In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

For Valentine’s Day, I want an awkward drunken make-out session

Jill

And all I got was this lousy dinner date.

Maybe my man will be chivalrous enough to open doors, give me flowers, and then smack me around some — you know, as his personal statement against the evils of the radical feminist V-Day, which abhorrently raises money for charities that fight violence against women and girls.

62 thoughts on For Valentine’s Day, I want an awkward drunken make-out session

  1. Hahaha, I’m the organizer of V-Day on my campus… I’m totally gonna send that link (especially the “Free Cupid” poster!) to all the women in the show. They’ll get quite the kick out of it, I think. Particularly since there’s a girl on our campus who’s been writing “Jaded Senior Girl” columns recently about how slutty underclass girls are stealing all the men, how no one goes on dates anymore, etc etc… *roll eyes*

  2. shorter version:
    Hey guys, don’t you think vaginas are gross? Are the girls on campus are getting a little uppity for your tastes? Hopefully, if you throw some flowers at them they’ll shut up!

  3. I followed all the links, in order and couldn’t make any damn sense of any of that. They want to cancel the V-day stuff because..why? Because it’s not romantic? What? Where’s the connection?

    I don’t speak crazy conservative – somebody help me out, please.

  4. I’ve seen this crop up a lot on blogs the last few days, and it really, really boggles my mind that “anti-violence against women” = “Hookup culture”. Does that mean the people who think that believe that relationships are SUPPOSED TO involve abuse? Where is the logic? Also, I like the idea that you should host an on-campus firearms training seminar, and anyone who’s against violence against women would attend, or they secretly hate women. Because when your chivalrous date thinks he deserves sex after he’s paid for dinner and opened doors and rescued Cupid, it’s so easy to shake him off and grab the gun from your hope chest.

  6. Does that mean the people who think that believe that relationships are SUPPOSED TO involve abuse?

    I think they do. Or at least they think romance is about giving yourself over wholly to the object of your affection so that anything he does to you can’t possibly count as abuse or violence. It’s a mindset I’m in the process of trying to cure myself of.

  8. Does anyone else find it interesting that their poll only had the percentage of women who were asked out by men? There was no discussion of women who asked out men. I wonder what their dating statistics would be if they included that as well.

    Also, having sexual encounters include everything from kissing to sex is a ridiculously broad range to analyse. Bah!

    Everyone else has already covered my other annoyances, cheers!

  9. I love how it’s an either/or situation. You can’t stop violence against women and be romantic, nope – better choose: roses or not gettin’ date raped. You can’t have both or the world will ‘splode!
    How come no guys are speaking out about how this “take back the date” crud is demeaning to them? Who wants to be seen as a giant wallet and door-opener?

    Let’s see, feminists imagine men as smart and brave enough to stand up against a culture of violence and misogny while IWFers see them as only capable of following Hallmark’s romantic guidelines. And which group hates men?

    You know what makes a good Valentine’s Day date? Going to see the Vagina Monologues with someone who you know will respect your vagina as much as you do. Hot.

  10. You know what makes a good Valentine’s Day date? Going to see the Vagina Monologues with someone who you know will respect your vagina as much as you do. Hot.

    Amen to that! I’m telling all my friends who have boyfriends to bring them along to the Monologues tomorrow night… I figure, if a guy can’t handle empowered women and doesn’t care about stopping violence against women, well, then they’re probably not worth it anyway. 🙂

  11. I’m confused. I followed Jill’s IWF links, but they mentioned neither abuse nor V-Day. Where is that connection, exactly?

  13. interesting that the IWF gals encouraged readers to ask him out. i guess feminist ideals can be appropriated in the name of heterosexual monogamy.

  14. I’m in UCSD’s V-Day production this year — so by all means, please send those idiots our way. We’ll just screech “VAGINA” at them until they cower and run away with their tails between their legs. All hail the Notorious V.A.G.!

  15. You know, I remember people complaining back when I was in college that guys just weren’t asking girls out on dates anymore. People would just kind of hang out in the same group until they decided to pair off.

    Since this was happening in the early 90s (I graduated in 1993) and Eve Ensler didn’t write The Vagina Monologues until 2000, clearly it was all her fault!

