Sexist things that drive me crazy

[FunkyStickman]

I'll add: I don't want to start up a GG discussion here. Too easy to derail the current topic.

I will second the frustration at the stereotypical sitcom/commercial dad as a bumbling idiot. I have no problem with women being enabled and doing what they want. But tearing down men to do it is counter-productive.

I teach my kids at an early age: tearing down others doesn't build you up; it only cheapens your accomplishments.

[SisterX]

The most sexist thing I've encountered lately is this weird campaign telling me that since I'm a man I'm supposed to teach other men not to rape, because apparently men naturally go around raping people if we aren't taught not to.

I agree with that. While they're at it, why not:

1. Tell murderers not to murder people
2. Tell arsonists not to start fires
3. Tell bank robbers not to rob banks
4. Tell drug traffickers to stop
And so on.

There, you've just ended all crime! Close down the prisons! They just had NO IDEA they weren't supposed to do those things, it was all a simple misunderstanding!

Well, in many ways we do tell people not to do those things, not just with laws but with social pressure.  Someone who's found to be doing any of those things will be shunned by most of society. 
Rapists often get no real repercussions for their actions, which is part of why, I think, other men get painted with the brush of "he might be a rapist".  Most rapists are serial rapists.  They're let off the hook so many times that they can become serial rapists.  Arsonists are serial fire-starters but they're taken off the streets once caught.  Rapists?  Not so much.
So, there's the very real fear that women face which boils down to "he might be a rapist".  Frankly, men, if you'd like to not be looked at as a potential rapist, help women.  If more rapists were caught and if more people (both men and women) were told what consent is so that they never rape in the first place, if fewer victims were blamed (and there are plenty of women who've had their lives ruined by coming forward and accusing their rapist, they're not covered by "anonymity" as someone earlier suggested), then women wouldn't need to look at all men as potential rapists because they'd be in jail.

Also, if someone breaks into my apartment and robs it, I'm going to be pissed.  However, many rape victims end up with PTSD.  How many times has your wallet been stolen or your house been robbed.  Ever ended up with PTSD from it?  No?  Oh, how surprising.  What about from a bank robbery?  Or that time your cousin Frank was selling drugs?  Or from that building you saw on fire?  No, none of those things?  How interesting.
Don't ever compare a theft with rape.  It just shows a sick and sad lack of understanding for what victims go through.

[Gin1984]

The most sexist thing I've encountered lately is this weird campaign telling me that since I'm a man I'm supposed to teach other men not to rape, because apparently men naturally go around raping people if we aren't taught not to.

I agree with that. While they're at it, why not:

1. Tell murderers not to murder people
2. Tell arsonists not to start fires
3. Tell bank robbers not to rob banks
4. Tell drug traffickers to stop
And so on.

There, you've just ended all crime! Close down the prisons! They just had NO IDEA they weren't supposed to do those things, it was all a simple misunderstanding!

Well, in many ways we do tell people not to do those things, not just with laws but with social pressure.  Someone who's found to be doing any of those things will be shunned by most of society. 
Rapists often get no real repercussions for their actions, which is part of why, I think, other men get painted with the brush of "he might be a rapist".  Most rapists are serial rapists.  They're let off the hook so many times that they can become serial rapists.  Arsonists are serial fire-starters but they're taken off the streets once caught.  Rapists?  Not so much.
So, there's the very real fear that women face which boils down to "he might be a rapist".  Frankly, men, if you'd like to not be looked at as a potential rapist, help women.  If more rapists were caught and if more people (both men and women) were told what consent is so that they never rape in the first place, if fewer victims were blamed (and there are plenty of women who've had their lives ruined by coming forward and accusing their rapist, they're not covered by "anonymity" as someone earlier suggested), then women wouldn't need to look at all men as potential rapists because they'd be in jail.

Also, if someone breaks into my apartment and robs it, I'm going to be pissed.  However, many rape victims end up with PTSD.  How many times has your wallet been stolen or your house been robbed.  Ever ended up with PTSD from it?  No?  Oh, how surprising.  What about from a bank robbery?  Or that time your cousin Frank was selling drugs?  Or from that building you saw on fire?  No, none of those things?  How interesting.
Don't ever compare a theft with rape.  It just shows a sick and sad lack of understanding for what victims go through.

I'd also like to point out that when researchers interviewed men there was a serious difference in the percentages who said, "Have you raped someone or would you rape someone" vs ""Have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone, even though they did not want to, because they were too intoxicated [on alcohol or drugs] to resist your sexual advances?" " or "Have you ever had sexual intercourse with an adult when they didn't want to because you used physical force [twisting their arm, holding them down, etc.] if they didn't cooperate?".   It was much higher if the researchers did not say the word rape.  So maybe we really do have to teach that lack of no is not consent. 

[Sibley]

One very specific thing that really bugs me is when men make an effort to open the door before I can. For example: me and a man are both walking towards a door and both have at least one hand available. The man will speed up, go around me, whatever, in order to open the door, even though I was actually going to get to the door first.

If you're just opening the door or holding it because you were there first, or assisting someone who has their hands full, great! That's really polite, thank you and keep it up. But if you're incapable of letting the woman open the door, then you're being rude.

I find the best guide for behavior is what would your mom think/say/do if she were aware of your actions. This applies to just about everything in life, for both men and women.

[UnleashHell]

One very specific thing that really bugs me is when men make an effort to open the door before I can. For example: me and a man are both walking towards a door and both have at least one hand available. The man will speed up, go around me, whatever, in order to open the door, even though I was actually going to get to the door first.

If you're just opening the door or holding it because you were there first, or assisting someone who has their hands full, great! That's really polite, thank you and keep it up. But if you're incapable of letting the woman open the door, then you're being rude.

I find the best guide for behavior is what would your mom think/say/do if she were aware of your actions. This applies to just about everything in life, for both men and women.

Well that’s me. I Do it and I’ll carry on doing it. I also hold the door open on Elevators and let ladies and children go first. Its something I’ve always done and its just courtesy and politeness. Its not a comment on you, your strength or anything about you. And I’ll do it with a smile and an “after you”. Worst case scenario its merely me being overly polite. There’s no way on earth that can be considered rude. I also give up my seat on public transport to anyone who needs it and help people carry their luggage if they seem to be struggling.
Luckily it seems to have rubbed off on my kids because they do the same – so theres another generation going to be doing it.

