Louis CK apologizes to everyone

[Miss Piggy]

We all wish it was actually that easy.   Some women will get offended if you DON'T hold a door for them.  Some will get offended if you do. 

This is a side issue, though.  Chauvinism around doors and chairs is not the same as masturbating in front of someone.  I never have any uncertainty about whether or not someone wants me to masturbate in front of them.  I'm not sure why Louis CK is so unclear on this point.

I am one of these women. I wouldn't necessarily be personally offended, but I'd probably think the guy is a bit of a jerk. In fact, I learned two days ago while reading this very thread, that I'm supposed to be offended if the guy DOES open the door for me. Shit...one more damn thing to be offended about. (I did talk with a coworker today who's a bit of a gender equality expert, and she called the door opening thing "benevolent sexism." It made perfect sense as she explained it, but it'll be hard for me to change my thinking about this.)

One thing I'm VERY clear on, however, is the fact that I have NEVER ONCE actually WANTED a man to masturbate in front of me. To add to that, no man has ever asked if he could do so.

[jrhampt]

In my experience, they typically whip it out without asking first.  In a public park.

[Miss Piggy]

In my experience, they typically whip it out without asking first.  In a public park.

Clearly, I'm not spending enough time in public parks.

Wait...maybe I'm spending exactly the right amount of time in public parks...

[Psychstache]

Think of it in terms on MMM efficiency. Instead of adhering to social norms, optimize. As you approach a door, check to see if a person is is fewer than 3 steps behind you. If yes, hold door open. If no, walk through door. Anything less is Complainypants and doesn't matter.

Problem Solved.

We all wish it was actually that easy.   Some women will get offended if you DON'T hold a door for them.  Some will get offended if you do. 

True, but some people will get offended if you retire at 35 or don't buy as mini van when you have your first child. In all of these cases, their opinion is bad and I am right, because I have efficiency in my side.

Based on the above posts, I now suspect I am secretly Norwegian.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[Bicycle_B]

Some of the complaints though come about after being invited up to a private hotel room by someone of the opposite sex - post drinks and when the bars have all closed.  That is not the same as being at a place of work.

This is the exact same script that Harvey Weinstein used, too.  He invited adults to his room, and then made awkward advances.  If they said no, they left and nothing happened.  Some of them, though, felt pressured to say yes because of his stature in the industry, and that's why his career is over.  He didn't have to do anything at all except ask an adult woman if she wanted to have sex.  That's inappropriate, if there's a perceived power dynamic at play.

I guess this is the point that I personally keep tripping over.  I get how leering at a female colleague and asking her for sex while you're both at the office is ridiculously wrong.

If someone powerful asked me to go to their house / apartment / hotel room late at night after socializing over drinks . . . that would ring some alarm bells in the back of my head.  If I did go, is it really supposed to be surprising that a question about sex comes up?  What exactly was the expectation from the victim in this circumstance?  Is there an innocent scenario I'm missing where you end up drunk and at someone else's place late at night?

Don't get me wrong, absolutely 100% it's not OK in that scenario for the powerful person to force any kind of sex/sex act . . . but is asking about it at that point really so inappropriate (and unexpected) as it's being made out to be?

Yes, it is.  Both my husband and I go to conferences and it is expected of people to share hotel rooms.  He has shared with his boss.  If his boss thought this behavior was ok because of them sharing a room, it would be completely unprofessional and sexual harassment.  And guess what, until my year in grad school women were expected to share a room with their male boss all across the college (or male coworker). Until I make a huge fuss about it AND another student got a student expelled for continued sexual harassment.  It required two women, separately being so bothered to risk our careers to get this even considered.  And yes, it was a career ender at the college for both of us, we both Mastered out.

That's bizarre and horrible - the expectation, that you had to make a huge fuss, that the other student had to make the effort of getting the harasser expelled, and that you were punished for standing up.  Thank you for pioneering.

[Bicycle_B]

Some of the complaints though come about after being invited up to a private hotel room by someone of the opposite sex - post drinks and when the bars have all closed.  That is not the same as being at a place of work.

This is the exact same script that Harvey Weinstein used, too.  He invited adults to his room, and then made awkward advances.  If they said no, they left and nothing happened.  Some of them, though, felt pressured to say yes because of his stature in the industry, and that's why his career is over.  He didn't have to do anything at all except ask an adult woman if she wanted to have sex.  That's inappropriate, if there's a perceived power dynamic at play.

I guess this is the point that I personally keep tripping over.  I get how leering at a female colleague and asking her for sex while you're both at the office is ridiculously wrong.

If someone powerful asked me to go to their house / apartment / hotel room late at night after socializing over drinks . . . that would ring some alarm bells in the back of my head.  If I did go, is it really supposed to be surprising that a question about sex comes up?  What exactly was the expectation from the victim in this circumstance?  Is there an innocent scenario I'm missing where you end up drunk and at someone else's place late at night?

Don't get me wrong, absolutely 100% it's not OK in that scenario for the powerful person to force any kind of sex/sex act . . . but is asking about it at that point really so inappropriate (and unexpected) as it's being made out to be?

Yes, it is.  Both my husband and I go to conferences and it is expected of people to share hotel rooms.  He has shared with his boss.  If his boss thought this behavior was ok because of them sharing a room, it would be completely unprofessional and sexual harassment.  And guess what, until my year in grad school women were expected to share a room with their male boss all across the college (or male coworker). Until I make a huge fuss about it AND another student got a student expelled for continued sexual harassment.  It required two women, separately being so bothered to risk our careers to get this even considered.  And yes, it was a career ender at the college for both of us, we both Mastered out.

Okay, then I guess we should enact a "no sex with peers, coworkers or employees" law, because apparently asking is just downright inappropriate.

Most employers have that has a rule, so they don't get hit with sexual harassment lawsuits.  The problem is, as women keep telling you (and the other men on here), that when women speak up, they often lose their jobs.  I literally laughed when I saw Sol's statement about if a male boss asked about taking out his dick, the boss would be fired if Sol wanted.  Not in this society. What would happen, in most companies is the woman would be assumed to be lying, that she was bring a troublemaker and the company would attempt to get her to quit, be laid off (so they can pretend it was not retaliation) or fired if they think the woman won't have the ability or knowledge to sue (or lack of proof because in a he said, she said situation, she is rarely considered more trustworthy).  This is the reality you men don't see or don't want to see.

I think we are in a mixed period when some serial harassers have gotten away repeatedly with the behavior you describe, while in many other cases, the laws and official corporate procedures against sexual harassment are enforced.  In the only cases of alleged sexual harassment I'm aware of in places where I worked, all reports were followed by banishment of the accused from the workplace.  I do believe the statistic that 90% or more of allegations are true.

I myself reported sexual harassment, with the result that the harasser left the workplace on the same day, never to return.
 It was 20+ years ago, during my first stint in corporate America, so not news except that the hush-hush nature of the procedure means that most people in the workplace never knew it happened.  Perhaps there is more punishment of harassers than we realize?

To be clear, I am male (cisgender heterosexual) and was not one of the people involved.  I was supervising one of eight teams who had adjacent work areas.  One day at break time after everyone else left, a female employee approached my desk and explained that her friend on another team had said that the friend's supervisor was telling women on his team that they had to go home with him and have sex with him, and her friend was upset because the supervisor wanted Friend to be next. I asked if her friend knew this was illegal; she said the supervisor said he was friends with the manager and said the manager would back him up.  I said I was pretty sure the supervisor was lying about that, because Manager and Supervisor could both get fired, and I didn't think Manager cared enough about Supervisor to risk his job over it.  I said that however, anyone can report to HR, no one has to stay in their chain of command so to speak; did Friend know she could report to HR?  She did, but she was scared to report, according to Employee.  So I said I can report to HR, but not based on my employee saying that somebody else said it.  If Friend was afraid to report to HR, would she willing to talk with me directly?

The following morning, Friend approached me at my desk (same time of day, no one else present).  She described exactly what my employee had.  I said I could tell HR, but only if Friend would tell the truth.  Once I reported it, she needed to back me up.  If HR called her in, would she do that?