  16. Remember, EXCEPTIONAL women like the IWF staffers would never, ever be hit by a man.

    You’d think smart guys would offer a day of unlimited oral sex and a backrub for a V-day present. Sure beats roses and is much cheaper.

  17. College women say it is rare for college men to ask them on dates, or to acknowledge when they have become a couple. Only 50 percent of college women seniors reported having been asked on six or more dates by men since coming to college, and a third of women surveyed said they had been asked on two dates or fewer.

    SheThinks encourages students to “Take Back the Date” on their campus. […] Women – let guys take you out. If you like a guy, ask him out yourself.

    At least IWF was smart enough to add the final sentance I quoted. Call me a Nice Guy(TM) for pointing this out, but in my undergrad days I was asked out on two or fewer dates. It was rare to be asked on dates or to have someone acknowledge coupledom in my personal experience. The obvious response to the IWF whining here therefore is “do unto others”. And at least they got that far in terms of dating.

    But how about going further with it. Don’t these sorts of people claim to be Christian? Well, doesn’t “do unto others” apply then? You want someone to be more romantic? Be more romantic to that person! Etc., etc. I always get the impression reading these sorts of things (e.g. anything by Dawn Eden), that we’re dealing with the female equivalent of Nice Guys(TM), who would rather curse the darkness than light a frickin’ candle.

    Anyway, though, I still wonder where these people get their ideas about hook-up culture on campuses (campi?) etc.: I wish college was as fun as these types make it out to have been!

  18. From the IWF’s student activisim page:

    “V-Day’s goal is to end violence against women, yet they do little to actually reach this goal. Show that you are committed to this important goal by actually doing something productive. Organize a self-defense class. Teach female students how to safely operate a firearm—by far the best method of self-defense. Invite V-Day members to participate. If they decline, point out their hypocrisy.”

    Or you could, you know, teach men not to hate and rape women.

  19. Yeah, because if you shoot your potential rapist, the justice system will totally be sympathetic to you!
    [/sarcasm]

  22. Call me a Nice Guy(TM) for pointing this out, but in my undergrad days I was asked out on two or fewer dates.

    Pointing it out’s perfectly fair, as is suggesting that women who want proper dates are free to ask for them. The Nice Guy (TM) would have used that as a launch pad to whine about how women not dating him was unfair or unjust, especially the ones going out with guys he considered less impressive than himself.

    I always get the impression reading these sorts of things (e.g. anything by Dawn Eden), that we’re dealing with the female equivalent of Nice Guys(TM), who would rather curse the darkness than light a frickin’ candle.

    Dawn Eden’s a bit of a mindbender. Very much like the Nice Guys(TM), she blames all her romantic problems on other women making choices she doesn’t approve of. If she was a simple equivalent, she’d be blaming it on guys for making “wrong” dating choices.

    She’s also figured out how to turn chastity into cash, so if she did anything that damaged her image of “former slut turned pure” then she’d lose a lot of money. Not dating is probably a way to avoid risking that, since if she makes a choice her audience doesn’t approve of (wrong dress, public kissing, in his apartment relatively late), and isn’t willing to act repentant, then she’s still out of a job.

  23. Evidence? I see none.

    Bullets, man, bullets.

    But seriously, I love how they think that everyone carrying a firearm is a tenable solution.

  24. But seriously, I love how they think that everyone carrying a firearm is a tenable solution.

    Nevermind that… maybe I’m rusty on these laws, or maybe it’s only in NYS, but umm… I thought ‘concealed weapon’ includes a firearm with licence and being charged with it can give you considerable fines and imprisonment and/or probation?

  25. But seriously, I love how they think that everyone carrying a firearm is a tenable solution.

    I know that I have a completely backwards mentality and all, but I’d be all in favor of every competant woman being armed. There’s no better way for a physically weaker individual to protect themselves from violence. Of course, learning to use a weapon is important before just strapping one on.

  26. I would think self-defense classes that are NOT firearms-based would be much better in the long run. You don’t have to ever worry about accidentally shooting someone, or the legal consequences of shooting someone on purpose, or running out of bullets, or getting the permits, etc.