If that kind of behavior is  a problem to you then its not me who has issues – its you.

[dividendman]

One very specific thing that really bugs me is when men make an effort to open the door before I can. For example: me and a man are both walking towards a door and both have at least one hand available. The man will speed up, go around me, whatever, in order to open the door, even though I was actually going to get to the door first.

If you're just opening the door or holding it because you were there first, or assisting someone who has their hands full, great! That's really polite, thank you and keep it up. But if you're incapable of letting the woman open the door, then you're being rude.

I find the best guide for behavior is what would your mom think/say/do if she were aware of your actions. This applies to just about everything in life, for both men and women.

Well that’s me. I Do it and I’ll carry on doing it. I also hold the door open on Elevators and let ladies and children go first. Its something I’ve always done and its just courtesy and politeness. Its not a comment on you, your strength or anything about you. And I’ll do it with a smile and an “after you”. Worst case scenario its merely me being overly polite. There’s no way on earth that can be considered rude. I also give up my seat on public transport to anyone who needs it and help people carry their luggage if they seem to be struggling.
Luckily it seems to have rubbed off on my kids because they do the same – so theres another generation going to be doing it.

If that kind of behavior is  a problem to you then its not me who has issues – its you.

+1

[Franklin]

One very specific thing that really bugs me is when men make an effort to open the door before I can. For example: me and a man are both walking towards a door and both have at least one hand available. The man will speed up, go around me, whatever, in order to open the door, even though I was actually going to get to the door first.

If you're just opening the door or holding it because you were there first, or assisting someone who has their hands full, great! That's really polite, thank you and keep it up. But if you're incapable of letting the woman open the door, then you're being rude.

I find the best guide for behavior is what would your mom think/say/do if she were aware of your actions. This applies to just about everything in life, for both men and women.

I guess no good deed goes unpunished. 

FYI - Those are the good guys.  Their mother's taught them to do that. Basically mom had groceries in one hand and our little brother in the other, and we couldn't bear to see her struggle.  You'd be surprised where our motivations come from if you would just drop the attitude.

[boy_bye]

One very specific thing that really bugs me is when men make an effort to open the door before I can. For example: me and a man are both walking towards a door and both have at least one hand available. The man will speed up, go around me, whatever, in order to open the door, even though I was actually going to get to the door first.

If you're just opening the door or holding it because you were there first, or assisting someone who has their hands full, great! That's really polite, thank you and keep it up. But if you're incapable of letting the woman open the door, then you're being rude.

I find the best guide for behavior is what would your mom think/say/do if she were aware of your actions. This applies to just about everything in life, for both men and women.

Well that’s me. I Do it and I’ll carry on doing it. I also hold the door open on Elevators and let ladies and children go first. Its something I’ve always done and its just courtesy and politeness. Its not a comment on you, your strength or anything about you. And I’ll do it with a smile and an “after you”. Worst case scenario its merely me being overly polite. There’s no way on earth that can be considered rude. I also give up my seat on public transport to anyone who needs it and help people carry their luggage if they seem to be struggling.
Luckily it seems to have rubbed off on my kids because they do the same – so theres another generation going to be doing it.

If that kind of behavior is  a problem to you then its not me who has issues – its you.

+1

really? if you're walking behind a woman and you come to a door, you're going to cut in front of her to open it? that doesn't sound polite, that sounds controlling.

as sibley said, if you get there first anyway, then great -- open it, that's actually helpful and polite. but running in front of someone else and making an awkward situation instead of letting the person who naturally gets there first do it just seems silly. especially when it's a door that opens inward -- you need to jump in front of the person in front of you, or at least slip your arm in front of them, then awkwardly try to hold the door open while someone else is walking through it in front of you. it's just dumb.

it's like when you get to a 4-way stop and there's someone else there already, and instead of taking their turn, they wave you through. it's one of those things that seems "nice" but which actually make life slower and less efficient for everybody.

ETA: the whole point is that there shouldn't be a different rule for how you treat women at doors compared to men at doors. it's just a matter of human courtesy. when it's actually helpful (you're in the right position to hold it open, or the person has their hands full) then open the door. when someone else gets there first, let them open it.

[Russ]

One very specific thing that really bugs me is when men make an effort to open the door before I can. For example: me and a man are both walking towards a door and both have at least one hand available. The man will speed up, go around me, whatever, in order to open the door, even though I was actually going to get to the door first.

If you're just opening the door or holding it because you were there first, or assisting someone who has their hands full, great! That's really polite, thank you and keep it up. But if you're incapable of letting the woman open the door, then you're being rude.

I find the best guide for behavior is what would your mom think/say/do if she were aware of your actions. This applies to just about everything in life, for both men and women.

Well that’s me. I Do it and I’ll carry on doing it. I also hold the door open on Elevators and let ladies and children go first. Its something I’ve always done and its just courtesy and politeness. Its not a comment on you, your strength or anything about you. And I’ll do it with a smile and an “after you”. Worst case scenario its merely me being overly polite. There’s no way on earth that can be considered rude.

Just to make clear we're talking about the same thing... you walk around people to open the door for them? Do you do this for men too?

[UnleashHell]

One very specific thing that really bugs me is when men make an effort to open the door before I can. For example: me and a man are both walking towards a door and both have at least one hand available. The man will speed up, go around me, whatever, in order to open the door, even though I was actually going to get to the door first.

If you're just opening the door or holding it because you were there first, or assisting someone who has their hands full, great! That's really polite, thank you and keep it up. But if you're incapable of letting the woman open the door, then you're being rude.

I find the best guide for behavior is what would your mom think/say/do if she were aware of your actions. This applies to just about everything in life, for both men and women.

Well that’s me. I Do it and I’ll carry on doing it. I also hold the door open on Elevators and let ladies and children go first. Its something I’ve always done and its just courtesy and politeness. Its not a comment on you, your strength or anything about you. And I’ll do it with a smile and an “after you”. Worst case scenario its merely me being overly polite. There’s no way on earth that can be considered rude.

Just to make clear we're talking about the same thing... you walk around people to open the door for them? Do you do this for men too?

