RE: Benevolent Sexism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

DaddySatyr -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/22/2015 7:59:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nthrall

I despise the frequent TV scenes of men giving women their jackets, and having nothing but shirts themselves. This is a sexist statement that women are weaker, whereas actually they're not (in many ways including handling cold and pain).



I was raised this way ... sort of.

My grandmothers raised me and they raised me with old-world European manners. They were from Europe so that makes sense!

However, both of them tempered this idea of chivalry with the idea that there had to be balance. It was okay for me to offer up my jacket to a lady, as long as doing so would only cause me discomfort; not damage.

Not more than a couple of weeks ago, I was at school and out at the "smoking hut" (a gazeebo. There are no walls). It was upper 30s (ish) but it was windy as all get-out. There was a young lady whose teeth were chattering. She was wearing jeans, a t-shirt, and a thin, zipper-up sweatshirt.

I had dressed for the weather, I was wearing long underwear, a shirt, a sweater, jeans, instead of slacks, my 4-ply knit hat, Thinsulate© gloves, and my full-length coat (it goes to my ankles).

You're damned right I gave up my coat. Mind you, especially with the long-johns, sweater and hat, I don't know that I was all that much worse off without the coat. I had no extra exposed skin. I was missing a layer but there was another human being whose teeth were chattering in the cold. I'm supposed to ignore that?

I didn't do it to make her feel less than, as a woman (although I did chastise her for not dressing for the weather). I didn't do it because I want to get into her pants. She's nineteen, for goodness sake; almost too young for my youngest son to be dating.

I did it because it's the right thing to do.

Before some dipshit asks: I have offered my jacket to males, under similar circumstances.



Michael



Kana -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/22/2015 8:01:49 AM)

I'm intolerant of intolerant people.
And growing more so the older I get.

My Grandfather was a Southern Baptist preacher.
He taught my Dad how a lady was supposed to be treated. My Dad passed that on to me.
My Moms dad was a Navy officer and a lifer. She was also raised in an atmosphere where courtesy was not only expected but demanded.
Mom, a fucking tough cookie if there ever was one (C'mon now. If she wasn't before having me, can you imagine how awful it would be to be My Mom. Fuck-instant sanctification. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. Go right to Gods Inner Circle), never carried a bag of groceries in her life if she had a man available to do so. And growing up, she would literally stand by the door waiting for me to open it as I staggered up to it, hands full of groceries.
They taught me.
I hold true to their teachings and in doing so demonstrate respect. Not just for them but for all those who taught them.

If someone is so rude, so sensitive, so needing to be a victim, that they fail to see that politeness is the grease that lubes the wheel of society, that it is a sign of decency and respect, then fuck them.
(does that great Italian gesture of flicking fingers under the chin-"vaffanculo")

besides DC nailed it already 
"I hear ya, but I really don't think a politeness epidemic is our major social ill these days."

Hear fucking hear



DaddySatyr -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/22/2015 8:11:22 AM)


We were raised, similarly, then.

I also believe that doing these kind of things is, actually, honoring my grandmothers.

I should have added this to me previous post: They also believed that there are some people that are too stupid to be part of the gene pool. Anyone can be caught un-awares, on occasion.

However, how I was taught is if that young lady makes a habit of dressing that way, in spite of the weather reports, it's not my job to enable her ignorance/stupidity.



Michael



Kaliko -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/22/2015 8:17:56 AM)

FR

While it's not quite the same thing (or is it?), it does make me think: I would be curious how many of those women that complain about men holding doors open for them or paying the bill also have no expectation of being given a diamond ring before marriage.

I was talking to someone on the phone recently who had just gotten engaged. She was describing the ring in detail. I said something to the effect of "Oh, that sounds beautiful. And what did you get him?" ...Silence.



Kittenluv954 -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/22/2015 8:24:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliko

FR

While it's not quite the same thing (or is it?), it does make me think: I would be curious how many of those women that complain about men holding doors open for them or paying the bill also have no expectation of being given a diamond ring before marriage.