Yes, she would.  So I told her that I would contact HR this morning, and she should go about her regular day until HR instructed otherwise.  Then I went to HR and told them exactly what I was told.  They thanked me and said they would take care of it.

For the next couple hours, individuals on Supervisor's team were called one by one at their desks, which they left and then returned to.  By then it was early afternoon.  The next person called was Supervisor, who never returned.  To my knowledge, he never worked at that company again.

[rockstache]

We just have Scandinavian customer service, based on our norms. The perfect shopping experience here:  I walk into a shop, the clerk nods at me to show I have been seen. I am left alone to silently browse in peace. If I have a question, I will contact the clerk who will promptly help me. I pay for my things, smile and nod at the clerk, and leave the shop.

Wow.  American here, can we please import some of that?  I absolutely hate being bothered or asked if I need help in a store.

We already have, in many parts of New England! It is glorious.

[Lis]

Regarding the holding-open-doors argument -

I live in a building with a small elevator. You can maybe fit 6 people uncomfortably in there. I'm top floor, so whenever someone gets on from a floor below, I move over to the side, away from the door. There have been multiple times where I've ridden down the elevator with one specific man. The first time he held the door open for me, he moved forward as I was passing by so I had to brush up against his junk. I think, ok maybe he just shifted, it's a small space, even though he had plenty of room behind him. I try not to think anything of it, but ick. The second time, again he holds the door open for me, and again he moves forward so I'm forced to brush up against his junk. I glare him down as he smiles and walks past me. The third time he tries again, and I stay in the corner and glare him down until the elevator angrily beeps since the door has been open for too long. He curses me out an calls me an ungrateful bitch.

And for the men who legitimately aren't creeps and are trying to be nice and kind - listen to the women in your life and see what they say. My dad is a physically large and imposing looking man. He was also raised to be courteous and polite and chivalrous. He'll try to hold the door open for a woman (or women), and they'll be forced to brush up against him because of his size. He'll block the natural flow of traffic on the subway to be chivalrous (and annoying literally everyone). He once stayed at a gas station to keep an eye on a teenage girl who was having car problems because he wanted to make sure no one messed with her. All good intentions, all with negative consequences. I mean, seriously, if my car wasn't working and I saw a dude just hanging out in his car watching me, that would freak me the fuck out. But when I tell him that, he huffs and puffs about "chivalry" and "politeness." But it's way less polite to make a woman feel uncomfortable or scared than it is to walk through a door first.

I see two separate matters. In the first case, the guy was apparently being an outright pervert. He needs to jump into an active volcano.

But holding doors in general is another matter, assuming you have good intentions. If, as a guy, you hold the door, some people will get offended and think ill of you. If you don't hold the door, other people will get offended and think ill of you. We're in an awkward period of shifting norms.

I agree with your first part that the pervert should just jump in a volcano. Except some third random guy opens the door for me in a smaller space - then what? Is he just being polite, or is he a perv who wants me to brush up against him? Sure, 99 out of 100 times it'll be a guy who's trying to be polite, but I'd rather be seen as a bitch who won't accept chivalry than help a perv get his jollies off 1% of the time. And my dad, with all the best intentions - how many women had to brush up against him?

I went on a first date last week, and he reached the door first, went through, and held it open for me behind him. I did the same thing for him later that evening. I fail to see why that is such a difficult thing.

[Just Joe]

Are these door holding guys standing between the door and the lady?

When I open a door for someone, I stand slightly behind it, the door between us...

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Are these door holding guys standing between the door and the lady?

When I open a door for someone, I stand slightly behind it, the door between us...

Seriously. Who the hell stands in a doorway while they're holding it for someone?

[Davnasty]

Are these door holding guys standing between the door and the lady?

When I open a door for someone, I stand slightly behind it, the door between us...

Seriously. Who the hell stands in a doorway while they're holding it for someone?

I've been wondering about this one but a lot of people have mentioned it so it must be a thing.

Are we talking about 2 people walking through a door that swings away from them? As in the man is reaching through the door frame to prop it open?

If the purpose was really to hold the door open it would make more sense to walk through and then hold it. Maybe some people feel it is more polite to let the woman actually pass through the door first but that seems backwards. Are we letting her go first in case it's a trap? So we can look at her backside as she walks through?

[Kris]

Yep, some guys will reach through the door frame to prop it open. It's incredibly awkward.

[I'm a red panda]

I noticed today that Al Franken's apology is the first one to actually say they were sorry to the person, and not just for the action or for getting caught.

"The first thing I want to do is apologize: to Leeann, to everyone else who was part of that tour, to everyone who has worked for me, to everyone I represent, and to everyone who counts on me to be an ally and supporter and champion of women,”

[J Boogie]

I noticed today that Al Franken's apology is the first one to actually say they were sorry to the person, and not just for the action or for getting caught.

"The first thing I want to do is apologize: to Leeann, to everyone else who was part of that tour, to everyone who has worked for me, to everyone I represent, and to everyone who counts on me to be an ally and supporter and champion of women,”

Of course, that was his second apology.

His first apology was much more like Kevin Spacey's. 

"I certainly don't remember the rehearsal for the skit in the same way, but I send my sincerest apologies to Leeann," said Franken. "As to the photo, it was clearly intended to be funny but wasn't. I shouldn't have done it."

It's a tough position for him to be in because he's kind of led the democrats in being the party of maturity and diligence.  Sort of like republicans used to be, before they became the party of rejecting political correctness and, for lack of a better word, childishness.

His behavior wasn't quite as lewd as other recent allegations.  An allegedly forcible kiss that he wrote into a script and insisted upon rehearsing is yet another public exercise in determining appropriate boundaries and just how far they have been crossed.  His behavior is at best boorish and at worst predatory, and I guess it'll be up to the public to see where he lands.

If democrats forgave and forgot about Bill's allegations + perjury, they'll obviously forgive this. Unless times have completely changed.  Repubs will probably bring this up every time Franken's name comes up.

[hoping2retire35]

Well, looks like this is really ramping up.

still making sure my eyes are not playing tricks on me but it looks like taxpayer money was used to pay off victims.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/360398-jackie-speier-the-house-has-paid-out-15-million-on-behalf-of-sexual-harassers

[Lis]

If the purpose was really to hold the door open it would make more sense to walk through and then hold it. Maybe some people feel it is more polite to let the woman actually pass through the door first but that seems backwards. Are we letting her go first in case it's a trap? So we can look at her backside as she walks through?

Every awkward situation involving a man includes him rushing in front of me, pushing open the door and leaning his body through it while his feet are planted inside. If the door swings towards us, it's still incredibly awkward to rush past someone just to get the door for them first. Apparently it's "polite" to rush past a woman and make her pass awkwardly against you. If there's someone a few steps behind you, open a door, walk through it, and hold it open behind you, but I think that's just common courtesy - I do that for men and women, and I would expect any able bodied person to do the same for me. There's a lot about chivalry that really doesn't make sense.

[Just Joe]

Well, looks like this is really ramping up.

still making sure my eyes are not playing tricks on me but it looks like taxpayer money was used to pay off victims.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/360398-jackie-speier-the-house-has-paid-out-15-million-on-behalf-of-sexual-harassers

That caught me by surprise. Why would the gov't be paying for these settlements? They ought to be telling us the who, when, where, etc. too.

[partgypsy]

Well, looks like this is really ramping up.

still making sure my eyes are not playing tricks on me but it looks like taxpayer money was used to pay off victims.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/360398-jackie-speier-the-house-has-paid-out-15-million-on-behalf-of-sexual-harassers

That caught me by surprise. Why would the gov't be paying for these settlements? They ought to be telling us the who, when, where, etc. too.

What?

[sol]

There's a lot about chivalry that really doesn't make sense.

Chivalry was never supposed to make sense.  Does it make sense to throw your tunic over a mud puddle so that the lady won't get her pretty shoes dirty?