If I'm in a group of people I would not push to the front to get the door (unless the people at the front have their hands full). If I'm walking with someone or at the front of the group I'd try to get to the doors first to open them for others.
I'm screwed with a double set of doors.

[MicroRN]

The sheer bewilderment people seem to have at the idea that my husband was the one who changed his last name.  When we were updating various accounts, we even had a young clerk who didn't realize it was legal for men to change their name to the wife's name.  Being military, he got a fair bit of flak about it at work too.

[MoneyCat]

One very specific thing that really bugs me is when men make an effort to open the door before I can. For example: me and a man are both walking towards a door and both have at least one hand available. The man will speed up, go around me, whatever, in order to open the door, even though I was actually going to get to the door first.

If you're just opening the door or holding it because you were there first, or assisting someone who has their hands full, great! That's really polite, thank you and keep it up. But if you're incapable of letting the woman open the door, then you're being rude.

I find the best guide for behavior is what would your mom think/say/do if she were aware of your actions. This applies to just about everything in life, for both men and women.

Well that’s me. I Do it and I’ll carry on doing it. I also hold the door open on Elevators and let ladies and children go first. Its something I’ve always done and its just courtesy and politeness. Its not a comment on you, your strength or anything about you. And I’ll do it with a smile and an “after you”. Worst case scenario its merely me being overly polite. There’s no way on earth that can be considered rude.

Just to make clear we're talking about the same thing... you walk around people to open the door for them? Do you do this for men too?

Women are men's equals now, so they don't need men to hold open doors for them anymore.  I open doors for my wife and she opens doors for me, but we're married and we love each other, so that's why we do it.  I don't really hold open doors for anybody else anymore, unless they are struggling carrying a package or something and could use a hand (and that would go for both sexes.)

[UnleashHell]

The sheer bewilderment people seem to have at the idea that my husband was the one who changed his last name.  When we were updating various accounts, we even had a young clerk who didn't realize it was legal for men to change their name to the wife's name.  Being military, he got a fair bit of flak about it at work too.

Ha. Names panic people. My wife kept her name. The kids have my surname (and hers as a given name). I've had her last name used for me. Schools have used both names when calling and changed both of our names. My parents write to us and use my last name for her and for the BIL's wedding last year they used her last name correctly then changed mine to merge them!  but not for the kids....  Its ok to ask folks!! its ok!

[Sibley]

One very specific thing that really bugs me is when men make an effort to open the door before I can. For example: me and a man are both walking towards a door and both have at least one hand available. The man will speed up, go around me, whatever, in order to open the door, even though I was actually going to get to the door first.

If you're just opening the door or holding it because you were there first, or assisting someone who has their hands full, great! That's really polite, thank you and keep it up. But if you're incapable of letting the woman open the door, then you're being rude.

I find the best guide for behavior is what would your mom think/say/do if she were aware of your actions. This applies to just about everything in life, for both men and women.

Well that’s me. I Do it and I’ll carry on doing it. I also hold the door open on Elevators and let ladies and children go first. Its something I’ve always done and its just courtesy and politeness. Its not a comment on you, your strength or anything about you. And I’ll do it with a smile and an “after you”. Worst case scenario its merely me being overly polite. There’s no way on earth that can be considered rude. I also give up my seat on public transport to anyone who needs it and help people carry their luggage if they seem to be struggling.
Luckily it seems to have rubbed off on my kids because they do the same – so theres another generation going to be doing it.

If that kind of behavior is  a problem to you then its not me who has issues – its you.

+1

really? if you're walking behind a woman and you come to a door, you're going to cut in front of her to open it? that doesn't sound polite, that sounds controlling.

as sibley said, if you get there first anyway, then great -- open it, that's actually helpful and polite. but running in front of someone else and making an awkward situation instead of letting the person who naturally gets there first do it just seems silly. especially when it's a door that opens inward -- you need to jump in front of the person in front of you, or at least slip your arm in front of them, then awkwardly try to hold the door open while someone else is walking through it in front of you. it's just dumb.

it's like when you get to a 4-way stop and there's someone else there already, and instead of taking their turn, they wave you through. it's one of those things that seems "nice" but which actually make life slower and less efficient for everybody.

ETA: the whole point is that there shouldn't be a different rule for how you treat women at doors compared to men at doors. it's just a matter of human courtesy. when it's actually helpful (you're in the right position to hold it open, or the person has their hands full) then open the door. when someone else gets there first, let them open it.

Yes, exactly. It's not the basic action of opening or holding a door I object to - it's the implication that I can't just because I'm female. BTW, I really don't expect a lot of men to understand this. I've never had a bf really get it, they just get mad. Don't try to always finagle things so that the man opens the door.

Think of it this way gentlemen- if it were two men walking towards the door and you're the one to open the door, it's acceptable and polite to open it for the woman in that exact same situation (relative locations, speed, carrying objects, etc). Otherwise, you're being rude. And depending on how crabby I am that day, I may call you on it.

[AJ]

Worst case scenario its merely me being overly polite. There’s no way on earth that can be considered rude.

It may be well-intentioned, but it is considered rude by many. Flashing a peace sign with your fingers is considered a nice gesture in the US, and rude in the UK. In the sub-culture you grew up in it may have been considered polite, but that isn't so everywhere, and that doesn't mean people that are different from you "have issues".

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Worst case scenario its merely me being overly polite. There’s no way on earth that can be considered rude.

It may be well-intentioned, but it is considered rude by many. Flashing a peace sign with your fingers is considered a nice gesture in the US, and rude in the UK. In the sub-culture you grew up in it may have been considered polite, but that isn't so everywhere, and that doesn't mean people that are different from you "have issues".

UnleashHell is in Florida, which means that it would most likely be considered rude if he did not go out of his way to open doors from women. It's a bit unsettling for men who were raised to be "southern gentlemen" to be viewed as rude instead of polite when doing things like opening doors, offering seats, etc. for women. I remember as a freshman in college offering a seat to a young woman who was standing on a full bus with her arms full of books. She responded angrily something about not needing help, and I spend the rest of the day feeling bad and confused. It's 10 years later and I still feel bad when I think about it. I guess I'm more sensitive about that kind of thing than most people. But I still open doors and offer seats to women, and I still think I've only ever gotten one negative reaction (though I suppose I may have offended others who were simply too polite to express their offense).

