 40% in an effort to please the majority?”

Contrariwise, do the minority who get annoyed with men holding open a door for them do so openly because a majority of men who do so are doing so sexistly and/or benevolently, or keep schtum because it might be one of those men who holds the door open for anyone, regardless of genitalia?

I didn’t realise before that people might label me difficult because I’m good with computers. Thanks for that … I guess.

@CS Clark – exactly. Short of mind reading to know someone’s intention, it’s practically impossible!

O’Mahony: “these bourgeois preoccupations of detail”. Yep, got it in one: much of this could end up being so anecdotal as to be meaningless. If a man holds a door open for woman, the woman could accept the offer or reply ‘No, after you’ rather than ‘Don’t patronise me, you misogynist prick’. Reverse the roles, and the man doesn’t have to assume the woman’s some ball-crushing harpy asserting her grrl power by making him go first.

Likewise, a woman’s use of ‘the girls’; may be an ‘in-group’ usage: she can say that, but woe betide the man who tries the same…unless, as O’Mahony points out, everyone knows each other in the first place (though this doesn’t always work).

It’s all very ‘Dear Ms Manners…’

This was a form of benevolent sexism, and it made me furious.

Sounds more like straightforward rudeness, with a leavening of old-fashioned sexism. I thought the idea behind ‘benevolent sexism’ was that well-intentioned acts of courtesy (opening doors, carrying bags, offering seats etc) were themselves sexist because they imply that women are weaker etc.

Very insightful and thought-provoking

There is unfortunately a strand of feminism that constantly looks for reasons to take offence and regard men as primitive, insensitive apes. I remember being in a college class that was mainly female and some of the stereotypes of ‘how men think’ that I used to hear were wild and imaginative – all I’m getting at is it always was and remains a two-way street,

As a general rule, if I just beat someone to a door then I’ll make sure it’s still open when they walk through it irrespective of gender. I know plenty of women who do this too, but then the suggestion that this is ‘sexist’ in any way would never enter my head. Why would it?

Chaise makes a good point about the use of the term ‘girls’ being entirely dependant on context. Guys and Girls does roll off the tongue quite quickly as does Guys and Dolls for obvious theatrical reasons. Let’s face it it’s a lot better than a man referring to a woman as ‘my bird’ as if they are a trophy, which you hear increasingly less of these days.

http://outspokenrabbit.blogspot.com/

Daz Pearce:

Chaise makes a good point about the use of the term ‘girls’ being entirely dependant on context. Guys and Girls does roll off the tongue quite quickly as does Guys and Dolls for obvious theatrical reasons.

Plus ‘guys and gals’ if you’re a former Radio 1 DJ.

Re:guys. To be honest I tend to call both genders guys – much to this guy’s disdain http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im3Zj9ZBsyU

“I do not believe I am sexist but I will hold a door open for someone.”

Well, yes. I (female) hold doors open for people, male or female. In fact not ten minutes ago I held the door open for a man. He, unfortunately, felt the need to say “I’m not that frail and old, thank you” – as if having the door held open by a woman was some sort of insult.

That’s not going to stop me, though. I do nice, polite things all the time, and rarely encounter a bad reaction from anyone.

Re McCartney’s final list versus O’Mahoney’s personal example, I’d say the fact that hideously unpleasant Dutch movies exist to be seen by consenting adults in private, or the fact that women from developing countries voluntarily take the opportunity to come to the UK and make money via means that make other people feel uncomfortable, are far less concerning than the fact that it’s still socially acceptable for rude bastards to go up to female strangers and verbally judge them on their appearance and views about marriage.

People should be free. That includes free to go about life without the presumed right for others to harass them, just as much as it involves being free to watch horrible films and/or sell access to their own body parts.

Yes the day may yet come when men no longer dominate cooking and dress design but in our lifetime ? I doubt it
There is a basic need that “chivalry” as observed by men ,answers.That is that almost any men can physically intimidate almost any woman and the taboo, such as it is on using that potential to resolve any public dispute is an important freedom.Even the shortest haired tool brandishing motor fixing sensible shoe wearing skirts hating woman has little idea of how important the “Line not to be crossed” dynamic is between men or how shallow “civilisation ” can be

Women are weaker than men. That’s a biological fact. What we choose to do with it is up to us. Personally, I open doors, carry things and give up my seat, even to strangers. A few women react coldly. More look bemused. Most appear genuinely grateful for a small courtesy.