Chivalry was in a tool of the patriarchy, designed to instill in women AND men the notion that women were delicate flowers incapable of making their own way in the world.  The reason men had to do everything for them was that they were both incapable and not allowed to do things for themselves.  My grandpa used to say "no wife of mine is ever going to work" and he was totally oblivious to how sexist it was to forbid his wife from getting a job, he only thought he was being chivalrous by financially supporting her.

[Lis]

There's a lot about chivalry that really doesn't make sense.

Chivalry was never supposed to make sense.  Does it make sense to throw your tunic over a mud puddle so that the lady won't get her pretty shoes dirty?

Chivalry was in a tool of the patriarchy, designed to instill in women AND men the notion that women were delicate flowers incapable of making their own way in the world.  The reason men had to do everything for them was that they were both incapable and not allowed to do things for themselves.  My grandpa used to say "no wife of mine is ever going to work" and he was totally oblivious to how sexist it was to forbid his wife from getting a job, he only thought he was being chivalrous by financially supporting her.

I got nothing to add - just wanted to see this posted again for the people in the back.

[GuitarStv]

There's a lot about chivalry that really doesn't make sense.

Chivalry was never supposed to make sense.  Does it make sense to throw your tunic over a mud puddle so that the lady won't get her pretty shoes dirty?

Chivalry was in a tool of the patriarchy, designed to instill in women AND men the notion that women were delicate flowers incapable of making their own way in the world.  The reason men had to do everything for them was that they were both incapable and not allowed to do things for themselves.  My grandpa used to say "no wife of mine is ever going to work" and he was totally oblivious to how sexist it was to forbid his wife from getting a job, he only thought he was being chivalrous by financially supporting her.

I always figured that chivalry is a set of moral principles and codes to follow for what is generally deemed "correct/good" behvaiour.  Chivalry and chivalrous action extends far beyond interactions between men and women, and also changed over time.  I'd actually argue that if an action is regularly causing women consternation, it's probably against chivalric code.

[hoping2retire35]

There's a lot about chivalry that really doesn't make sense.

Chivalry was never supposed to make sense.  Does it make sense to throw your tunic over a mud puddle so that the lady won't get her pretty shoes dirty?

Chivalry was in a tool of the patriarchy, designed to instill in women AND men the notion that women were delicate flowers incapable of making their own way in the world.  The reason men had to do everything for them was that they were both incapable and not allowed to do things for themselves.  My grandpa used to say "no wife of mine is ever going to work" and he was totally oblivious to how sexist it was to forbid his wife from getting a job, he only thought he was being chivalrous by financially supporting her.

I always figured that chivalry is a set of moral principles and codes to follow for what is generally deemed "correct/good" behvaiour.  Chivalry and chivalrous action extends far beyond interactions between men and women, and also changed over time.  I'd actually argue that if an action is regularly causing women consternation, it's probably against chivalric code.

Agreed, I work and make enough to cover our cost with a mustachian budget and my wife works part time, but doesn't need to; as I have said during particularly trying times with her job.

I wonder how much chivalry plays a role in the household when there is a strange noise outside??? "Oh, hon, I checked last night, your turn."

[J Boogie]

There's a lot about chivalry that really doesn't make sense.

Chivalry was never supposed to make sense.  Does it make sense to throw your tunic over a mud puddle so that the lady won't get her pretty shoes dirty?

Chivalry was in a tool of the patriarchy, designed to instill in women AND men the notion that women were delicate flowers incapable of making their own way in the world.  The reason men had to do everything for them was that they were both incapable and not allowed to do things for themselves.  My grandpa used to say "no wife of mine is ever going to work" and he was totally oblivious to how sexist it was to forbid his wife from getting a job, he only thought he was being chivalrous by financially supporting her.

I always figured that chivalry is a set of moral principles and codes to follow for what is generally deemed "correct/good" behvaiour.  Chivalry and chivalrous action extends far beyond interactions between men and women, and also changed over time.  I'd actually argue that if an action is regularly causing women consternation, it's probably against chivalric code.

I was gonna say - I don't agree with sol's assessment of chivalry.

I agree in retrospect it's insulting to most women to suggest and reinforce the idea that they are not capable of doing most any daily activity as well as a man.  Though to be fair, during the fuedal era, pretty much all labor was manual labor - and many women were frequently pregnant or had recently given birth without decent medical care - so the differences between the average male peasant's ability to tolerate a brutal day's labor vs the average female peasant was probably pretty big.

The code was NOT created to instill the idea that women are less capable.
It was, however, created during a time when most women (due to Church teachings on being fertile and multiplying, plus a lack of quality healthcare) actually WERE less capable of doing the manual labor that was required at the time.

It was created in part out of Christianity's call to protect and care for those who are less capable, along with Christianity's interest in self-preservation (thus the calls to fight the infidel, pledge loyalty to God & country, etc).

Yes, it definitely REINFORCES the idea that women are less capable, but it doesn't make sense to see that as its goal.  Chivalrous/traditional people and institutions might not have warmed to the idea of gender equality very fast/at all, but gender inequality doesn't seem to be a key priority.  It was rather a simple reality of the time and they designed their system around it, and it gelled with their worldview, so it became enshrined in their code.  These days the ones that Catholics seek to defend and protect are unborn babies (if they're conservative) or the poor/marginalized/immigrants (if they're liberal) or both if they're a faithful yet nonpartisan Catholic.

[Kris]

There's a lot about chivalry that really doesn't make sense.

Chivalry was never supposed to make sense.  Does it make sense to throw your tunic over a mud puddle so that the lady won't get her pretty shoes dirty?

Chivalry was in a tool of the patriarchy, designed to instill in women AND men the notion that women were delicate flowers incapable of making their own way in the world.  The reason men had to do everything for them was that they were both incapable and not allowed to do things for themselves.  My grandpa used to say "no wife of mine is ever going to work" and he was totally oblivious to how sexist it was to forbid his wife from getting a job, he only thought he was being chivalrous by financially supporting her.

I always figured that chivalry is a set of moral principles and codes to follow for what is generally deemed "correct/good" behvaiour.  Chivalry and chivalrous action extends far beyond interactions between men and women, and also changed over time.  I'd actually argue that if an action is regularly causing women consternation, it's probably against chivalric code.

I was gonna say - I don't agree with sol's assessment of chivalry.

I agree in retrospect it's insulting to most women to suggest and reinforce the idea that they are not capable of doing most any daily activity as well as a man.  Though to be fair, during the fuedal era, pretty much all labor was manual labor - and many women were frequently pregnant or had recently given birth without decent medical care - so the differences between the average male peasant's ability to tolerate a brutal day's labor vs the average female peasant was probably pretty big.

The code was NOT created to instill the idea that women are less capable.
It was, however, created during a time when most women (due to Church teachings on being fertile and multiplying, plus a lack of quality healthcare) actually WERE less capable of doing the manual labor that was required at the time.

It was created in part out of Christianity's call to protect and care for those who are less capable, along with Christianity's interest in self-preservation (thus the calls to fight the infidel, pledge loyalty to God & country, etc).

Yes, it definitely REINFORCES the idea that women are less capable, but it doesn't make sense to see that as its goal.  Chivalrous/traditional people and institutions might not have warmed to the idea of gender equality very fast/at all, but gender inequality doesn't seem to be a key priority.  It was rather a simple reality of the time and they designed their system around it, and it gelled with their worldview, so it became enshrined in their code.  These days the ones that Catholics seek to defend and protect are unborn babies (if they're conservative) or the poor/marginalized/immigrants (if they're liberal) or both if they're a faithful yet nonpartisan Catholic.

No.

Chivalry had nothing to do with the lower classes.

Only with the moral code of knights, and noblewomen.

[Tyson]

Its funny, I see the same sort of blind spots from men re: women being victimized by men in power as I see from white people about black people being victimized by (white) people in power. 

The men can't quite believe it.  And the women (and black people) are adamant and consistent about the experience of abuse. 