[UnleashHell]

Yes, exactly. It's not the basic action of opening or holding a door I object to - it's the implication that I can't just because I'm female. BTW, I really don't expect a lot of men to understand this. I've never had a bf really get it, they just get mad. Don't try to always finagle things so that the man opens the door.

Think of it this way gentlemen- if it were two men walking towards the door and you're the one to open the door, it's acceptable and polite to open it for the woman in that exact same situation (relative locations, speed, carrying objects, etc). Otherwise, you're being rude. And depending on how crabby I am that day, I may call you on it.

too many rules. I'll just carry on being polite and open the door for people.

[Sibley]

Yes, exactly. It's not the basic action of opening or holding a door I object to - it's the implication that I can't just because I'm female. BTW, I really don't expect a lot of men to understand this. I've never had a bf really get it, they just get mad. Don't try to always finagle things so that the man opens the door.

Think of it this way gentlemen- if it were two men walking towards the door and you're the one to open the door, it's acceptable and polite to open it for the woman in that exact same situation (relative locations, speed, carrying objects, etc). Otherwise, you're being rude. And depending on how crabby I am that day, I may call you on it.

too many rules. I'll just carry on being polite and open the door for people.

And I'll probably just smile and say thank you because anything else isn't worth the hassle. Just don't run to get to the door first :)

[UnleashHell]

Yes, exactly. It's not the basic action of opening or holding a door I object to - it's the implication that I can't just because I'm female. BTW, I really don't expect a lot of men to understand this. I've never had a bf really get it, they just get mad. Don't try to always finagle things so that the man opens the door.

Think of it this way gentlemen- if it were two men walking towards the door and you're the one to open the door, it's acceptable and polite to open it for the woman in that exact same situation (relative locations, speed, carrying objects, etc). Otherwise, you're being rude. And depending on how crabby I am that day, I may call you on it.

too many rules. I'll just carry on being polite and open the door for people.

And I'll probably just smile and say thank you because anything else isn't worth the hassle. Just don't run to get to the door first :)

I'm too old and slow to be doing any running!!

[boy_bye]

Yes, exactly. It's not the basic action of opening or holding a door I object to - it's the implication that I can't just because I'm female. BTW, I really don't expect a lot of men to understand this. I've never had a bf really get it, they just get mad. Don't try to always finagle things so that the man opens the door.

Think of it this way gentlemen- if it were two men walking towards the door and you're the one to open the door, it's acceptable and polite to open it for the woman in that exact same situation (relative locations, speed, carrying objects, etc). Otherwise, you're being rude. And depending on how crabby I am that day, I may call you on it.

too many rules. I'll just carry on being polite and open the door for people.

and "dudes need to open doors for women" is not a rule?

it's always astounding to me when people insist that something is polite when the people you are trying to be polite to are telling you it's not.

[Emilyngh]

it's always astounding to me when people insist that something is polite when the people you are trying to be polite to are telling you it's not.

This.   If your "politeness" is irritating to those around it's not polite.   Another good *rule* of thumb is that if it's not something you'd do for or say to another random man on the street, it's sexist (and probably demeaning) to do it for or say it to a random woman.   Reminds me of the #Dudesgreetingdudes: http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/street-harassment-dudes-greeting-dudes/

[caliq]

The sheer bewilderment people seem to have at the idea that my husband was the one who changed his last name.  When we were updating various accounts, we even had a young clerk who didn't realize it was legal for men to change their name to the wife's name.  Being military, he got a fair bit of flak about it at work too.

Ha. Names panic people. My wife kept her name. The kids have my surname (and hers as a given name). I've had her last name used for me. Schools have used both names when calling and changed both of our names. My parents write to us and use my last name for her and for the BIL's wedding last year they used her last name correctly then changed mine to merge them!  but not for the kids....  Its ok to ask folks!! its ok!

OMG this was my childhood -- my mom didn't change her name (possibly more unheard of in the mid 80s?).  Both of us kids have our dad's surname.

Once, an elementary school secretary refused to discuss my whereabouts with my mom over the phone because she introduced herself with a different last name than mine.  I think she was trying to figure out if my dad had picked me up early for a doctor's appointment or something.  Apparently the lady was too lazy to check their system. 

Also, the constant "yes this is my mother, and yes this is my father, no they are both my biological parents and no, I do not have any step parents and yes, they are still married" explanation was horribly annoying.

Various members of my dad's family combine their names into a weird hybrid on things like invitations or voicemail messages or whatever.

[dividendman]

Yes, exactly. It's not the basic action of opening or holding a door I object to - it's the implication that I can't just because I'm female. BTW, I really don't expect a lot of men to understand this. I've never had a bf really get it, they just get mad. Don't try to always finagle things so that the man opens the door.

Think of it this way gentlemen- if it were two men walking towards the door and you're the one to open the door, it's acceptable and polite to open it for the woman in that exact same situation (relative locations, speed, carrying objects, etc). Otherwise, you're being rude. And depending on how crabby I am that day, I may call you on it.

too many rules. I'll just carry on being polite and open the door for people.

and "dudes need to open doors for women" is not a rule?

it's always astounding to me when people insist that something is polite when the people you are trying to be polite to are telling you it's not.

You ladies really need to stop giving a fuck about that kind of stuff a la this thread: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/the-subtle-art-of-not-giving-a-fuck/. Save your fucks for the important shit like equal pay.

I'm a guy, and a pretty big guy, and if anyone rushes in front of me to open the door (which still happens! especially when super polite people come from india) I just say "Thanks!". If they were doing it because I was fat, or brown or a guy, or their boss, or appear physically handicapped, who cares? Let a nice act be a nice act. How offering aid to someone can be construed as rude is beyond me.
When did we all start looking at the motives behind everything that is seemingly kind? Who cares about the motive.

Even if the motive is clearly bad e.g. If someone wants to give me free cake and they said "hey, you're overweight, take some free cake because you'll eat it" I'll say "thanks for the free cake!" Why be bothered by it? I got free cake out of it! Mmm... cake.

I'm offended at people getting offended. It's too much.

