Cross-posted on my deviantART account.
Often, in arguments of feminism, you come across the subject of chivalry. These days, it seems that anti-feminists are offended at feminism's rejection of chivalry (holding the door, taking her coat, pulling out a chair, etc.), but let's take a closer examination, shall we?
In many arguments I've had in the past, I've had men declare that if women wanted equality, then they shouldn't expect chivalry. Well, I personally have never expected chivalry. I was taught that it's polite to hold a door, not that it's polite for specifically men to hold the door for specifically women. If I reach the door first, I hold it for the person who comes after me, regardless of gender. If someone is ahead of me but is elderly, has too much to carry, is physically-handicapped, or has small children with hir, then I will speed ahead to hold the door. If, however, a perfectly capable person is ahead of me, then I expect that person, again regardless of gender, to hold the door for me. Or if I am carrying many things, I would be grateful if someone sped ahead of me to hold the door. It's just simple politeness between human beings.
And many feminists feel the way I do. Thus, when anti-feminists told us we had to lose chivalry if we wanted equality, we told them we'd already lost it and frankly didn't want it. We told them we were perfectly capable of opening a door, driving a car, paying for dinner, paying for a movie, taking off our coats, and pulling out our chairs for ourselves. We didn't expect the anti-feminists to be satisfied and sure enough they were livid. Now, all of the sudden, we reject politeness! These poor men who are just trying to be nice have to deal with these horrible feminists who proclaim that they don't let men hold the door for them!
This isn't to say that declaring that specifically a man can't hold the door for you isn't rude and certainly gender prejudice, but what the hell do you expect when you say things like, "Feminists are all about equality, but they don't mind chivalry," or "Hey, you can have your equality; just don't expect me to open the door for you, or pay for dinner." And again, these are things that feminists didn't embrace in the first place, but when you say such things, it seems to us that our message isn't clear and it forces us to up our game. Thus, some women will say stupid things such as, "I don't let men hold the door for me," or she'll simply go to a different door that isn't being held.
If you are a man who genuinely isn't a chauvinist and whom has felt slighted by a woman refusing to let you hold the door for her, consider whether or not you would hold the door for a man. If the answer is no, then there's a problem. Ask yourself why you decided to hold the door for her. If it wasn't because you were ahead, and it wasn't because she was carrying a lot of things, and it wasn't because she was physically-handicapped or elderly, or heavily pregnant, and it wasn't because she had small children with her, and it wasn't because you would do that for anyone, then there is a problem. Ask yourself whether or not you would allow someone, regardless of gender, to hold the door for you under the same circumstances you would hold a door for a woman. If the answer is no, there is a problem. And if there's a problem with any of these, then don't be surprised when women take insult to it.
If you're a woman who is a feminist and whom has taken insult to a man holding the door for you, consider whether or not this man is holding the door for you specifically because you're a woman. If there's a strong possibility that the answer is no, then don't take offense; just thank him. Ask yourself whether you were carrying a lot, had small children with you, are getting along in your years, limping or using a crutch or cane, were heavily pregnant, or if he was simply ahead of you. If the answer is yes to any of these, then there's a good chance he would do that for anyone and is just being polite. Ask yourself whether you would hold the door for a man. If you would, then you should have no problem with men holding the door for you. Ask yourself whether you would let anyone hold the door for you. If the answer is no, consider telling a man holding the door that you don't let anyone hold the door for you.
These are important questions and let me tell you I've gotten dirty looks from some men when I've held the door for them even when they were carrying things, and I'm pretty sure I feel just as slighted as a man does when a woman tells him he can't hold the door for her. So where does this start? How did we come to this ridiculous topic? Well, as always, society is the culprit, society tells us which roles we must take and thus what to teach our children. Thus, the best way to counter this attitude begins in the home, where society's attitudes so often manifest themselves.
Don't teach your sons that they have to hold the door for women; instead, teach them that it's polite for anyone to hold the door for anyone. Teach the very same to your daughters; do not teach them that good men are the type who hold doors and pull out chairs for women. Teaching your children that men must be chivalrous and that women should appreciate and accept chivalrous behaviour ultimately teaches that men are disposable and that women are incapable. This is not a healthy attitude for either gender to have and, small though holding a door may seem, it's no wonder that chivalry has become such a huge topic.
In short, the anti-feminists are right in that if we want equality then we must strive for it in all areas of our lives, even the small stuff. We must also accept, however, that the anti-feminists don't actually want equality and will find fault with everything we do, and they would probably find something wrong with this attitude, too ("you're taking away our attempts to please women!" or some other such nonsense). But we must not take out our frustration with them on the men who are genuinely good people. And these men must learn that if a feminist does happen to take out her frustration on him, perhaps he should look at the flak coming at her from some of his peers. Remember: the door to equality can only be entered if it's being held open from both sides.
Often, in arguments of feminism, you come across the subject of chivalry. These days, it seems that anti-feminists are offended at feminism's rejection of chivalry (holding the door, taking her coat, pulling out a chair, etc.), but let's take a closer examination, shall we?
In many arguments I've had in the past, I've had men declare that if women wanted equality, then they shouldn't expect chivalry. Well, I personally have never expected chivalry. I was taught that it's polite to hold a door, not that it's polite for specifically men to hold the door for specifically women. If I reach the door first, I hold it for the person who comes after me, regardless of gender. If someone is ahead of me but is elderly, has too much to carry, is physically-handicapped, or has small children with hir, then I will speed ahead to hold the door. If, however, a perfectly capable person is ahead of me, then I expect that person, again regardless of gender, to hold the door for me. Or if I am carrying many things, I would be grateful if someone sped ahead of me to hold the door. It's just simple politeness between human beings.