Maybe the men (and white people) should actually believe what is being said, repeatedly and consistently by the people that are being screwed over.  Just a thought.

[J Boogie]

There's a lot about chivalry that really doesn't make sense.

Chivalry was never supposed to make sense.  Does it make sense to throw your tunic over a mud puddle so that the lady won't get her pretty shoes dirty?

Chivalry was in a tool of the patriarchy, designed to instill in women AND men the notion that women were delicate flowers incapable of making their own way in the world.  The reason men had to do everything for them was that they were both incapable and not allowed to do things for themselves.  My grandpa used to say "no wife of mine is ever going to work" and he was totally oblivious to how sexist it was to forbid his wife from getting a job, he only thought he was being chivalrous by financially supporting her.

I always figured that chivalry is a set of moral principles and codes to follow for what is generally deemed "correct/good" behvaiour.  Chivalry and chivalrous action extends far beyond interactions between men and women, and also changed over time.  I'd actually argue that if an action is regularly causing women consternation, it's probably against chivalric code.

I was gonna say - I don't agree with sol's assessment of chivalry.

I agree in retrospect it's insulting to most women to suggest and reinforce the idea that they are not capable of doing most any daily activity as well as a man.  Though to be fair, during the fuedal era, pretty much all labor was manual labor - and many women were frequently pregnant or had recently given birth without decent medical care - so the differences between the average male peasant's ability to tolerate a brutal day's labor vs the average female peasant was probably pretty big.

The code was NOT created to instill the idea that women are less capable.
It was, however, created during a time when most women (due to Church teachings on being fertile and multiplying, plus a lack of quality healthcare) actually WERE less capable of doing the manual labor that was required at the time.

It was created in part out of Christianity's call to protect and care for those who are less capable, along with Christianity's interest in self-preservation (thus the calls to fight the infidel, pledge loyalty to God & country, etc).

Yes, it definitely REINFORCES the idea that women are less capable, but it doesn't make sense to see that as its goal.  Chivalrous/traditional people and institutions might not have warmed to the idea of gender equality very fast/at all, but gender inequality doesn't seem to be a key priority.  It was rather a simple reality of the time and they designed their system around it, and it gelled with their worldview, so it became enshrined in their code.  These days the ones that Catholics seek to defend and protect are unborn babies (if they're conservative) or the poor/marginalized/immigrants (if they're liberal) or both if they're a faithful yet nonpartisan Catholic.

No.

Chivalry had nothing to do with the lower classes.

Only with the moral code of knights, and noblewomen.

Well, I'm not really arguing that chivalry was a peasant code.  I can see how my post gave that impression though.

I think peasant life gave the most stark example of how the majority of everyday men and women were not of similar ability/strength.  I think knightly life might offer a similar playing field, given that the same church rules regarding reproductive rights applied to noblewomen (with better, albeit still awful childbirth medical attention) and given the physical demands of wearing a suit of armor, riding long distances, and doing battle.

The moral code was created to enshrine virtues that fortify and prolong the dominance of the church and feudal system. At the time of its creation, I think the respect/reverence for women that it called for was actually well intentioned and not meant to keep women subjugated (though it ended up having that effect).

[Kris]

There's a lot about chivalry that really doesn't make sense.

Chivalry was never supposed to make sense.  Does it make sense to throw your tunic over a mud puddle so that the lady won't get her pretty shoes dirty?

Chivalry was in a tool of the patriarchy, designed to instill in women AND men the notion that women were delicate flowers incapable of making their own way in the world.  The reason men had to do everything for them was that they were both incapable and not allowed to do things for themselves.  My grandpa used to say "no wife of mine is ever going to work" and he was totally oblivious to how sexist it was to forbid his wife from getting a job, he only thought he was being chivalrous by financially supporting her.

I always figured that chivalry is a set of moral principles and codes to follow for what is generally deemed "correct/good" behvaiour.  Chivalry and chivalrous action extends far beyond interactions between men and women, and also changed over time.  I'd actually argue that if an action is regularly causing women consternation, it's probably against chivalric code.

I was gonna say - I don't agree with sol's assessment of chivalry.

I agree in retrospect it's insulting to most women to suggest and reinforce the idea that they are not capable of doing most any daily activity as well as a man.  Though to be fair, during the fuedal era, pretty much all labor was manual labor - and many women were frequently pregnant or had recently given birth without decent medical care - so the differences between the average male peasant's ability to tolerate a brutal day's labor vs the average female peasant was probably pretty big.

The code was NOT created to instill the idea that women are less capable.
It was, however, created during a time when most women (due to Church teachings on being fertile and multiplying, plus a lack of quality healthcare) actually WERE less capable of doing the manual labor that was required at the time.

It was created in part out of Christianity's call to protect and care for those who are less capable, along with Christianity's interest in self-preservation (thus the calls to fight the infidel, pledge loyalty to God & country, etc).

Yes, it definitely REINFORCES the idea that women are less capable, but it doesn't make sense to see that as its goal.  Chivalrous/traditional people and institutions might not have warmed to the idea of gender equality very fast/at all, but gender inequality doesn't seem to be a key priority.  It was rather a simple reality of the time and they designed their system around it, and it gelled with their worldview, so it became enshrined in their code.  These days the ones that Catholics seek to defend and protect are unborn babies (if they're conservative) or the poor/marginalized/immigrants (if they're liberal) or both if they're a faithful yet nonpartisan Catholic.

No.

Chivalry had nothing to do with the lower classes.

Only with the moral code of knights, and noblewomen.

Well, I'm not really arguing that chivalry was a peasant code.  I can see how my post gave that impression though.

I think peasant life gave the most stark example of how the majority of everyday men and women were not of similar ability/strength.  I think knightly life might offer a similar playing field, given that the same church rules regarding reproductive rights applied to noblewomen (with better, albeit still awful childbirth medical attention) and given the physical demands of wearing a suit of armor, riding long distances, and doing battle.

The moral code was created to enshrine virtues that fortify and prolong the dominance of the church and feudal system. At the time of its creation, I think the respect/reverence for women that it called for was actually well intentioned and not meant to keep women subjugated (though it ended up having that effect).

Sure. I think a lot of institutionalized sexism was, and still is, well-intentioned, at least by many of the individuals participating in it. Unfortunately, that doesn't make it any less detrimental.

[A Definite Beta Guy]

I don't think chivalry was an attempt to suppress women anymore than what already existed at that time, with the addition that feudalism suppressed practically all people. The focus was primarily on the behavior of knights and combat. It is an adaptation to the political and military realities of the High and Late Middle Ages.

I suppose there was the opportunity for more gender equality than what existed under the chivalric code, but not much that's going to affect all of Christendom. You closest you get, I think, are the Cathars, who ran afoul of the Church and got slaughtered pretty hardcore.

Also, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Hula Hoop]

Its funny, I see the same sort of blind spots from men re: women being victimized by men in power as I see from white people about black people being victimized by (white) people in power. 

The men can't quite believe it.  And the women (and black people) are adamant and consistent about the experience of abuse. 

Maybe the men (and white people) should actually believe what is being said, repeatedly and consistently by the people that are being screwed over.  Just a thought.

Exactly.  I don't normally talk about all the sexual harassment and abuse I've endured during my life as it's basically the same as all women.  There's just a constant awareness that things could turn threatening.  Street harassment is the most constant reminder to young women that they just don't have the same kind of freedom that men have.  I remember that I started being routinely sexually harassed/abused on the way to school in a large city on public transport at the age of 11.  And this pretty much continued until I was around 40.  Now it almost never happens which is wonderful.  I relish my freedom to just walk around without being harassed but now my older daughter is 9 and I guess it will start for her in around 2 years too. 

Anyway, I just told my husband a few of the stories of sexual harassment and assault from my past - at work, while on vacation, at a bar after work with colleagues - and his reaction is just disbelief.  He believes me, of course, but it's so far from his experience as a white, heterosexual male that he has problems taking it in. 