My excuse? It’s the way I was brought up by my mother and father.

@ 15 Renarde

“In fact not ten minutes ago I held the door open for a man. He, unfortunately, felt the need to say “I’m not that frail and old, thank you” – as if having the door held open by a woman was some sort of insult.”

You see, I’d put this guy and any woman who had a go at a man for holding a door open in the same category: they both get such a kick out of taking offence that they’re willing to read an insult into an act of generosity.

Of course, if someone ONLY held doors open for women and/or old people, that could well be seen as patronising… but I still don’t see it as a fatal personality flaw.

@ 16 john b

Agreed: I meant to say earlier that the final list of sexist trends was stretching the definition of “sexism” rather desperately. There’s nothing inherently sexist about prostitution or pornography.

@17 colin

“Women are weaker than men”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OxK9t93aNQ

You should meet my daughter’s karate teacher too.

@19

Maybe so, but the wording is explicit: “the trafficking and use of women for prostitution [...] and the proliferation of images of extreme sexual violence in films and on the Internet”.

No matter the debate about prostitution or pornography in general, these specific examples are valid examples of sexism/misogyny. I don’t think that is “stretching” the definition at all.

@ 21

I don’t see how, to be honest. The first is abusive (I assume we’re talking about sex slavery here) and the second is something most people find unpleasant, but I don’t see how that connects to sexism in either case. The fact that a woman is the victim of a crime does not make automatically make that crime sexist. The fact that a film (porn or otherwise) that most people find sickening features female actresses doesn’t automatically make that film sexist.

@21 Chaise

A bit off-topic, don’t you think? I’d rather hoped for some debate about the OP.

22, of course. D’uh!

@ 23 Cherub

“A bit off-topic, don’t you think? I’d rather hoped for some debate about the OP.”

It is about the OP: she says there are forms of sexism that we can almost all agree on, but some of those don’t actually seem to be sexist per se.

It’s a quibble, I agree, and it’s not relevant to the main point of the OP, most of which I agree with wholeheartedly.

@Cherub (23) – I was going to comment on the same thing, but as it was part of the original DTel article (and I didn’t want to run the risk of derailing the thread), I let it go (though O’Mahony may, of course, have quoted it because she assumes ‘we’ will all agree…the history of LibCon threads on sex work suggest.otherwise).

@22

Hmmm I see your point, but would you not say that (for example) rape porn is inherently based on a sexist assumption? (assuming that rape is an act of violent misogyny)
The OP wasn’t saying that all porn is sexist, after all.

(and yeah, this is off-topic so I’ll let you have the last word & we’ll leave it at that CG!)

Cherub and redpesto: I agree we’re off at a bit of a tangent here, so I’m happy to drop the debate over whether the sex industry and sex-related crimes are inherently sexist (we’ve done this many times before, after all) if everyone else does. This is a good article and I don’t want to derail the discussion.

@ 27 S Pill

Assuming it’s simulated, I’d say it COULD be because of that, or it could be because the viewer has a rather unfortunate fetish that might not be connected to their sexual politics.

And yeah, as stated above, we should probably drop this until such time as a more relevant thread is posted.

@29 Can you imagine that topic when it gets onto Hentai?! It’s not for nothing that the Internet meme “Rape, it’s like saying hello in Japan” came about.

I think the idea of benevolent sexism is an example of how well-meaning lefties can be distracted from the big picture. Shouldn’t anything like this be contextualised in terms of how it takes us forwards? That’s why I asked whether it went any way towards breaking that glass ceiling or any of the remaining barriers to true equality.

Let’s not get distracted by details before the broader problem has been covered.
What are the real barriers?
How do they arise?
How can they be removed?

Then we can worry about holding doors open for people.

Recently, I had an interview where the female interviewer opened the door for me. Do you think it was a test?

@ 30

Heh, hadn’t heard that one.

@ 31 Cherub

“That’s why I asked whether it went any way towards breaking that glass ceiling or any of the remaining barriers to true equality.”