I was talking to someone on the phone recently who had just gotten engaged. She was describing the ring in detail. I said something to the effect of "Oh, that sounds beautiful. And what did you get him?" ...Silence.


the engagement ring was historically given as conveyance for consideration of a marriage contract where the man would receive a sizeable dowry for the wife to be. it's an old tradition that has stuck around over the years, but explains why traditionally women don't buy a ring.



Kaliko -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/22/2015 8:26:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kittenluv954


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliko

FR

While it's not quite the same thing (or is it?), it does make me think: I would be curious how many of those women that complain about men holding doors open for them or paying the bill also have no expectation of being given a diamond ring before marriage.

I was talking to someone on the phone recently who had just gotten engaged. She was describing the ring in detail. I said something to the effect of "Oh, that sounds beautiful. And what did you get him?" ...Silence.


the engagement ring was historically given as conveyance for consideration of a marriage contract where the man would receive a sizeable dowry for the wife to be. it's an old tradition that has stuck around over the years, but explains why traditionally women don't buy a ring.




Yes, I'm aware of the tradition. But still, my question. It being 2015 and all.



DaddySatyr -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/22/2015 8:37:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliko

FR

While it's not quite the same thing (or is it?), it does make me think: I would be curious how many of those women that complain about men holding doors open for them or paying the bill also have no expectation of being given a diamond ring before marriage.

I was talking to someone on the phone recently who had just gotten engaged. She was describing the ring in detail. I said something to the effect of "Oh, that sounds beautiful. And what did you get him?" ...Silence.



This is something that has confounded me for quite some time.

The tradition of an engagement ring (has anyone besides me noticed that the word "gag" is right in the middle of the word: "engaged"?) goes back to a time when it was a woman's job to keep house, cook, shop, and make babies (fuck her husband).

Dowries aside (which happened ... one hundred years ago, on a large-scale level?), the ring almost seems (to me) like a man saying: "Fuck me and keep my house for the rest of your life and I'll give you this fancy lump of coal."

While I do find the idea sexist, that's not my biggest issue. I have purchased two engagement rings, in my day. The second time, when I walked into the jewelry store, a sales associate asked me: "How much do you make in a year?"

I was a bit taken aback. When I asked: "Why does that matter and what business is it of your's?" I was told that it is "traditional" for a man to spend ¼ of his yearly salary on an engagement ring so that the lady could gauge what she was agreeing to.

I found that attitude to be very sexist/ladies are whores thinking.



Michael



Moderator3 -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/22/2015 9:48:39 AM)

Now that I have had some time to catch up to a few of the fires I found when I came in and laughingly in my mean mod mode, had to quickly consider many things and take action, here is what I found in this thread.

I see forum users enjoying a thread, speaking their minds and in general within guidelines. As much as it may disturb some users, this thread is within reason, despite the digs that some made upon one another and the dressing down that came about by way of use of a nickname or without.

This forum has seen days of over-moderation and political correctness to the point of sanitation that leads to nothing but a bad smell that no one can actually tell where its coming from.

As I have said before and will continue to say: We are all adults here and if users of the forum wish to speak as an adult with other adults and you are here posting and taking part, you might want to consider if this is where you really want to participate, because I am not over-moderating.

No one was threatened, no one was harassed by anyone that hasn't been playing right along with the back and forth, but some have complained to staff about what has been said by those that they do word war with. Calling in a moderator to get in the middle of users picking at one another will only result in staff basically saying the following.

We are not here to manage the personal disputes between you all and if you are having a real problem, (meaning a bit more than I find on this thread) then we will step in. Do not involve moderators or staff to regulate what you willfully engage in. Hide, block and move on and reminding others that you will or have blocked them has become an argument in itself.

Please do not ruin things for others by way of staff and do not expect that staff will be manipulated by reports, tickets or complaints, to take action especially when we allow what some are complaining about. That could bring more trouble than its worth.