A couple of weeks ago, he was waxing nostalgic about his youthful hitchhiking adventures when he hitchhiked around Europe, sleeping rough and having adventures.  When I told him that this is something that women just can't do - he had problems wrapping his head around this as he's never had to think about sexual assault. 

My husband is a great guy but just doesn't get male privilege in just the same way that I (a white woman) can never really get what white privilege means.  I'm willing to listen to my black friends though and believe them when they share their experiences and my husband is willing to listen to me, which is a good start.

As a mother of 2 girls (and a person) really hope that this is the beginning of the end for the kind of casual sexual harassment/abuse that has been tolerated for so long.
 

[Gondolin]

I think a lot of institutionalized sexism was, and still is, well-intentioned, at least by many of the individuals participating in it. Unfortunately, that doesn't make it any less detrimental.

Exactly this! If you believe that women are weak and inherently sinful then, of course they need special guidance and protection from men. In fact,  it would be a dereliction of duty *not* to provide
such help.

It's similar to....wait....hold on....ugh, crap, dropped my white man's burden again.

Hang on...let me just...ugh....pick that....grunt...up....ah....whew, ok, there we go. That's better.

Now, let's go find some savages to civilize!

[sol]

A couple of weeks ago, he was waxing nostalgic about his youthful hitchhiking adventures when he hitchhiked around Europe, sleeping rough and having adventures.  When I told him that this is something that women just can't do - he had problems wrapping his head around this as he's never had to think about sexual assault.

Speaking as someone who has spent more than his fair share of time hitchhiking around the world, I assure you that women absolutely can (and do) have all of the same adventures that men can have.  And as a corollary men are absolutely not immune from sexual assault in that situation.

But you have to deal with it, one way or another.  Anytime I hear someone say "women can't..." I feel obligated to speak up to highlight that you are being more than a little sexist.  Are they delicate flowers that need a man's protection?

[J Boogie]

It's funny, there's a blurry line between being a woke ally and having a patronizing white male savior complex.

Guys who go out of their way to identify as feminists bear a striking resemblance to the chivalrous knights we've discussed- both convinced they are needed by women to defend their honor and dignity, whether from infidels or the patriarchy.

[J Boogie]

A couple of weeks ago, he was waxing nostalgic about his youthful hitchhiking adventures when he hitchhiked around Europe, sleeping rough and having adventures.  When I told him that this is something that women just can't do - he had problems wrapping his head around this as he's never had to think about sexual assault.

Speaking as someone who has spent more than his fair share of time hitchhiking around the world, I assure you that women absolutely can (and do) have all of the same adventures that men can have.  And as a corollary men are absolutely not immune from sexual assault in that situation.

But you have to deal with it, one way or another.  Anytime I hear someone say "women can't..." I feel obligated to speak up to highlight that you are being more than a little sexist.  Are they delicate flowers that need a man's protection?

Not to pick on you Sol, as you make some great points, but I think your argument is essentially one of semantics - you object to the word can't.  I don't think she meant that literally.    Of course women CAN backpack across Europe, it's just riskier for them.  And of course men CAN be sexually assaulted, it's just far less likely.  Clearly we benefit from our gender in these situations.

But I agree it's good to avoid the word can't in situations like this.  We don't want anyone to sell themselves short, though they do need to be aware of risks.

[TVRodriguez]

Its funny, I see the same sort of blind spots from men re: women being victimized by men in power as I see from white people about black people being victimized by (white) people in power. 

The men can't quite believe it.  And the women (and black people) are adamant and consistent about the experience of abuse. 

Maybe the men (and white people) should actually believe what is being said, repeatedly and consistently by the people that are being screwed over.  Just a thought.

THIS

[sol]

I think your argument is essentially one of semantics - you object to the word can't.

No I think that if you really believe women can't hitchhike around the world then you are sexist.  Maybe unintentionally sexist.  Maybe a die-hard feminist with unrecognized sexist undertones instilled in you by the patriarchy.  But still sexist.

I've been there.  They do it.  It's actually much easier to hitchhike as a woman because you always get picked up right away.  Often by another woman who (also sexist) thinks it's unsafe for you to be hitchhiking so she takes you wherever you need to go.  I've met literally hundreds of young women hitchhiking on literally every continent.  Saying that women can't hitchhike around the world is false, but people (even well intentioned people) say it anyway because they believe women are fragile and vulnerable and incapable of looking out for themselves, aka sexist.

So we can disagree and that's fine, but I stand by my original assessment: Hula Hoop's comment was sexist and she was using it to attack a man who was not being sexist for being sexist. 

[Hula Hoop]

OK Sol fine.  I am a woman who was sexually assaulted while travelling by myself at age 23.  I was also constantly sexually harassed while travelling with a girlfriend through South America in my 20s.  Other women had similar experiences.  After these experiences, I, personally, would never hitchhike and neither would many women - but I'm sure there are some women who would in certain circumstances.  I'm sure those women are constantly aware of the risk of sexual assault and take measures (as much as you can) to avoid it (such as taking rides from other women) because we, as women, are made to constantly fear sexual assault.  You said yourself that female drivers worried about female hitchhikers being sexually assaulted - have you ever stopped to wonder why that is?

My husband says that fear of sexual assault did not cross his brain once during his 6 years of hitchhiking around Europe in his 20s.  Of course he could have been assaulted but it never crossed his mind as he has not had to deal with the constant drumbeat of sexual harassment that us women have to deal with.  That is male privilege.

[OneStep]

My husband says that fear of sexual assault did not cross his brain once during his 6 years of hitchhiking around Europe in his 20s.  Of course he could have been assaulted but it never crossed his mind as he has not had to deal with the constant drumbeat of sexual harassment that us women have to deal with.  That is male privilege.

I see it more as "sexual assault free privilege" instead of male privilege. My anecdote is that I, a male, was also sexually assaulted at a very young age by both females and a male. Fear of sexual assault also plagues me on a regular basis. It does tend to manifest a little differently. For the longest time I have had an unhealthy outlook on sex and I often shut people out in fear of what their intentions are with me. I struggle at work being surrounded by my boss and peers who are dominantly female, as that is who my aggressors were for the most part. I tend to go with the flow instead of speaking up or expressing my opinions due to my fear. Even when I'm relatively anonymous on the internet that fear is there.  I realize that 99.9% of the people I meet are not looking for anything sexual or to take advantage of me, but that .01% has a lasting and damaging impression. Most of my male and some female friends don't understand my fear because they haven't dealt with sexually assault before.

[WhiteTrashCash]

I'm curious how people on the forum feel about forgiveness. I'm Christian, so it's part of my religion to be willing to forgive people who are truly sorry for bad things they have done and who want to make it up to people. How do people on here feel about something like that? If someone like Louis CK apologized for what he did and really felt sorry for it and tried to make up for it, would you forgive him or is what he did something that should be a Scarlet Letter forever? (Honest question. Not trolling.)

[Kris]

I'm curious how people on the forum feel about forgiveness. I'm Christian, so it's part of my religion to be willing to forgive people who are truly sorry for bad things they have done and who want to make it up to people. How do people on here feel about something like that? If someone like Louis CK apologized for what he did and really felt sorry for it and tried to make up for it, would you forgive him or is what he did something that should be a Scarlet Letter forever? (Honest question. Not trolling.)

As a non-Christian (which I point out only to highlight that Christians are not the only ones who have the concept of forgiveness as part of their core belief system), yes, definitely forgiveness is an important thing. But since in your post, you attach the concept of forgiveness to the concept of the offending party making an apology, it's worth looking at what actually makes up a meaningful, heartfelt apology.

I've heard it said many times that there are three parts to a meaningful apology: 

1) Acknowledgement - Being able to see how your actions impact others is key to making a sincere apology. The acknowledgement part of the apology needs to start with "I". And it needs to specifically and clearly say what the person has done that he or she is apologizing for.

2) Remorse and Empathy. Expression of remorse, accompanied by an acknowledgment of the other person's pain and how it was caused by the apologizer's actions. NO qualification. No "I'm sorry IF you were hurt." No "I'm sorry, but..."