Hmm. I’m not sure. What I would say is that contstantly upbraiding people for things that might be called benevolent sexism – for example, having a go at a man because he insists on paying the bill when he goes out on a date, or tries to swear less if women are present – is probably counterproductive. Even though attitudes like that ARE sexist. You take someone who is sexist in minor, harmless and even rather charming ways, who would otherwise be an ally in the bigger game, and make them resent you.

Then again, maybe I’m wrong, and the “broken windows” policy is best: challenging sexism, however minor, whenever you encounter it is the best way to eradicate it for good.

34. Chaise Guevara – “Then again, maybe I’m wrong, and the “broken windows” policy is best: challenging sexism, however minor, whenever you encounter it is the best way to eradicate it for good.”

Maybe. But on the other hand I am half way through reading this thread:

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/04/01/scott-adams-i-meant-to-do-that/

Have a look at the comments and see if you can spot the moment it all went wrong.

For keen feminist observers of social mores, it’s a contentious area.

But is it really all that interesting to anyone else? Isn’t this an example where a tiny number of people have got themselves worked up and are having a disproportionate effect on the rest of society?

(For the record, having attended diversity training way back in the 1980s when this sort of thing was big, I don’t open doors for women specifically. Unless I am in a Third World country. Nor do I give up my seat. Nor would I dream of making a comment on the way that women look. But I didn’t before either.)

Gender associations over cooking, for example, are declining as more men take on domestic duties and enjoy creating dishes for their partners, fuelled in part by the images of male celebrity chefs whipping up complex meals with precision, skill, and lots of big macho knives so they don’t get mistaken for Nigella.

I am not so sure. I have noticed an increase in women writing about their divorces who specifically cite their husband’s domination of the kitchen as a causal factor. Sandra Tsing-lo’s lovely term “kitchen bitch” comes to mind. I don’t think we have moved on all that much, we just don’t know the new ground rules yet. And surely the macho chefs are a direct response to the image of chefs as, you know, a little less manly than most.

Stay-at-home-Dads are challenging notions that children “need” a mother at home in order to grow up to be a functional human being, and these fathers would probably appreciate having their child-rearing skills admired too.

Yeah. There’s something not quite right there but I can’t put my finger on it. Most feminists in my experience would tend to say that men demand praise for tying their shoe laces. Things that women do routinely. Not sure I would be demanding praise.

But generally an interesting article.

I also thought this was a good article. Although I try to respond pleasantly to genuinely benign ‘sexism’ (in the form of mild chivalry or whatever) I still don’t like it much. On the other hand I don’t object to discourse which could be seen as genuinely a bit edgy or offensive – eg using the C word – it depends a lot on the overall context. I once worked with someone who stood up whenever a woman entered the room – I found this tiresome and it made me feel silly. He once started talking about what he perceived to the characteristics of ‘you ladies’ in a really patronising way. I do sometimes feel that chivalry can reflect a (perhaps unintentional) wish to keep women in their place.

Women can most certainly be sexist too though.

The fight against benevolent sexism isn’t simply feminists overreacting to having a door held open for them. There are real-world implications to benevolent sexism: it affects the employability of women.

I wrote a little overview of the issue a while back; I think it would be much easier to have this conversation if everyone knew what benevolent sexism actually is http://stavvers.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/ambivalent-sexism-research-into-attitudes-towards-women/

Context is everything, or nearly everything. If a man (or a woman, or less likely, a child) holds the door for me as I follow them through the door, that’s fine. I do the same for the person following me. But if he (and it is always a he) stands there with the door opening outwards, awkwardly holding the door so I can sail through like the Queen Mary, because of course, you know, I cannot physically open the door myself, then that’s patronising and making assumptions. And looks pretty daft as well.

If someone arrives at the only empty seat at the same time as me and lets me have it, that’s fine, I sit down gratefully. If someone actually gets up from their seat to offer me theirs I must assume I forgot to apply my make up and I look really ill and tired, or they just think that as I’m female I must be less able to stand (I am less able to stand but that’s due to arthritis and sadly isn’t obvious so standing is what I often have to do).