  27. Henry, I would take a look at comment #19….

    LL, a lot of far-right conservatives think (or at least they say they do) that any sort of education or knowledge of sex, or openly talking about it, including basic clinical stuff, takes the “magic” and “romance” out of sex and is therefore wrong.

  28. You know, I remember people complaining back when I was in college that guys just weren’t asking girls out on dates anymore. People would just kind of hang out in the same group until they decided to pair off.

    I actually prefer this. It could be because I don’t have a real preference for being coupled over single, but I don’t want to go on casual dates to decide if I’m really interested. If I happen to get interested in someone just with normal interaction, that’s great, but I’m not going to go out of my way to test out a bunch of people I hardly know. (I’m a woman, if it makes a difference…)

  29. (Sorry for the double post!) Besides the legal ridiculousness, using guns as a primary defense against rape makes no sense if you look at the way most rapes happen. You’d have to carry a concealed weapon on every date and whenever you’re alone in a room with a friend, and be willing to maim or kill your date/friend in self-defense, and trust your own judgment enough to decide when you’re justified in shooting them. Oh, and be willing to go to prison for murder afterwards.

  30. As far as comment 19 goes, yes I think so. That’s one area where women catch a break, in that they can justify deadly force even against an unarmed man if they can show reasonable fear of grievous harm. And honestly, isn’t a court date better than being violently raped?

    As far as unarmed self defense classes go, by all means, but not sufficient. I deal with unarmed combat as part of the job, and a determined 200 pound man will physically dominate the most well trained woman nearly every time, and that’s in a prepared training environment. Add in the element of surprise and the sheer ferocity of someone prepared to do violence, and the odds are even worse.

  31. Add in the element of surprise and the sheer ferocity of someone prepared to do violence, and the odds are even worse.

    While I don’t think unarmed self-defense works for every occasion, it works a lot more than it seems like it should. There’s a couple of factors that distinguish a prospective rape from a hypothetical attack:

    1. A good chunk of rapists are cowards, who rely on frightening the victim out of resisting. I’ve known some tiny, skinny fifteen-year olds who managed to chase off a grown man trying to rape them by simple willingness to hit.

    Of course I also knew some who fought as hard as they could, but still got raped.

    2. Rapists aren’t uniformly, or consistently trained in unarmed combat, strong, athletic, in good shape, or in good health. A 200-pound man who works in unarmed combat for his job is likely to be muscular, reasonably athletic, and have some training and skill in fighting. There are rapists like that, but since there’s no selectivity standard for being a rapist, it’s far from certain that those rapists are the ones women will face.

    3. The goal isn’t necessarily to win a fight, but to find a way to end things without getting raped. In most martial arts training, kicking your opponent in the testicles when he doesn’t expect it, and running away screaming while he’s in too much pain to chase you properly doesn’t count as a win. In rape prevention, not getting raped is a win. So getting off a low blow and running for it, making enough noise that someone comes to investigate before he completes the act, beating him unconscious, slipping from his grip and locking yourself in the bathroom to call 911 on your cell phone, and scaring him off by making him think the cops are coming all count as a win.

    Unarmed self-defense isn’t a perfect solution, but it’s a lot more effective in rape prevention than you’d conclude based on how many trained women can pin trained men to the mat.

  32. Not to nitpick, but we don’t train to pin people. We train to kill them. It’s as realistic as we can make it.

    Rapists aren’t uniformly, or consistently trained in unarmed combat, strong, athletic, in good shape, or in good health.

    They don’t have to be. That’s kind of what I was getting at. Being a male is so much more of an advantage in a physical confrontation that the deck is stacked already. It sucks, but it’s largely true.

    Sure, sometimes unarmed resistance will be sufficient, and thank God. But if there’s ever a time when it’s justified to kill a man, it’s when he’s perpetrating violence against the weak and unprepared. And that way he can’t get away and try on the next woman who might not be so lucky.

  33. But if there’s ever a time when it’s justified to kill a man, it’s when he’s perpetrating violence against the weak and unprepared.