[Gin1984]

Yes, exactly. It's not the basic action of opening or holding a door I object to - it's the implication that I can't just because I'm female. BTW, I really don't expect a lot of men to understand this. I've never had a bf really get it, they just get mad. Don't try to always finagle things so that the man opens the door.

Think of it this way gentlemen- if it were two men walking towards the door and you're the one to open the door, it's acceptable and polite to open it for the woman in that exact same situation (relative locations, speed, carrying objects, etc). Otherwise, you're being rude. And depending on how crabby I am that day, I may call you on it.

too many rules. I'll just carry on being polite and open the door for people.

and "dudes need to open doors for women" is not a rule?

it's always astounding to me when people insist that something is polite when the people you are trying to be polite to are telling you it's not.

You ladies really need to stop giving a fuck about that kind of stuff a la this thread: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/the-subtle-art-of-not-giving-a-fuck/. Save your fucks for the important shit like equal pay.

I'm a guy, and a pretty big guy, and if anyone rushes in front of me to open the door (which still happens! especially when super polite people come from india) I just say "Thanks!". If they were doing it because I was fat, or brown or a guy, or their boss, or appear physically handicapped, who cares? Let a nice act be a nice act. How offering aid to someone can be construed as rude is beyond me.
When did we all start looking at the motives behind everything that is seemingly kind? Who cares about the motive.

Even if the motive is clearly bad e.g. If someone wants to give me free cake and they said "hey, you're overweight, take some free cake because you'll eat it" I'll say "thanks for the free cake!" Why be bothered by it? I got free cake out of it! Mmm... cake.

I'm offended at people getting offended. It's too much.

And we see the wonderfulness of privilege.  The attitude that causes these behaviors is the same base cause for a resume with a female name to be considered less competent than a male name.  Or when females in positions of power are interrupted to a higher degree than men in the same positions, same attitude.  The culture that says, "let me rush and open the door even when I am being told by those people that it is rude, because I have determined it is polite" is exactly the problem.  You fix those things, you also fix partly the other issues.  Deciding your opinion is more important, and should be able to override others, even when that means interfering with those people, is the overarching/underlying issue. 

[Emilyngh]

You ladies really need to stop giving a fuck about that kind of stuff a la this thread: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/the-subtle-art-of-not-giving-a-fuck/. Save your fucks for the important shit like equal pay.

I'm a guy, and a pretty big guy, and if anyone rushes in front of me to open the door (which still happens! especially when super polite people come from india) I just say "Thanks!". If they were doing it because I was fat, or brown or a guy, or their boss, or appear physically handicapped, who cares? Let a nice act be a nice act. How offering aid to someone can be construed as rude is beyond me.
When did we all start looking at the motives behind everything that is seemingly kind? Who cares about the motive.

Even if the motive is clearly bad e.g. If someone wants to give me free cake and they said "hey, you're overweight, take some free cake because you'll eat it" I'll say "thanks for the free cake!" Why be bothered by it? I got free cake out of it! Mmm... cake.

I'm offended at people getting offended. It's too much.

You gentlemen really need to look into the actual effects of benevolent sexism (eg., on more tangible things like equal pay) before telling others who deal with it day in and day out their entire lives exactly how many fucks they should give about it.

"Secondly, they discovered that benevolent sexism was a significant predictor of nationwide gender inequality, independent of the effects of hostile sexism. In countries where the men were more likely to endorse benevolent sexism, even when controlling for hostile sexism, men also lived longer, were more educated, had higher literacy rates, made significantly more money, and actively participated in the political and economic spheres more than their female counterparts. The warm, fuzzy feelings surrounding benevolent sexism come at a cost, and that cost is often actual, objective gender equality."

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/psysociety/2013/04/02/benevolent-sexism/

[dividendman]

And we see the wonderfulness of privilege.  The attitude that causes these behaviors is the same base cause for a resume with a female name to be considered less competent than a male name.  Or when females in positions of power are interrupted to a higher degree than men in the same positions, same attitude.  The culture that says, "let me rush and open the door even when I am being told by those people that it is rude, because I have determined it is polite" is exactly the problem.  You fix those things, you also fix partly the other issues.  Deciding your opinion is more important, and should be able to override others, even when that means interfering with those people, is the overarching/underlying issue.

I don't understand "and we see the wonderfulness of privilege". What do you mean by that?

Generally I do believe my opinion on most things is more important than others (since I am well... me) and I try to... I'll say persuade instead of "override" their opinions to my point of view when getting their consensus is a goal. Isn't that how everyone operates? Who operates believing that their opinions aren't important and just gives in to other folks? Isn't the fact that we're having this debate showing that we both believe this?

I feel like I have completely missed the point.

[dividendman]

You ladies really need to stop giving a fuck about that kind of stuff a la this thread: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/the-subtle-art-of-not-giving-a-fuck/. Save your fucks for the important shit like equal pay.

I'm a guy, and a pretty big guy, and if anyone rushes in front of me to open the door (which still happens! especially when super polite people come from india) I just say "Thanks!". If they were doing it because I was fat, or brown or a guy, or their boss, or appear physically handicapped, who cares? Let a nice act be a nice act. How offering aid to someone can be construed as rude is beyond me.
When did we all start looking at the motives behind everything that is seemingly kind? Who cares about the motive.

Even if the motive is clearly bad e.g. If someone wants to give me free cake and they said "hey, you're overweight, take some free cake because you'll eat it" I'll say "thanks for the free cake!" Why be bothered by it? I got free cake out of it! Mmm... cake.

I'm offended at people getting offended. It's too much.

You gentlemen really need to look into the actual effects of benevolent sexism (eg., on more tangible things like equal pay) before telling others who deal with it day in and day out their entire lives exactly how many fucks they should give about it.

"Secondly, they discovered that benevolent sexism was a significant predictor of nationwide gender inequality, independent of the effects of hostile sexism. In countries where the men were more likely to endorse benevolent sexism, even when controlling for hostile sexism, men also lived longer, were more educated, had higher literacy rates, made significantly more money, and actively participated in the political and economic spheres more than their female counterparts. The warm, fuzzy feelings surrounding benevolent sexism come at a cost, and that cost is often actual, objective gender equality."