3) Restitution. A specific statement of how the person apologizing will change his or her behavior going forward.

Note that none of this is "about" preserving the apologizer's feelings. None of it is about the apologizer trying to obtain absolution or forgiveness for him- or herself. It is focused the person who has been hurt, and the hurt that has been done to them.

Look at the statements of people in reaction to the accusations of their victims. Look at whether they are real apologies or not.

The question of forgiveness is an individual choice. A person who has been hurt by someone else doesn't owe it to that person to forgive them. Regardless of whether a real apology has been made. If the person making the apology expects the forgiveness to follow, then the apology was not real. Forgiveness is something that happens inside the person hurt. It's not something that is owed to the person making amends.

That might be different to you in your brand of Christianity -- perhaps you are obligated to forgive someone who apologizes to you. Or even to forgive someone who does not. But the concept of forgiveness outside of your religion does not require that.

If you are talking about societal forgiveness, though -- which it seems you are -- then I would say, the first thing to do is to look at the apology --whether it was real -- and go from there.

[sol]

OK Sol fine.  I am a woman who was sexually assaulted while travelling by myself at age 23.  I was also constantly sexually harassed while travelling with a girlfriend through South America in my 20s.

That sounds terrible and I'm sorry you had to endure it.

Sexual assault is an ever-present danger to people outside of their home communities.  Travelling makes you vulnerable.  Being unescorted by a protector makes you vulnerable.  Being beautiful makes you vulnerable.  These are why so many Arab countries don't allow women to travel, or go out in public without a male relative, or show their faces.  But I think we can all agree that these restrictions are sexist solutions, right?

But women travelling in westernized countries are typically safer than men.  People look out for them.  They are threatened by sexual assault, but they are far less threatened by the far more common crimes of simple assault and robbery.  There are women-only hostels, and women-only travel companies, and women-only tour groups, and hostels, and resorts.  There's a whole industry out there designed to help you cope with these very real problems. 

Men get nothing.  Men are expected to be strong and independent and to find their own way without any support at all.  They are supposed to know how to make safe decisions, and how to use violence to escape bad decisions.  This is just as denigrating to men as lewd comments are to women, and yet our society recognizes that women (but not men) deserve better.

This has become a personal peeve of mine as we have collectively embraced more equitable gender roles in America.  If you are a woman who wants to be doctor or a firefighter or weightlifter or literally anything else, there is an enthusiastic and supportive community of people out there who will encourage you in your dreams.  This is great.  If you a man and you want to be a stay-at-home spouse, and learn to make awesome cakes, and braid your hair into intricate patterns, then you a a disgusting sissy boy and a disappointment to your parents.  Fuck that noise, people.  Why can't we just let people do what they want to do, and stop burying everyone under the baggage of five thousand years of sexist expectations?

I've been sexually assaulted (and I use that word broadly to include unwanted and violent touching of sexual areas without consent) twice in my life, once by a man and once by a woman.  Both times were people who I sort of knew, and both times they tried to laugh it off as a funny joke.  It was a real eye-opener to me to see the differences in the way that men are expected to deal with this sort of thing.  When a woman assaults a man, he is expected to be flattered and complimented, and is considered lucky.  There is no support network for him.  There is no avenue to report it, and no expectation that this trauma needs to be talked through and discussed, or that the perpetrator requires any sort of consequences to be imposed on her.  Meanwhile, that exact same sort of act, when done by man (on a man or a woman) suddenly requires a police report. 

We're a lot farther from gender equality than most people realize, and I that includes women are currently up in arms about gender inequality.  They only see half of the problem, and often times they will openly ridicule the other half (which is where I expect this thread to go next).

Don't even get me started on the draft.

[rockstache]

To add to what Kris said, I also don’t believe that forgiveness means forgetting or an absence of consequences. If I am sexually harassed and decide to forgive, I am in no way obligated to spend any amount of time with that individual. Forgiveness happens inside the harmed party, and does not necessarily have to mean any external changes. Would I still press charges for example? Absolutely.

For reference, I am a Christian also. Louis CK did not harass me, so I do not have anything to forgive. If I ever see him am I likely to ask for a selfie? No. That’s not a lack of forgiveness on my part, it’s just the natural consequence of his actions.

[WhiteTrashCash]

I'm curious how people on the forum feel about forgiveness. I'm Christian, so it's part of my religion to be willing to forgive people who are truly sorry for bad things they have done and who want to make it up to people. How do people on here feel about something like that? If someone like Louis CK apologized for what he did and really felt sorry for it and tried to make up for it, would you forgive him or is what he did something that should be a Scarlet Letter forever? (Honest question. Not trolling.)

As a non-Christian (which I point out only to highlight that Christians are not the only ones who have the concept of forgiveness as part of their core belief system), yes, definitely forgiveness is an important thing. But since in your post, you attach the concept of forgiveness to the concept of the offending party making an apology, it's worth looking at what actually makes up a meaningful, heartfelt apology.

I've heard it said many times that there are three parts to a meaningful apology: 

1) Acknowledgement - Being able to see how your actions impact others is key to making a sincere apology. The acknowledgement part of the apology needs to start with "I". And it needs to specifically and clearly say what the person has done that he or she is apologizing for.

2) Remorse and Empathy. Expression of remorse, accompanied by an acknowledgment of the other person's pain and how it was caused by the apologizer's actions. NO qualification. No "I'm sorry IF you were hurt." No "I'm sorry, but..."

3) Restitution. A specific statement of how the person apologizing will change his or her behavior going forward.

Note that none of this is "about" preserving the apologizer's feelings. None of it is about the apologizer trying to obtain absolution or forgiveness for him- or herself. It is focused the person who has been hurt, and the hurt that has been done to them.

Look at the statements of people in reaction to the accusations of their victims. Look at whether they are real apologies or not.

The question of forgiveness is an individual choice. A person who has been hurt by someone else doesn't owe it to that person to forgive them. Regardless of whether a real apology has been made. If the person making the apology expects the forgiveness to follow, then the apology was not real. Forgiveness is something that happens inside the person hurt. It's not something that is owed to the person making amends.

That might be different to you in your brand of Christianity -- perhaps you are obligated to forgive someone who apologizes to you. Or even to forgive someone who does not. But the concept of forgiveness outside of your religion does not require that.

If you are talking about societal forgiveness, though -- which it seems you are -- then I would say, the first thing to do is to look at the apology --whether it was real -- and go from there.

Perhaps you could help me understand this, because I am honestly interested in your thoughts. If someone follows those steps and is genuinely remorseful for the hurt they have caused and they make a sincere effort to "right the wrong" to the extent that's possible, then aren't they owed forgiveness? If not, then why would anyone ever admit wrong and/or express remorse. In Christianity, after "sinning" (doing wrong to another, yourself, or God) and doing penance, it is possible in most cases to be cleansed of that sin and move forward to live your life in a better way. If we don't offer that "clean slate" to people in return for their apology/penance/correction, then what incentive do they have to ever own up to the wrong things that they do?

It just seems to me that our society has degenerated in a way, because we don't offer people the opportunity to correct mistakes in a meaningful way. If people are deemed "evil" or "bad" forever because of something they have done that they regret, then why should they ever admit fault? Why not just do the selfish, underhanded, damaging, manipulative behavior forever in that case if the alternative is to be condemned for all eternity?

I think some of the grotesque and shocking ideologies that are emerging in the 21st century are a product of our unwillingness to forgive one another.

[Kris]

I'm curious how people on the forum feel about forgiveness. I'm Christian, so it's part of my religion to be willing to forgive people who are truly sorry for bad things they have done and who want to make it up to people. How do people on here feel about something like that? If someone like Louis CK apologized for what he did and really felt sorry for it and tried to make up for it, would you forgive him or is what he did something that should be a Scarlet Letter forever? (Honest question. Not trolling.)

As a non-Christian (which I point out only to highlight that Christians are not the only ones who have the concept of forgiveness as part of their core belief system), yes, definitely forgiveness is an important thing. But since in your post, you attach the concept of forgiveness to the concept of the offending party making an apology, it's worth looking at what actually makes up a meaningful, heartfelt apology.