    Beleive me, if some woman shoots a rapist dead, I’m not lining up to weep over his body. Guns have their advantages. They also have some serious practical disadvantages, and they’re far from a perfect way to defend against rape (frankly, if some guy slips a girl a roofie, it doesn’t much matter if she’s a blackbelt, a sharpshooter, or both). They’re not a one-size-fits-all solution, and not everyone who’s in favor of gun control, or unwilling to promote gun usage is in favor of violence against women, as the one article dishonestly suggested. It can be, and usually is, an honest disagreement on the risks of carrying a gun (accidental shootings, impulse crimes, guns in the hands of rapists and other criminals who might not have the knowledge of ability to buy the illegal ones), the risks of not carrying a gun (diminished capacity to defend yourself with force), and how they balance out.

    I’m not up for debating gun control, so I’ll bow out on that matter. I’ll say that what led to such vigorous scorn was not merely the suggestion that guns were a potential effective means of self-defense (although I imagine there’s not many fans of firearms here), but acting like they were a simple, nearly perfect solution for all women, and anyone who opposed them was indifferent to, or in favor of women being assaulted.

  34. The firearm thing?

    I’m 5’2, weigh 110 lbs, and let’s just say that I’m not athletically inclined. (That would be generous, actually.) That makes me a good candidate for firearm defense, in theory.

    Let’s run through a few scenarios:

    1) I get roofied. I can’t even move, so I can’t use the gun.

    2) I reach for my gun, my attacker notices, and smacks me to the ground. He then shoots me with my own gun.

    3) I shoot someone and get carted off to prison. If anyone thinks it can’t happen, I point them to the post about the “slutty stripper” to see the travesties in the justice system. In my case, it would probably be all about how I’m a depressed crazy bitch who posts on radical feminist sites and OBVIOUSLY just hates men.

    I think I’ll take my chances without a weapon, thanks.

  35. Another stereotype we need to challenge about rape is this idea about women being physically weaker (see one of Henry’s posts). It’s problematic for me if we’re challenging gender oppression to invoke a gender stereotype, which invariably casts women as weak and passive and men as strong and active (hence, the discussion about women needing guns to protect themselves — a male appendage to protect them when ‘their man’ can’t?). Really, there’s a range within and between the genders on all those attributes of strength and power and so on.

    About chivalry, and these people’s desperate attempts to ‘save’ it: More and more, I’m refusing to let men open the door for me when it’s obviously a gendered thing (holding the door open for a lady). I live in a part of the country where this happens a lot. While I can see that practice as part of many men’s gender role socialization and cultural identification, I can’t also not see it as a form of social control. I feel subjugated every time someone does that for me, which certainly isn’t the surface-level intended feeling, like the door holder sees me as weak or incapacitated. Amid challenges to their privilege, the door-holding ritual seems, like dating, to be a way for some men to always remind women that they don’t belong out in public life (also, with every instance, to reinforce to men that they are good and honorable — something that becomes important, in the popular imagination, what with the ‘breakdown’ in men’s provider role ‘due to feminism’).

  36. What prairielily said. Also, Henry, there’s a lot of cynicism about the “just arm yourselves!” argument because frequently there’s then a dismissal of all other solutions and discussions after the idea is brought up. “Just buy a gun, whether you want to or not, end of story.” That sort of thing.

  37. Is it really so unfair to expect BOTH flowers AND a partner who respects and values me as a person? Opening doors does not a rapist make. I thought the very definition of chivalry involved respect and courtesy.

    Thank the Gods for Milo. I love being married to a man who will open the door for me on the way to a VOX meeting.

  38. It’s problematic for me if we’re challenging gender oppression to invoke a gender stereotype, which invariably casts women as weak and passive and men as strong and active (hence, the discussion about women needing guns to protect themselves — a male appendage to protect them when ‘their man’ can’t?).

    I didn’t say anything about passive. Passivity is a mental state, an attitude. Women by and large are physically less strong than men. That’s not a stereotype or even an insult, it’s just true. You can’t expect people to be able to differentiate between stereotype and fact if you won’t.

    As far as the gun thing, I guess it’s not for everyone. But what I don’t get is the objections about possibly being shot with your own gun or going to prison. The worst thing about rape is the assault on your dignity and autonomy, is it not? I ask in all seriousness, as I have no real knowledge in that regard. Your dignity is worth defending, consequences be damned. If rape does the lasting damage to the mind and spirit that I’ve been told, (and from women I know I can only conclude that it absolutely does) then isn’t it worth the possible risks to take every reasonable measure to ward against it? I assume you’ve all heard the phrase, “I’d rather be judged by twelve than carried by six”. Doesn’t a modification of that kind of apply here?