And many feminists feel the way I do. Thus, when anti-feminists told us we had to lose chivalry if we wanted equality, we told them we'd already lost it and frankly didn't want it. We told them we were perfectly capable of opening a door, driving a car, paying for dinner, paying for a movie, taking off our coats, and pulling out our chairs for ourselves. We didn't expect the anti-feminists to be satisfied and sure enough they were livid. Now, all of the sudden, we reject politeness! These poor men who are just trying to be nice have to deal with these horrible feminists who proclaim that they don't let men hold the door for them!
This isn't to say that declaring that specifically a man can't hold the door for you isn't rude and certainly gender prejudice, but what the hell do you expect when you say things like, "Feminists are all about equality, but they don't mind chivalry," or "Hey, you can have your equality; just don't expect me to open the door for you, or pay for dinner." And again, these are things that feminists didn't embrace in the first place, but when you say such things, it seems to us that our message isn't clear and it forces us to up our game. Thus, some women will say stupid things such as, "I don't let men hold the door for me," or she'll simply go to a different door that isn't being held.
If you are a man who genuinely isn't a chauvinist and whom has felt slighted by a woman refusing to let you hold the door for her, consider whether or not you would hold the door for a man. If the answer is no, then there's a problem. Ask yourself why you decided to hold the door for her. If it wasn't because you were ahead, and it wasn't because she was carrying a lot of things, and it wasn't because she was physically-handicapped or elderly, or heavily pregnant, and it wasn't because she had small children with her, and it wasn't because you would do that for anyone, then there is a problem. Ask yourself whether or not you would allow someone, regardless of gender, to hold the door for you under the same circumstances you would hold a door for a woman. If the answer is no, there is a problem. And if there's a problem with any of these, then don't be surprised when women take insult to it.
If you're a woman who is a feminist and whom has taken insult to a man holding the door for you, consider whether or not this man is holding the door for you specifically because you're a woman. If there's a strong possibility that the answer is no, then don't take offense; just thank him. Ask yourself whether you were carrying a lot, had small children with you, are getting along in your years, limping or using a crutch or cane, were heavily pregnant, or if he was simply ahead of you. If the answer is yes to any of these, then there's a good chance he would do that for anyone and is just being polite. Ask yourself whether you would hold the door for a man. If you would, then you should have no problem with men holding the door for you. Ask yourself whether you would let anyone hold the door for you. If the answer is no, consider telling a man holding the door that you don't let anyone hold the door for you.
These are important questions and let me tell you I've gotten dirty looks from some men when I've held the door for them even when they were carrying things, and I'm pretty sure I feel just as slighted as a man does when a woman tells him he can't hold the door for her. So where does this start? How did we come to this ridiculous topic? Well, as always, society is the culprit, society tells us which roles we must take and thus what to teach our children. Thus, the best way to counter this attitude begins in the home, where society's attitudes so often manifest themselves.
Don't teach your sons that they have to hold the door for women; instead, teach them that it's polite for anyone to hold the door for anyone. Teach the very same to your daughters; do not teach them that good men are the type who hold doors and pull out chairs for women. Teaching your children that men must be chivalrous and that women should appreciate and accept chivalrous behaviour ultimately teaches that men are disposable and that women are incapable. This is not a healthy attitude for either gender to have and, small though holding a door may seem, it's no wonder that chivalry has become such a huge topic.
In short, the anti-feminists are right in that if we want equality then we must strive for it in all areas of our lives, even the small stuff. We must also accept, however, that the anti-feminists don't actually want equality and will find fault with everything we do, and they would probably find something wrong with this attitude, too ("you're taking away our attempts to please women!" or some other such nonsense). But we must not take out our frustration with them on the men who are genuinely good people. And these men must learn that if a feminist does happen to take out her frustration on him, perhaps he should look at the flak coming at her from some of his peers. Remember: the door to equality can only be entered if it's being held open from both sides.
"In short, the anti-feminists are right in that if we want equality then we must strive for it in all areas of our lives, even the small stuff."
ReplyDeleteThat is not an anti-feminist position, that is truth and reality. Though I am not a feminist, I respect the very few actual feminists who want full time equality, not just when it happens to be to their advantage. The vast majority of those who ID as feminists fall into the latter category.
I also respect feminists who are just as outraged by inequalities in their favor (which puts males at a disadvantage) as they are when inequalities put them at a disadvantage, although there are even fewer of them than there are those who embrace full time equality.
Bottom line, I largely agree with you, which is why I treat feminists no different than I treat other men. That is, with no more or less courtesy and deference, with true equality, as they ostensibly (if they really are feminists) want.
"That is not an anti-feminist position, that is truth and reality."
ReplyDeleteI never posited that it was an anti-feminist "position", rather it's something they use in their arguments against feminism, as I stated in the original post: "You want equality; don't expect me to hold the door."
"very few actual feminists who want full time equality, not just when it happens to be to their advantage. The vast majority of those who ID as feminists fall into the latter category."
You know, I hear this a lot, but for some reason I have yet to actually run into one of these "majority" feminists.
"I also respect feminists who are just as outraged by inequalities in their favor (which puts males at a disadvantage) as they are when inequalities put them at a disadvantage, although there are even fewer of them than there are those who embrace full time equality."
Again, I don't know any feminists who aren't outraged at the few inequalities men suffer, myself included. If you mean feminists that spend an equal effort and time deploring men's disadvantages as women's disadvantages, then yes you're probably right that there aren't very many. That's because women suffer more disadvantages than men do.
"why I treat feminists no different than I treat other men."
Why just feminists? Why not all women? Why not treat all people the same, period? Feminists don't want advantages over women just because we're feminists; we want to be treated equally regardless of what's between our legs.