I've left the thread as it was.

Now my admit. I pulled this in a hurry because of complaints and little brush fires and now cannot remember where this thread was. If anyone knows and can see that I put it someplace else, do let me know. [:D] I apologize if I've put it in the wrong area.

Thank you



Moderator3 -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/22/2015 1:33:19 PM)

Just a post to bring this back up the list because I removed it from the forum for evaluation due to complaints. As I said, if I have it in the wrong area, please let me know. [;)]



PeonForHer -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/22/2015 2:50:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliko

While it's not quite the same thing (or is it?), it does make me think: I would be curious how many of those women that complain about men holding doors open for them or paying the bill also have no expectation of being given a diamond ring before marriage.


I'm not questioning your own experience, Kaliko, but I do wonder how many of these sorts of stories are cooked up and spread by the brigade that wants to see 'political correctness gone mad' at every turn. Myself, I don't know of any woman who's complained either about having a door held open for her, or about not getting a diamond ring before marriage. I can't recall even second-hand stories about these things from amongst my friends and relations.



Kaliko -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/22/2015 3:42:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliko

While it's not quite the same thing (or is it?), it does make me think: I would be curious how many of those women that complain about men holding doors open for them or paying the bill also have no expectation of being given a diamond ring before marriage.


I'm not questioning your own experience, Kaliko, but I do wonder how many of these sorts of stories are cooked up and spread by the brigade that wants to see 'political correctness gone mad' at every turn. Myself, I don't know of any woman who's complained either about having a door held open for her, or about not getting a diamond ring before marriage. I can't recall even second-hand stories about these things from amongst my friends and relations.




I'm in the same boat. I don't know any women, myself, who argue against having doors opened for them. I do see it, though, in discussion forums. (A quick Google search results in plenty of chatter about it.) But here, I was referring to those that are pushing the study results and the one or two examples on this thread. It just got me wondering, is all.

I also wonder about this (which I think I've mentioned before somewhere, so I apologize if it's repetitive): I briefly dated a professor at a local university. He had told me that his department was looking to allow women a longer amount of time to earn their doctorates than men - to allow for childbirth and child-rearing. He couldn't comprehend that I wasn't in favor of that. And so, on that too, I just kind of wonder if the woman that wouldn't take the offer of a seat on the bus would accept that kind of sexism in the workplace. (And who knows. Maybe she wouldn't.)



CreativeDominant -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/22/2015 4:09:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kittenluv954


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliko

FR

While it's not quite the same thing (or is it?), it does make me think: I would be curious how many of those women that complain about men holding doors open for them or paying the bill also have no expectation of being given a diamond ring before marriage.

I was talking to someone on the phone recently who had just gotten engaged. She was describing the ring in detail. I said something to the effect of "Oh, that sounds beautiful. And what did you get him?" ...Silence.


the engagement ring was historically given as conveyance for consideration of a marriage contract where the man would receive a sizeable dowry for the wife to be. it's an old tradition that has stuck around over the years, but explains why traditionally women don't buy a ring.

But they did do away with the dowry...



PeonForHer -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/22/2015 5:45:50 PM)

quote:

I have purchased two engagement rings, in my day. The second time, when I walked into the jewelry store, a sales associate asked me: "How much do you make in a year?"


If that was for a diamond ring, then that especially grates on me. As I heard it, this was just a 'tradition' that was 'invented' by the De Beers diamond company in the 1930s. I find it royally infuriating when I find out that some convention has been somehow so cleverly insinuated into culture that it's become an 'obligatory tradition' that one vaguely thinks goes back to the Dawn of Time Itself.



Kittenluv954 -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/22/2015 5:50:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kittenluv954


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliko

FR

While it's not quite the same thing (or is it?), it does make me think: I would be curious how many of those women that complain about men holding doors open for them or paying the bill also have no expectation of being given a diamond ring before marriage.