  39. Anne Freeman,

    It’s unfair to expect flowers, certainly, if one isn’t prepared to bestow them too. Equality doesn’t mean getting rid of flowers entirely. It means accepting that both parties can and should take responsibility for cherishing each other and making each other feel special. It means abandoning the notion that it’s the guy’s job to spring for dinner, ply with wine and flowers, and ask, and the girl’s job to look good, own a vase for flowers, and accept or reject. It means accepting that the roles designated for women and men don’t fit everyone, and that people shouldn’t be expected to fit themselves into those molds.

    The respect and courtesy thing inherent in the concept of “chivalry” is something that misogynists and gender-essentialists like to bandy around: essentially women are so amazingly wonderful that they shouldn’t sully themselves with such mundane and sordid tasks as, oh, say running businesses, organizing their own finances or personal lives, or holding office. Men do stuff, and women receive the benefits. The most important thing a woman can offer is her favour.

    You’re welcome to subscribe to the mentality, but for me, I don’t like the connotative baggage that it carries with it. I’d rather have the freedom to send my guys flowers, if I think they’ll like them, and negotiate the terms of our interactions rather than have them dictated to me.

  40. What Tara said.

    Also, I work in a mainly male-dominated field (my office has around 20 people and five women — one admin, one cost analyst, and three “professional”), and I get doors held for me a lot, but on the other hand, rarely get help carting equipment to or from my car. It just goes to show the “real” reasons behind holding doors open. It’s not to be nice — if you want to be nice, they’d help me carry all this heavy equipment to my car in the snow.

  41. It seems to me that they firearm training suggestion is actually an anti gun control argument. They are killing two birds with one stone, supporting the firearms industry while attacking feminists, the stone being, oddly enough, “ending” violence against women. How convenient that countering violence with more severe violence, and relatively unrestricted access (or completely unrestricted as some people want) to firearms animate the culture of violence (against women and against men…keeping everyone in their place). While the IWF is definitely, virulently anti-feminist, I am inclined to think that it is part of a larger neoliberal ideology in which rich, white men are at the top of the heirarchy and employ ever means they can to remain there and keep the heirarchy in tact, such as going to war over oil, employing religion, discrimination, etc. Equality for women threatens the heirarchy. These women are married to the men at the top of the heirarchy, surely they have a strong interest in protecting it as well.

    I consistently hold doors open for men, at work, at malls, etc. I live in Mexico and teach at a Japanese school. Men constantly offer seats to me on the bus also, which unless I am really, really tired, I refuse as well. At the very least, for a few minutes, the gesture messes with their automatic, unconscious conformity to social roles.

  43. Henry, rape absolutely does the damage you speak of, but I would still rather be raped than raped AND murdered. I would also like to live my life without a criminal record that would prevent me from accomplishing most of my goals.

    I should also note that I think the only reason someone should have a gun is to go hunting, or because they work in law enforcement.

  44. Elissa,

    You know what makes a good Valentine’s Day date? Going to see the Vagina Monologues with someone who you know will respect your vagina as much as you do. Hot.

    Can I have your phone number? (Just kidding, I’ve already seen it.)

    Sometimes I think if I were 35 years younger I could run circles around men my kids’ age, just by asking women out on dates and not being a male chauvinist pig (yeah,the language dates me). The complaints about the lack of dating have been around for awhile. Asking a woman out to see the Vagina Monologues would be a tough one, though. I mean, would you be thinking a guy asking you to that play would be doing so just in hopes of getting lucky?

  45. Now that I’m here, I’ll post again.The door thing, that is being chastised for holding a door, is a pet peeve of mine. “tara” said:

    More and more, I’m refusing to let men open the door for me when it’s obviously a gendered thing (holding the door open for a lady). I live in a part of the country where this happens a lot. While I can see that practice as part of many men’s gender role socialization and cultural identification, I can’t also not see it as a form of social control. I feel subjugated every time someone does that for me, which certainly isn’t the surface-level intended feeling, like the door holder sees me as weak or incapacitated. Amid challenges to their privilege, the door-holding ritual seems, like dating, to be a way for some men to always remind women that they don’t belong out in public life (also, with every instance, to reinforce to men that they are good and honorable — something that becomes important, in the popular imagination, what with the ‘breakdown’ in men’s provider role ‘due to feminism’).