I've heard it said many times that there are three parts to a meaningful apology: 

1) Acknowledgement - Being able to see how your actions impact others is key to making a sincere apology. The acknowledgement part of the apology needs to start with "I". And it needs to specifically and clearly say what the person has done that he or she is apologizing for.

2) Remorse and Empathy. Expression of remorse, accompanied by an acknowledgment of the other person's pain and how it was caused by the apologizer's actions. NO qualification. No "I'm sorry IF you were hurt." No "I'm sorry, but..."

3) Restitution. A specific statement of how the person apologizing will change his or her behavior going forward.

Note that none of this is "about" preserving the apologizer's feelings. None of it is about the apologizer trying to obtain absolution or forgiveness for him- or herself. It is focused the person who has been hurt, and the hurt that has been done to them.

Look at the statements of people in reaction to the accusations of their victims. Look at whether they are real apologies or not.

The question of forgiveness is an individual choice. A person who has been hurt by someone else doesn't owe it to that person to forgive them. Regardless of whether a real apology has been made. If the person making the apology expects the forgiveness to follow, then the apology was not real. Forgiveness is something that happens inside the person hurt. It's not something that is owed to the person making amends.

That might be different to you in your brand of Christianity -- perhaps you are obligated to forgive someone who apologizes to you. Or even to forgive someone who does not. But the concept of forgiveness outside of your religion does not require that.

If you are talking about societal forgiveness, though -- which it seems you are -- then I would say, the first thing to do is to look at the apology --whether it was real -- and go from there.

Perhaps you could help me understand this, because I am honestly interested in your thoughts. If someone follows those steps and is genuinely remorseful for the hurt they have caused and they make a sincere effort to "right the wrong" to the extent that's possible, then aren't they owed forgiveness? If not, then why would anyone ever admit wrong and/or express remorse. In Christianity, after "sinning" (doing wrong to another, yourself, or God) and doing penance, it is possible in most cases to be cleansed of that sin and move forward to live your life in a better way. If we don't offer that "clean slate" to people in return for their apology/penance/correction, then what incentive do they have to ever own up to the wrong things that they do?

It just seems to me that our society has degenerated in a way, because we don't offer people the opportunity to correct mistakes in a meaningful way. If people are deemed "evil" or "bad" forever because of something they have done that they regret, then why should they ever admit fault? Why not just do the selfish, underhanded, damaging, manipulative behavior forever in that case if the alternative is to be condemned for all eternity?

I think some of the grotesque and shocking ideologies that are emerging in the 21st century are a product of our unwillingness to forgive one another.

"If not, then why would anyone admit wrong and/or express remorse?"

Because it's the right thing to do?

Let me turn this question on its head a bit. If someone knows that he or she is "owed" forgiveness as long as he or she apologizes and is remorseful, then why would that person ever bother not to do the thing they wanted to do even knowing it's wrong?

Have you ever heard the cynical expression, "It's better to ask for forgiveness than permission"? That feels like the logical, extreme conclusion of what you're suggesting. To me, anyway.

I once dated a very observant Catholic man, who attended church weekly and also went regularly to confession. We were not destined to be together forever, for many reasons, but one of those reasons was that he was a practicing Catholic and couldn't deal with dating a nonbeliever. His girlfriend before me was a married woman, with whom he carried on a relationship for two years before they eventually broke up. When he and I started dating, a few weeks in, we started sleeping together. A few months after that, it came out in conversation that he was "confessing" having sex with me to his priest. I, quite frankly, was pretty angry and horrified about this. I asked him why he would be sleeping with me if he considered me, and the act, a sin. He shrugged uncomfortably and said that nobody was perfect. I asked him if he intended to continue sleeping with me. He said yes. But that confession washed away his sins. 

That, my friend, seems to me to be complete and utter bullshit. I told him as much, and also that I felt absolutely wronged and slapped in the face that he made me into something sinful. He didn't apologize, and didn't see that he was wronging me in any way. All he cared about was absolution by his religion. He didn't care at all that he had hurt me.

I see, quite frankly, an awful lot of that "nobody's perfect"-ing nonchalance among many right-leaning evangelical Christians when they seek to excuse the absolutely abominable behavior of the people they elect to represent them in government. When I have pressed the ones I know on this, they inevitably say that the person in question is a strong Christian and God forgives them. This absolution is all about the person who is DOING the wronging. And pretty much completely ignores the person being wronged.

This, too, feels like complete and utter bullshit to me. I think some of the grotesque and shocking ideologies that are emerging in the 21st century are a product of using the smokescreen of forgiveness as a way to avoid taking a hard look at what they are implicitly condoning.

[rockstache]

No one is ever owed forgiveness. The whole thing about forgiveness is that you don’t deserve it.

[WhiteTrashCash]

I'm curious how people on the forum feel about forgiveness. I'm Christian, so it's part of my religion to be willing to forgive people who are truly sorry for bad things they have done and who want to make it up to people. How do people on here feel about something like that? If someone like Louis CK apologized for what he did and really felt sorry for it and tried to make up for it, would you forgive him or is what he did something that should be a Scarlet Letter forever? (Honest question. Not trolling.)

As a non-Christian (which I point out only to highlight that Christians are not the only ones who have the concept of forgiveness as part of their core belief system), yes, definitely forgiveness is an important thing. But since in your post, you attach the concept of forgiveness to the concept of the offending party making an apology, it's worth looking at what actually makes up a meaningful, heartfelt apology.

I've heard it said many times that there are three parts to a meaningful apology: 

1) Acknowledgement - Being able to see how your actions impact others is key to making a sincere apology. The acknowledgement part of the apology needs to start with "I". And it needs to specifically and clearly say what the person has done that he or she is apologizing for.

2) Remorse and Empathy. Expression of remorse, accompanied by an acknowledgment of the other person's pain and how it was caused by the apologizer's actions. NO qualification. No "I'm sorry IF you were hurt." No "I'm sorry, but..."

3) Restitution. A specific statement of how the person apologizing will change his or her behavior going forward.

Note that none of this is "about" preserving the apologizer's feelings. None of it is about the apologizer trying to obtain absolution or forgiveness for him- or herself. It is focused the person who has been hurt, and the hurt that has been done to them.

Look at the statements of people in reaction to the accusations of their victims. Look at whether they are real apologies or not.

The question of forgiveness is an individual choice. A person who has been hurt by someone else doesn't owe it to that person to forgive them. Regardless of whether a real apology has been made. If the person making the apology expects the forgiveness to follow, then the apology was not real. Forgiveness is something that happens inside the person hurt. It's not something that is owed to the person making amends.

That might be different to you in your brand of Christianity -- perhaps you are obligated to forgive someone who apologizes to you. Or even to forgive someone who does not. But the concept of forgiveness outside of your religion does not require that.

If you are talking about societal forgiveness, though -- which it seems you are -- then I would say, the first thing to do is to look at the apology --whether it was real -- and go from there.

Perhaps you could help me understand this, because I am honestly interested in your thoughts. If someone follows those steps and is genuinely remorseful for the hurt they have caused and they make a sincere effort to "right the wrong" to the extent that's possible, then aren't they owed forgiveness? If not, then why would anyone ever admit wrong and/or express remorse. In Christianity, after "sinning" (doing wrong to another, yourself, or God) and doing penance, it is possible in most cases to be cleansed of that sin and move forward to live your life in a better way. If we don't offer that "clean slate" to people in return for their apology/penance/correction, then what incentive do they have to ever own up to the wrong things that they do?

It just seems to me that our society has degenerated in a way, because we don't offer people the opportunity to correct mistakes in a meaningful way. If people are deemed "evil" or "bad" forever because of something they have done that they regret, then why should they ever admit fault? Why not just do the selfish, underhanded, damaging, manipulative behavior forever in that case if the alternative is to be condemned for all eternity?