I was talking to someone on the phone recently who had just gotten engaged. She was describing the ring in detail. I said something to the effect of "Oh, that sounds beautiful. And what did you get him?" ...Silence.


the engagement ring was historically given as conveyance for consideration of a marriage contract where the man would receive a sizeable dowry for the wife to be. it's an old tradition that has stuck around over the years, but explains why traditionally women don't buy a ring.

But they did do away with the dowry...



yep. and i guess men could have stopped buying rings then too /shrug



dcnovice -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/22/2015 6:00:52 PM)

quote:

besides DC nailed it already

Were truer words ever typed? [;)]

But seriously, many thanks!



CreativeDominant -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/22/2015 10:01:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kittenluv954


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kittenluv954


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliko

FR

While it's not quite the same thing (or is it?), it does make me think: I would be curious how many of those women that complain about men holding doors open for them or paying the bill also have no expectation of being given a diamond ring before marriage.

I was talking to someone on the phone recently who had just gotten engaged. She was describing the ring in detail. I said something to the effect of "Oh, that sounds beautiful. And what did you get him?" ...Silence.


the engagement ring was historically given as conveyance for consideration of a marriage contract where the man would receive a sizeable dowry for the wife to be. it's an old tradition that has stuck around over the years, but explains why traditionally women don't buy a ring.

But they did do away with the dowry...



yep. and i guess men could have stopped buying rings then too /shrug

They could have. I wonder though...how many women would have said yes to the proposal without it?



thishereboi -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/23/2015 5:15:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nthrall

I despise the frequent TV scenes of men giving women their jackets, and having nothing but shirts themselves. This is a sexist statement that women are weaker, whereas actually they're not (in many ways including handling cold and pain).




wow, despise, that's a pretty harsh word. And how do you know they are giving the chick the coat because they think she is weaker? I have done this and it had nothing to do with thinking she was weaker and everything to do with not wanting the girl I care about to stand there and shiver.



Kirata -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/23/2015 5:22:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

how do you know they are giving the chick the coat because they think she is weaker?

[image]http://realestateconsumerinfo.com/image_store/uploads/5/4/5/5/3/ar135112486235545.jpg[/image]

K.




thishereboi -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/23/2015 7:04:19 AM)

[:D]



Zonie63 -> RE: Benevolent Sexism (3/23/2015 8:55:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
This is something that has confounded me for quite some time.

The tradition of an engagement ring (has anyone besides me noticed that the word "gag" is right in the middle of the word: "engaged"?) goes back to a time when it was a woman's job to keep house, cook, shop, and make babies (fuck her husband).

Dowries aside (which happened ... one hundred years ago, on a large-scale level?), the ring almost seems (to me) like a man saying: "Fuck me and keep my house for the rest of your life and I'll give you this fancy lump of coal."

While I do find the idea sexist, that's not my biggest issue. I have purchased two engagement rings, in my day. The second time, when I walked into the jewelry store, a sales associate asked me: "How much do you make in a year?"

I was a bit taken aback. When I asked: "Why does that matter and what business is it of your's?" I was told that it is "traditional" for a man to spend ¼ of his yearly salary on an engagement ring so that the lady could gauge what she was agreeing to.

I found that attitude to be very sexist/ladies are whores thinking.



I've heard of the same tradition, although my understanding was that it was two months' salary as the amount to spend on an engagement ring. This sales associate was padding it a bit.

I'm not sure how it was done in the old days, although I suppose if families were arranging the marriages, then they might have pooled resources to pay for dowries and rings and whatever else goes with the deal. The other part of the tradition was that the bride's father had to pay for the costs of the wedding itself, which could conceivably cost more money than the ring, depending on how elaborate and expensive they want to make it.

I never could understand the fascination over a rock anyway. I don't know if it's sexist or not, but it seems impractical, especially when it comes to young couples just starting out and probably short of money as it is.



Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625