    I hold doors for men and women. I see it as a courtesy, not as a way to express my male white supremecy. So on the occasions where my gender neutral gesture is met with a snarled, “I can hold my own doors,” it annoys the hell out of me.

    I like jennie’s view on chivalry:

    Equality doesn’t mean getting rid of flowers entirely. It means accepting that both parties can and should take responsibility for cherishing each other and making each other feel special.

    Likewise, if the door opening thing seems to be a political thing where you are, look for opportunities to get to the door first and open it for the men you are with. Or when your group gets to a double door and a man opens the first one for you, make a point of opening the second for him.

  46. I’m all about holding doors for anyone regardless of gender – it’s just polite not to let a door slam in someone’s face. I’ve found that whenever I hold one open for a guy, he usually gives me a sweetly surprised smile.
    To reiterate what most people have been saying – it’s not about getting rid of flowers and those typical Valentine’s Day trappings – it’s about recognizing that men and women are expected to prove their love in different ways and that is just not cool. Buying someone chocolate because those are the cultural cues you’re supposed to follow is not the same as loving someone. IWF doesn’t seem to be talking about love at all – it’s all about gender guidelines.

  47. Hell, I’m a girl and I hold doors for everyone, because it’s rude to let a door shut in someone’s face.

    Henry, I don’t think most people would be prepared to shoot someone they know – and I was under the impression (though I don’t have statistics to hand) that the majority of rapes are commited by those acquainted with their victims rather than strangers in alleyways.

  48. I see it as a courtesy, not as a way to express my male white supremecy. So on the occasions where my gender neutral gesture is met with a snarled, “I can hold my own doors,” it annoys the hell out of me.

    SixtiesLiberal, here, the point isn’t how you feel. When you say, “I see it as a courtesy, not as a way to express my male white supremecy,” and you don’t even consider how your actions might legitimately be registered as offensive, you are reinforcing the male privilege (the ability to not know and not care) that we’re talking about. This ultimately tries to depoliticize my complaint — feeling subjugated every time a man tries to open the door for me — into a personal problem, something that’s my fault (for being offended). Certainly nothing you had anything to do with. If you want to be different from the men who use more physical forms of coercion over women, you need to change your thinking here.

  49. Tara, I think you may be ignoring how other people here (including sixtiesliberal) are claiming that the door holding thing is a gender neutral act for them.

    I note that you don’t take issue with the female indentified commenters who claim to hold doors.

    If the point isn’t about how he feels, why is it then about how you feel?

    Why should someone who holds doors for people generally, specifically avoid holding doors for women to avoid implying that they are weaker? Is that not implying that women are too sensitive and hysterical to gracefully accept, as well as offer, basic courtesies?

  50. If you want to be different from the men who use more physical forms of coercion over women, you need to change your thinking here.

    I was with you up until there. I think he’s already demonstrated he’s substantially different from those coercive men (unless he’s a pathological liar about his day-to-day activities). Patriarchal behaviors are on a broad spectrum, just like almost anything else (sexual preference, views on abortion, taste in music, etc.), so to lump in with serial abusers is frankly indefensible.

  52. FWIW, I completely agree with Tara. Why don’t I get to choose what offends me? Why does some guy out there get to tell me I should “take it easy,” or that “it’s not meant like that,” or that “it’s not that big a deal”? Why can’t I say what offends me without someone jumping all over me for being “oversensitive.” Always making it into something that’s somehow my fault — if I’d have thicker skin or something, I wouldn’t be offended, therefore, the person doing the offending hasn’t done anything wrong. Well, no. Nobody gets to dictate what I take offense at, even if they do think I’m overreacting.

    I mean, if you accidentally drive over someone’s foot, it’s not their fault for standing where you wanted to drive, even though they could have avoided the situation if they had stood somewhere else.