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/psysociety/2013/04/02/benevolent-sexism/

That's an interesting study. I wonder if it's the same with benevolent racism e.g. thinking Asians are better at math or something like that.

[Gin1984]

And we see the wonderfulness of privilege.  The attitude that causes these behaviors is the same base cause for a resume with a female name to be considered less competent than a male name.  Or when females in positions of power are interrupted to a higher degree than men in the same positions, same attitude.  The culture that says, "let me rush and open the door even when I am being told by those people that it is rude, because I have determined it is polite" is exactly the problem.  You fix those things, you also fix partly the other issues.  Deciding your opinion is more important, and should be able to override others, even when that means interfering with those people, is the overarching/underlying issue.

I don't understand "and we see the wonderfulness of privilege". What do you mean by that?

Generally I do believe my opinion on most things is more important than others (since I am well... me) and I try to... I'll say persuade instead of "override" their opinions to my point of view when getting their consensus is a goal. Isn't that how everyone operates? Who operates believing that their opinions aren't important and just gives in to other folks? Isn't the fact that we're having this debate showing that we both believe this?

I feel like I have completely missed the point.

I mean that you, who does not actually deal with the problems have the ability to ignore them, they don't affect you day in and day out.  You have the privilege of not giving a fuck.  Guess what, I don't.  That article posted is common knowledge among many who do not have the privilege of not noticing this.  And I used the word override specifically.  When someone says please don't run in front of me and open the door, it is sexist, says "no it is polite".  You are saying, my opinion that it is polite is more important than your opinion, little women, that it is rude.  And I am just going to keep doing it, because "I am more important than you".  That is the attitude that this all boils down to.  If people really wanted to be polite, they would stop an action that many are saying is rude. 

And then we get down to the arguably more important personal point.  You don't deal with this crap day in and day out.  You did not know that "benevolent sexism" is as harmful (which btw, yes "benevolent racism is also harmful) as "non-benevolent" sexism.  Yet, you decided to tell women, who are bothered by the sexism, who probably had more experience with it, and the effects of it, that they should "give no fucks". WTF, really?  You know what sexist thing bothers me, men who think their experiences give them the right to tell me, a person with vastly different experiences, how I should act in regards to something they rarely, if ever experience.  Why not start with asking why we are so bothered, learn something, then speak up?  That is what privilege is, thank you for being the perfect example.

[dividendman]

I don't understand "and we see the wonderfulness of privilege". What do you mean by that?

Generally I do believe my opinion on most things is more important than others (since I am well... me) and I try to... I'll say persuade instead of "override" their opinions to my point of view when getting their consensus is a goal. Isn't that how everyone operates? Who operates believing that their opinions aren't important and just gives in to other folks? Isn't the fact that we're having this debate showing that we both believe this?

I feel like I have completely missed the point.

I mean that you, who does not actually deal with the problems have the ability to ignore them, they don't affect you day in and day out.  You have the privilege of not giving a fuck.  Guess what, I don't.  That article posted is common knowledge among many who do not have the privilege of not noticing this.  And I used the word override specifically.  When someone says please don't run in front of me and open the door, it is sexist, says "no it is polite".  You are saying, my opinion that it is polite is more important than your opinion, little women, that it is rude.  And I am just going to keep doing it, because "I am more important than you".  That is the attitude that this all boils down to.  If people really wanted to be polite, they would stop an action that many are saying is rude. 

And then we get down to the arguably more important personal point.  You don't deal with this crap day in and day out.  You did not know that "benevolent sexism" is as harmful (which btw, yes "benevolent racism is also harmful) as "non-benevolent" sexism.  Yet, you decided to tell women, who are bothered by the sexism, who probably had more experience with it, and the effects of it, that they should "give no fucks". WTF, really?  You know what sexist thing bothers me, men who think their experiences give them the right to tell me, a person with vastly different experiences, how I should act in regards to something they rarely, if ever experience.  Why not start with asking why we are so bothered, learn something, then speak up?  That is what privilege is, thank you for being the perfect example.

I'm glad I could be an example!

Anyways... yes, I didn't know about that study. I am probably one of the few folks who changes their mind when presented with facts. Now that I know about it my opinion has changed and I agree benevolent sexism isn't good or neutral. Thanks Emilyngh! I try to learn something every day. Gin1984 your argument about apparent rudeness didn't change my mind though. A peer reviewed study that seems legit did. Had I not read that I'd continue telling you to stop giving a fuck. Sorry, that's how I work.

On a personal level, I don't mind the benevolent racist (good at math/with money) or hostile racist (I'm a suicide bomber) that people may think of me. Maybe that's a stupid way to live life. I don't find giving a fuck about those things actually helps me at all though i.e. I have little ability to change it and I seem to be succeeding in spite of it, so I don't give a fuck.

[Russ]

Generally I do believe my opinion on most things is more important than others (since I am well... me) and I try to... I'll say persuade instead of "override" their opinions to my point of view when getting their consensus is a goal. Isn't that how everyone operates? Who operates believing that their opinions aren't important and just gives in to other folks? Isn't the fact that we're having this debate showing that we both believe this.

Holding your own opinions and understanding others' opinions are not mutually exclusive. It is encouraged that posters here try and do both, i.e. learn some empathy.

[Zikoris]

I mean that you, who does not actually deal with the problems have the ability to ignore them, they don't affect you day in and day out.  You have the privilege of not giving a fuck.  Guess what, I don't.  That article posted is common knowledge among many who do not have the privilege of not noticing this.  And I used the word override specifically.  When someone says please don't run in front of me and open the door, it is sexist, says "no it is polite".  You are saying, my opinion that it is polite is more important than your opinion, little women, that it is rude.  And I am just going to keep doing it, because "I am more important than you".  That is the attitude that this all boils down to.  If people really wanted to be polite, they would stop an action that many are saying is rude. 

And then we get down to the arguably more important personal point.  You don't deal with this crap day in and day out.  You did not know that "benevolent sexism" is as harmful (which btw, yes "benevolent racism is also harmful) as "non-benevolent" sexism.  Yet, you decided to tell women, who are bothered by the sexism, who probably had more experience with it, and the effects of it, that they should "give no fucks". WTF, really?  You know what sexist thing bothers me, men who think their experiences give them the right to tell me, a person with vastly different experiences, how I should act in regards to something they rarely, if ever experience.  Why not start with asking why we are so bothered, learn something, then speak up?  That is what privilege is, thank you for being the perfect example.