I think some of the grotesque and shocking ideologies that are emerging in the 21st century are a product of our unwillingness to forgive one another.

"If not, then why would anyone admit wrong and/or express remorse?"

Because it's the right thing to do?

Let me turn this question on its head a bit. If someone knows that he or she is "owed" forgiveness as long as he or she apologizes and is remorseful, then why would that person ever bother not to do the thing they wanted to do even knowing it's wrong?

Have you ever heard the cynical expression, "It's better to ask for forgiveness than permission"? That feels like the logical, extreme conclusion of what you're suggesting. To me, anyway.

I once dated a very observant Catholic man, who attended church weekly and also went regularly to confession. We were not destined to be together forever, for many reasons, but one of those reasons was that he was a practicing Catholic and couldn't deal with dating a nonbeliever. His girlfriend before me was a married woman, with whom he carried on a relationship for two years before they eventually broke up. When he and I started dating, a few weeks in, we started sleeping together. A few months after that, it came out in conversation that he was "confessing" having sex with me to his priest. I, quite frankly, was pretty angry and horrified about this. I asked him why he would be sleeping with me if he considered me, and the act, a sin. He shrugged uncomfortably and said that nobody was perfect. I asked him if he intended to continue sleeping with me. He said yes. But that confession washed away his sins. 

That, my friend, seems to me to be complete and utter bullshit. I told him as much, and also that I felt absolutely wronged and slapped in the face that he made me into something sinful. He didn't apologize, and didn't see that he was wronging me in any way. All he cared about was absolution by his religion. He didn't care at all that he had hurt me.

I see, quite frankly, an awful lot of that "nobody's perfect"-ing nonchalance among many right-leaning evangelical Christians when they seek to excuse the absolutely abominable behavior of the people they elect to represent them in government. When I have pressed the ones I know on this, they inevitably say that the person in question is a strong Christian and God forgives them. This absolution is all about the person who is DOING the wronging. And pretty much completely ignores the person being wronged.

This, too, feels like complete and utter bullshit to me. I think some of the grotesque and shocking ideologies that are emerging in the 21st century are a product of using the smokescreen of forgiveness as a way to avoid taking a hard look at what they are implicitly condoning.

Thanks for responding to my question. Let's keep the conversation going:

If forgiveness is not required and there can be no absolution for wrongdoing, how does one handle it when one does something wrong, which seemed right in the moment, but upon later reflection was hurtful/shameful/damaging/etc.? Does one just deny that it was wrong or does the person have to live the rest of his or her life recognizing that he or she is a terrible person?

[maizefolk]

Thanks for responding to my question. Let's keep the conversation going:

If forgiveness is not required and there can be no absolution for wrongdoing, how does one handle it when one does something wrong, which seemed right in the moment, but upon later reflection was hurtful/shameful/damaging/etc.? Does one just deny that it was wrong or does the person have to live the rest of his or her life recognizing that he or she is a terrible person?

Not to derail your conversation with Kris, but there is a difference between forgiveness not being mandatory, and no one ever forgiving anyone for anything.

Forgiveness can be voluntary rather than mandatory, and people who truly feel that they have done wrong can and will still seek forgiveness and sometimes receive it.

[WhiteTrashCash]

Thanks for responding to my question. Let's keep the conversation going:

If forgiveness is not required and there can be no absolution for wrongdoing, how does one handle it when one does something wrong, which seemed right in the moment, but upon later reflection was hurtful/shameful/damaging/etc.? Does one just deny that it was wrong or does the person have to live the rest of his or her life recognizing that he or she is a terrible person?

Not to derail your conversation with Kris, but there is a difference between forgiveness not being mandatory, and no one ever forgiving anyone for anything.

Forgiveness can be voluntary rather than mandatory, and people who truly feel that they have done wrong can and will still seek forgiveness and sometimes receive it.

I guess what I'm asking about is incentive. What is the incentive for someone to admit wrongdoing and seek forgiveness if people are not obligated to provide forgiveness? With the recent rash of sexual harassment allegations coming out of the entertainment industry these days, there are various degrees of wrongdoing and reactions from the accused have also varied. The performers who have denied wrongdoing seem to still have a fighting chance to have their careers survive. On the other hand, the performers who have admitted wrongdoing and offered apology and penance are having their careers utterly destroyed. I'm not saying that anybody is right to do the things they have done and I'm horrified by the allegations, but I'm confused why the people who are contrite and who in the past would have had a chance to "make things right" are not being received in a better way.

On right wing blogs, news channels, YouTube channels, etc., the current advice seems to be "never apologize" because the view is that apologies are never accepted and forgiveness is never given. Are they wrong to say that?

I am not trying to troll here. I'm just trying to understand the reasoning behind some of the reactions I am seeing to things that in the past might have been handled differently.

[Kris]

On the right wing news channels and blogs, they don't care about repentance and forgiveness. They care about keeping their positions of power.

The incentive for admitting wrongdoing and seeking forgiveness is the recognition that you have done wrong. You seek forgiveness from the person you have wronged, because you wronged them.

If that's not enough, you are doing it for the wrong reasons.

If you are only doing it so that you can be forgiven and have nothing change in your life, you are doing it for the wrong reasons.

If you are counseling someone not to apologize NOT because they did nothing wrong, but because it might hurt their careers -- or if you are not apologizing for this reason -- you are doing it for the wrong reasons.

In other words, if you are only apologizing because you are expecting instant forgiveness and no ramifications for what you did, and you wouldn't do it otherwise... you are not really apologizing. 

[maizefolk]

Because you have done something wrong, and you want to try to make amends, whether or not the party you have wronged forgives you.

I think the disconnect hear boils down to whether the average human being has some level of innate morality, or whether human moral behavior is only produced by a carrot and stick system of rewards and punishments. Generally I've found that less religious people are more likely to fall into the former category, while devoted members of monotheistic religious tend to fall into the latter category. However, I'd be interested to hear which category is closer to your own world view, WhiteTrashCan.

Now that said, I share your concern that separate from whether humans are innately moral or innately immoral, it's not in our best interest in society to punish people who admit wrongdoing and try to make amends MORE than people who stick to their guns. Back at post #124, I was also making the point that it is in our best interest as a society for punishment to be proportional to the harm done, and to not punish apology more than denial. As it is, people like CK & Franken are likely to experience greater punishment for their misdeeds than people like Moore. And that certainly does create a perverse incentive that will end up making our world a worse place for us all to live in.

[WhiteTrashCash]

On the right wing news channels and blogs, they don't care about repentance and forgiveness. They care about keeping their positions of power.

The incentive for admitting wrongdoing and seeking forgiveness is the recognition that you have done wrong. You seek forgiveness from the person you have wronged, because you wronged them.

If that's not enough, you are doing it for the wrong reasons.

If you are only doing it so that you can be forgiven and have nothing change in your life, you are doing it for the wrong reasons.

If you are counseling someone not to apologize NOT because they did nothing wrong, but because it might hurt their careers -- or if you are not apologizing for this reason -- you are doing it for the wrong reasons.

In other words, if you are only apologizing because you are expecting instant forgiveness and no ramifications for what you did, and you wouldn't do it otherwise... you are not really apologizing.

I don't think it's really that simple. I think we deny the humanity of people whose thoughts and behavior run against our own culture/morality/beliefs/etc. and we get so wrapped up in our own righteousness that we fail to recognize that human beings are flawed and sometimes do things that they truly regret. Because we believe so strongly in our own righteousness, we refuse to allow other human beings to make mistakes and instead condemn and destroy them.

I know we are getting off topic here, but I think maybe we should all be a little more thoughtful about how our reactions to people cause consequences that we don't even intend. I think a lot of the growth of extremist groups in the 21st century is fueled by our refusal to allow people to make mistakes and learn from them.

At any rate, Louis CK did something absolutely terrible and I'm glad that he acknowledges his wrong. Netflix was right to cancel their deal with him, especially since the material was similar in nature to the terrible behavior he engaged in. I hope that Louis CK learns from this experience and becomes a better person.