  53. Because if you decide to be offended by a reasonable action that clearly was not intended to be offensive, it’s your issue. How are people supposed to manage to live around each other when it’s perfectly acceptable to lose your shit every time something irks you? There has to be some judgement on what’s worth raising an issue about. A guy (or girl) holding a door in an honest attempt to be polite doesn’t deserve your anger.

  55. Who gets offended when someone opens a door for them anymore?

    Tara and Ethyl, apparently.

    Which is fine. I personally think it’s polite to have doors opened for me, and if I reach the door first, I open it. That does not, of course, mean that opening doors is a gender-neutral act. It’s an act that’s tied to chivalry, which is tied to sexism, and I’m not going to argue that Tara and Ethyl have absolutely no reason to feel offended. They do.

    However, how we respond to taking offense is important. Opening doors is one area where male feminists/pro-feminists are in a pretty sticky situation. If they open doors, they’re supporting traditional gender roles and running the risk of offending some feminist women. If they don’t hold doors, they’re rude, and they run the risk of offending a lot of women, feminist or not. Plus, the holding-doors-as-good-manners thing is deeply ingrained into the habits of a lot of men who were raised to believe that door-opening is part of being basically polite, like putting your napkin in your lap or smiling when you’re introduced to someone new. Those habits are hard to break, and there are a lot of reasons not to break them.

    So not to make this a “poor men” issue, but it’s worth noting that this is a tough one for feminist-minded guys. I think it’s fair to be offended, and it’s fair to voice that opinion, but I think it has to be done in a careful, constructive way which recognizes that there are plenty of door-holders who are perfectly well-intentioned.

  56. You can choose to be offended about anything you want. If you want to make the choice to be offended every time someone holds a door for you regardless of the intent of the door holder, power to you.

    On the other hand, just because you choose to be offended by it, you shouldn’t expect that everyone is going to think you’re making a wise choice, or that your being offended makes sense in every case. I can choose to be offended that my office-mate is wearing a yellow shirt today, if I want. That doesn’t mean that the onus is on him not to wear yellow, or that my choice to be offended is his problem.

    Sometimes a guy has the right to say “I didn’t mean it like that” because he didn’t mean it like that. If I’m walking through a door, and there’s someone close behind me, I hold the door no matter their sex organs. It’s pretty damn rude to let the door slam in someone’s face, and I get offended if someone lets one shut on me, so I don’t let them shut on other people. If you get offended by me holding the door, I’m going to think that the problem is with you, not me, and I’m going to say “I didn’t mean it the way you’re taking it- I held the door because it would have been rude not to” because it’s the truth.

    I think that’s just as rude as not holding an elevator when someone is rushing towards it, or not saying “I’m sorry” or “pardon me” if you accidentally bump into someone.

  58. Equality doesn’t mean getting rid of flowers entirely. It means accepting that both parties can and should take responsibility for cherishing each other and making each other feel special.

    Jennie, though I may disagree with your statement reg. the misogynist implications inherant in the concept of chivalry, here’s a statement I think we can both agree on. IMHO, respect and courtesy should go both ways, as well as responsibility for expressing love. Maybe I’m just wierd, but to me, Valentine’s Day has always been a two-way holiday.

  59. Tara and Ethyl,

    Now we are getting to the nub of thngs on courtesy between men and women and the importance of intent vs. perception. Tara said:

    you don’t even consider how your actions might legitimately be registered as offensive, you are reinforcing the male privilege (the ability to not know and not care) that we’re talking about.

    I completely disagree. I am aware of the history of courtesies of men toward women (reinforcing the “weaker sex” baloney) and I therefore consciously extend such courtesies to both men and women. Equality between the sexes need not mean destroying courtesies, just equalizing them.

    This ultimately tries to depoliticize my complaint — feeling subjugated every time a man tries to open the door for me — into a personal problem, something that’s my fault (for being offended). Certainly nothing you had anything to do with.

    The door opening act is just one of many acts that can indeed be either neutral or offensive. The intent of the actor is at least as important as the perception of the person subjected to the act. Your being offended is only your fault if you misperceive the intent or assume without evidence that the intent was chauvinistic. If you assume without evidence that the gesture from a man is chauvinistic and you would not be offended if the same gesture is extended by a woman, then it appears you object to my existence as a man. (If you do so object, we can stop talking, since there is nothing we can learn from each other.)