How do you reconcile your beliefs with the fact that there are as many women as many saying "Who cares? Just stop giving a fuck"? If men say it from a place of special privilege, how do you explain women saying the same thing? Is there a separate DGAF-privilege that women can have?

[Cressida]

I mean that you, who does not actually deal with the problems have the ability to ignore them, they don't affect you day in and day out.  You have the privilege of not giving a fuck.  Guess what, I don't.  That article posted is common knowledge among many who do not have the privilege of not noticing this.  And I used the word override specifically.  When someone says please don't run in front of me and open the door, it is sexist, says "no it is polite".  You are saying, my opinion that it is polite is more important than your opinion, little women, that it is rude.  And I am just going to keep doing it, because "I am more important than you".  That is the attitude that this all boils down to.  If people really wanted to be polite, they would stop an action that many are saying is rude. 

And then we get down to the arguably more important personal point.  You don't deal with this crap day in and day out.  You did not know that "benevolent sexism" is as harmful (which btw, yes "benevolent racism is also harmful) as "non-benevolent" sexism.  Yet, you decided to tell women, who are bothered by the sexism, who probably had more experience with it, and the effects of it, that they should "give no fucks". WTF, really?  You know what sexist thing bothers me, men who think their experiences give them the right to tell me, a person with vastly different experiences, how I should act in regards to something they rarely, if ever experience.  Why not start with asking why we are so bothered, learn something, then speak up?  That is what privilege is, thank you for being the perfect example.

How do you reconcile your beliefs with the fact that there are as many women as many saying "Who cares? Just stop giving a fuck"? If men say it from a place of special privilege, how do you explain women saying the same thing? Is there a separate DGAF-privilege that women can have?

Regarding bolded portion: Clearly a typo. What were you trying to say here? That there are as many women saying they don't care as there are women saying they do? Or that there are as many women as men saying they don't care? Both appear untrue from a survey of responses here.

[Zikoris]

I have no idea what the gender breakdown of the people in this thread is, I'm just wondering how you guys explain the obvious logic flaw in stating that people who say "Who cares? Stop giving a fuck, and your life will be better" are only speaking from a position of male privilege, and blind to the realities of being a woman, when there are many women who hold that same belief.

[Cressida]

I have no idea what the gender breakdown of the people in this thread is, I'm just wondering how you guys explain the obvious logic flaw in stating that people who say "Who cares? Stop giving a fuck, and your life will be better" are only speaking from a position of male privilege, and blind to the realities of being a woman, when there are many women who hold that same belief.

It's true that there is a subset of women who dismiss feminist positions because they've learned that doing so earns them points with men. I do not respect them.

[edited: grammar]

[UnleashHell]

I open doors for people because its polite and shows respect. I'm polite and like to show respect. I'll do it for anyone.
Sometimes opening a door is just polite and respectful.

Its not a comment on a sexism or denigrating women. Its just a door.

I not going to start asking someone if its ok for me to open the door for them or if they would be offended. I don't care about their sex, age, size or skin color. I'm just showing respect for others. I'm not saying "after you little lady" - that would be sexist. standing back and waiting for them to open the door or marching through without holding it for the person to go through the door after would show disregard and disrespect for that person and I'm not prepared to do that.

[Emilyngh]

I have no idea what the gender breakdown of the people in this thread is, I'm just wondering how you guys explain the obvious logic flaw in stating that people who say "Who cares? Stop giving a fuck, and your life will be better" are only speaking from a position of male privilege, and blind to the realities of being a woman, when there are many women who hold that same belief.

Of course there are women who have said in their lives "who cares, stop giving a fuck" about some things.   I know that I, in general, am a big DGAF advocate.   However, I disagree that there is anyone, nor should be, who gives a fuck about nothing.   I also agree with the sentiment that not giving a fuck is not the same as being indifferent about something (http://markmanson.net/not-giving-a-fuck#Xd6tdi:ce0) .   Overall, it boils down to what things we value and where we want to put our energy.   And the thing that some men here seem to be missing is that being treated like an actual, legitimate, equal human being is something that women often choose to give a fuck about, or at least not be indifferent about when being discussed on a message board. 

 I know that I do value putting energy into pointing out when benevolent sexism is blown off as women overacting (ie., giving too many fucks) that those of us who live with this shit daily might have a different perspective regarding it's importance.   Perhaps those who are busy advising others regarding how many fucks they should give about something they've never dealt with should consider why in the world *they* give a fuck.   Why not just hear what the people actually affected are saying, shrug, and say "Wow, I had no idea that this little "politeness" can feel dehumanizing to those I'm trying to "help."   Certainly not going to keep insisting on doing this anymore."?

[Emilyngh]

I open doors for people because its polite and shows respect. I'm polite and like to show respect. I'll do it for anyone.
Sometimes opening a door is just polite and respectful.

Its not a comment on a sexism or denigrating women. Its just a door.

I not going to start asking someone if its ok for me to open the door for them or if they would be offended. I don't care about their sex, age, size or skin color. I'm just showing respect for others. I'm not saying "after you little lady" - that would be sexist. standing back and waiting for them to open the door or marching through without holding it for the person to go through the door after would show disregard and disrespect for that person and I'm not prepared to do that.

Are you following this thread?   Because I've yet to see one person here advocate what you seem to be arguing against.   

[Sibley]

Re women who aren't upset by sexist actions/remarks/that's the way it currently is, I know some women who simply don't know that it can or should be any other way, so they accept the status quo. Then, they defend the status quo because change is scary, and as things currently stand, they're protected.

How many women do you know who don't know anything about financial topics, and have nothing to do with their finances? What about the ones who resist learning about car maintenance, home repair, or how to mow the lawn? These are stereotypical "men's roles", and some women embrace that because it is, frankly, easier when you don't have to deal with more stuff!

When you're in a situation where women are expected to be in a particular "place", and it results in a comfortable life, then unless that woman is particularly strong-minded and independent, they're going to tend to stay in that "place". It doesn't matter what happens next door, or in the next town over. Unless and until something forces them to exit their comfort zone, they're not budging.