Courtesy should be for all – and greater courtesy for those with greater physical need which isn’t necessarily due to possession of a womb.

Claire – completly agree about the different ways a door can be opened for one – the second more ostentatious mode should definitely *never* be used in a professional context.

@ 35 SMFS

“Have a look at the comments and see if you can spot the moment it all went wrong.”

…Round about the time people started saying things like ” you’re following ‘easily predicted patterns of privilege’ and accusing each other of ‘weaponising metrics of intelligence perpetrates an inherently ableist hierarchy’ “?

41. Chaise Guevara – “…Round about the time people started saying things like ” you’re following ‘easily predicted patterns of privilege’ and accusing each other of ‘weaponising metrics of intelligence perpetrates an inherently ableist hierarchy’ “?”

I guess I am going to have to concede you’re right. But I want to know why we don’t rise to such heights here at LC? I mean the level of intellectual invective over the other side of the Pond put us to shame.

@38 Very interest link, thanks for posting it. I’m guessing the “Men are complete without women” was the reverse-scored item?

Just in passing, Obama surely showed a great example of this sort of sexism this week. He said:

bama spoke of Wasserman Schultz, who also chairs the Democratic National Committee, at two separate fundraising events in Miami on Monday. Wasserman Schultz’s congressional district includes parts of Broward and Miami-Dade counties.

“To Debbie Wasserman Schultz, thank you for letting me in your district,” the president said at a fundraiser held at a private home. “If you’re in the foxhole, you want Debbie alongside you, because not only is she charming and has that dazzling smile, but she’s tough as nails. And that’s what’s needed during challenging times.”

Surely it is never a good idea to needlessly comment on any woman’s appearance. Charming? I remember someone getting into mild trouble for saying Obama was “articulate”. But he was not a Republican so no one minded much. I am sure Obama won’t be criticised for this either.

Well, to be fair, Obama’s good looks have attracted some comment too I think. I think someone further up said he’d *never* comment on a woman’s appearance – that seems a little over cautious to me – would anyone think it offensive if a male colleague said they liked a female colleague’s new hair style? I have occasionally commented on a nice tie – is that bad too?

Where I work the blokes always let you through the doors first. I just say “thank you” to show that it’s not something I take for granted.

If you show a picture of a female colleague in a wedding dress and say, “Doesn’t she look pretty?” – one of my male bosses always says, “I can’t comment on that without getting into trouble”. In fact he makes his refusal to comment on a woman’s appearance (in case of the discriminatory police) a kind of office banter.

My larger point is that what’s acceptable behaviour has changed. Ostentatious gallantry – to the ladies, God bless ‘em – is known to be unsuitable today, and savvy blokes with good manners know that. As with any manners, they don’t do or say things which makes them look like fools and boors. Also, in middle class jobs men are used to having woman colleagues – and of course treat them professionally.

The example that the OP gives is of ignorant boorishness, and that takes different forms in different times. But it will always be with us. Whether it’s worth much feminist attention is another story.

45. Sarah AB

Well, to be fair, Obama’s good looks have attracted some comment too I think. I think someone further up said he’d *never* comment on a woman’s appearance – that seems a little over cautious to me – would anyone think it offensive if a male colleague said they liked a female colleague’s new hair style? I have occasionally commented on a nice tie – is that bad too?

I think they have commented on Obama. Women can sexually harass too you know. I don’t think it is too cautious. Sexual harassment exists in the mind of the victim. Any comment is sexual harassment if the minority hearing it thinks it is. Even if not directed at the victim. I would not ever comment on a female colleague’s new hair style – unless I knew her well and knew her to be of a particularly conservative temperament.

Although, as I think I also said, I might do it in a Third World country – although it is a fine line as sexual harassment in such countries is common and always unpunished. I wouldn’t do it unless I was fairly sure it would be appreciated.

Some years ago my younger brother held a door open for a woman at a department store. She had both her arms full of bags, yet decided to stand in the doorway and berate him for being sexist. He simply grinned, let go of the door and walked away. The door closed on her and her shopping fell to the floor.

C’est la vie.

@ 48

” He simply grinned, let go of the door and walked away. The door closed on her and her shopping fell to the floor”

Heh heh, karmic justice!