    If a man accompanies his holding the door with a comment like, “Ladies first,” then you have evidence of his intent. Tara said in he area of the country, the door opening gesture is commonly intended as chauvinistic and that may well be true. Then what to do about it? Doing nothing is always an option and maybe the wisest one if the man in question has a real power position over you (boss, client, teacher). Protesting the offense is an option, too, but I submit it does nothing to teach but rather produces a resentment that does no one any good, particularly if your perception of his intent is inaccurate. I suggested above a tactic like making a point of opening the next door for the man who held the last one for you. If there’s a comment like ladies first, try responding with “I only wish that were true for important things.” Or you could even suggest to the door opener that you hope he held doors for gentlemen also.

    If you want to be different from the men who use more physical forms of coercion over women, you need to change your thinking here.

    Well, it is almost needless to say that I would thoroughly disagree that extension of traditional courtesies to both sexes is coercive in any way. Sometimes a courtesy is just a courtesy. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

    Ethyl said:

    Why can’t I say what offends me without someone jumping all over me for being “oversensitive.” Always making it into something that’s somehow my fault — if I’d have thicker skin or something, I wouldn’t be offended, therefore, the person doing the offending hasn’t done anything wrong. Well, no. Nobody gets to dictate what I take offense at, even if they do think I’m overreacting.

    You’re always entitled to you feelings. However, if the topic is whether those offended feelings are reasonable, then I do think it’s fair to discuss whether being offended is justified by a particular act in a particular circumstance. More importantly when we get into the area of whether sanctions can be brought against someone in an employment or educational setting, the question of how to judge whether a particular act or statement is offensive enough to justify a sanction does involve whether to consider perception of the offended or the intent of the actor.

    This is a big topic, so I won’t say much more on it. I’ve been readng about speech and harraassment codes in the university setting recently. Some of them still look to subjective perception of the offended as the hallmark. I’ll simply say at this point that a “reasonable person” standard on what is offensive or harrassment should apply and that what may be offensive according to the community standard may not justify sanctions. Freedom of speech at a state university is required by the 1st Amendment and usually aspired to in private universities.

  60. Honestly, Sixtiesliberal, thanks for showing exactly what I was talking about. Yet again, I’m told my reactions are unreasonable (with the tacit implication of “emotional, hormonal” because, of course, I’m a woman), and that I have no right to have such reactions, because basically, I’m just a silly little girl getting all upset about nothing, isn’t that cute?

    Henry and Sixtiesliberal, I would have thought it was clear that opening doors for someone holding something or who was right behind you is not what we are talking about here, and to deliberately misrepresent the discussion as being about common courtesy instead of a specifically gendered action meant to keep a woman in her place is very disingenuous.

    You guys need to be more honest, first of all. And second of all, Sixtiesliberal, you need to go back and read what I said and take a look at your comments to get an idea of how you did exactly what I was complaining about. To reiterate: I don’t think it’s ok for someone to tell me to “buck up” or “get a thicker skin” or that it’s somehow “my fault” for being offended, even if the offender didn’t mean to offend. The offender needs to change his or her paradigm, and understand why their action could be construed as offensive. The problem is NOT with me. It is with someone who feels they have the ability to act however they want because they just don’t mean to be offensive (that whole “the ability to not know and not care” that Tara said).

  61. Surely the way around it all is to hold the door open long enough for the next person to reach in and hold it themselves.

    And Tara and Ethyl, no one said you weren’t allowed to feel offended, they’re objecting to you branding a polite, in many cases gender-neutral act as an objectively aggressive act of oppression, akin to other forms of physical coersion against women (and by extension lumping Henry and Sixtiesliberal in with actual physical abusers). And yes, I do think it’s a pretty big jump to say that holding doors open for women is evidence of a belief that they don’t belong in public life.

  62. I went on very few dates in college (back in the 80’s), and to be honest, I hated them. They felt so artificial and self-conscious.

    My much prefered way of meeting people is to hang around with friends and their friends and their friends and then find that I really like one of the people I’m hanging around with – and go from there.

Comments are currently closed.