[Zikoris]

I have no idea what the gender breakdown of the people in this thread is, I'm just wondering how you guys explain the obvious logic flaw in stating that people who say "Who cares? Stop giving a fuck, and your life will be better" are only speaking from a position of male privilege, and blind to the realities of being a woman, when there are many women who hold that same belief.

It's true that there is a subset of women who dismiss feminist positions because they've learned that doing so earns them points with men. I do not respect them.

[edited: grammar]

So women who disagree with feminist positions don't actually believe what they claim to, they just say it for attention/men? This does seem like a common feminist belief, unfortunately - no dissent allowed, you either agree with them or you're lying(secretly agree with them)/don't understand what you're saying. Complete lack of agency for women.

This is a really good example of why women are abandoning your movement like rats from a sinking ship.

[lizzie]

I mean that you, who does not actually deal with the problems have the ability to ignore them, they don't affect you day in and day out.  You have the privilege of not giving a fuck.  Guess what, I don't.  That article posted is common knowledge among many who do not have the privilege of not noticing this.  And I used the word override specifically.  When someone says please don't run in front of me and open the door, it is sexist, says "no it is polite".  You are saying, my opinion that it is polite is more important than your opinion, little women, that it is rude.  And I am just going to keep doing it, because "I am more important than you".  That is the attitude that this all boils down to.  If people really wanted to be polite, they would stop an action that many are saying is rude. 

And then we get down to the arguably more important personal point.  You don't deal with this crap day in and day out.  You did not know that "benevolent sexism" is as harmful (which btw, yes "benevolent racism is also harmful) as "non-benevolent" sexism.  Yet, you decided to tell women, who are bothered by the sexism, who probably had more experience with it, and the effects of it, that they should "give no fucks". WTF, really?  You know what sexist thing bothers me, men who think their experiences give them the right to tell me, a person with vastly different experiences, how I should act in regards to something they rarely, if ever experience.  Why not start with asking why we are so bothered, learn something, then speak up?  That is what privilege is, thank you for being the perfect example.

How do you reconcile your beliefs with the fact that there are as many women as many saying "Who cares? Just stop giving a fuck"? If men say it from a place of special privilege, how do you explain women saying the same thing? Is there a separate DGAF-privilege that women can have?

The point of “privilege” as a concept is that, all things being equal, one’s status as the sex or race that is treated as the default* makes it easier for that person to be blind to the ways in which the experiences of someone who is not a member of the default sex or race might be different from theirs and more specifically might be affected by the fact that they are not treated as the default sex or race. It also means that the privileged person's viewpoint is often treated as the objective one that is not influenced by his own sex or race.  It doesn’t mean that all people of a particular sex or race will respond the exact same way or hold the same opinions about everything.

*If you want to know what I mean by the sex or race that is treated as the default, this cartoon does a great job demonstrating it. The point being that a person of the "default" race or sex normally gets to be treated as an individual rather than as the representative of the marked category.




Credit: http://xkcd.com/385/

This is a really good example of why women are abandoning your movement like rats from a sinking ship.

Interesting analogy. I always thought this saying was supposed to be a criticism of the rats.

[Zikoris]

The point of “privilege” as a concept is that, all things being equal, one’s status as the sex or race that is treated as the default* makes it easier for that person to be blind to the ways in which the experiences of someone who is not a member of the default sex or race might be different from theirs and more specifically might be affected by the fact that they are not treated as the default sex or race. It also means that the privileged person's viewpoint is often treated as the objective one that is not influenced by his own sex or race.  It doesn’t mean that all people of a particular sex or race will respond the exact same way or hold the same opinions about everything.

*If you want to know what I mean by the sex or race that is treated as the default, this cartoon does a great job demonstrating it. The point being that a person of the "default" race or sex normally gets to be treated as an individual rather than as the representative of the marked category.




Credit: http://xkcd.com/385/

The logical inconsistency still remains. If holding Opinion X is a sign of one having male privilege, and a woman also holds Opinion X, there are only two possibilities that I can see:

1. The woman has male privilege somehow
2. The woman has other reasons for coming to that conclusion.

If #2, why would that not also be a possibility for a man? Why is a man holding a view automatically dismissed as "Well, you have male privilege"?

I guess you could go with Cressida's theory that the women are just in it for attention and male approval, though that seems pretty insulting to women.

[lizzie]

The point of “privilege” as a concept is that, all things being equal, one’s status as the sex or race that is treated as the default* makes it easier for that person to be blind to the ways in which the experiences of someone who is not a member of the default sex or race might be different from theirs and more specifically might be affected by the fact that they are not treated as the default sex or race. It also means that the privileged person's viewpoint is often treated as the objective one that is not influenced by his own sex or race.  It doesn’t mean that all people of a particular sex or race will respond the exact same way or hold the same opinions about everything.

*If you want to know what I mean by the sex or race that is treated as the default, this cartoon does a great job demonstrating it. The point being that a person of the "default" race or sex normally gets to be treated as an individual rather than as the representative of the marked category.




Credit: http://xkcd.com/385/

The logical inconsistency still remains. If holding Opinion X is a sign of one having male privilege, and a woman also holds Opinion X, there are only two possibilities that I can see:

1. The woman has male privilege somehow
2. The woman has other reasons for coming to that conclusion.

If #2, why would that not also be a possibility for a man? Why is a man holding a view automatically dismissed as "Well, you have male privilege"?

I guess you could go with Cressida's theory that the women are just in it for attention and male approval, though that seems pretty insulting to women.

It's not logically inconsistent unless you think that people are automatons whose opinions must automatically flow from their membership in a particular race or sex. I don't have a problem believing that people are individuals with widely diverse opinions and also recognizing that that person's opinions may well be informed and influenced by their status in society.

Basically, you seem to be saying that it's illogical for any woman to be a feminist unless all women are feminists. Because some women disagree with feminism, that automatically invalidates feminism? See, I have a problem with that, because you don't speak for me just because you're a woman. I'm allowed to have my own opinions, as are you.

I guess you could go with Cressida's theory that the women are just in it for attention and male approval, though that seems pretty insulting to women.

See what you did here? You said it's insulting "to women," as if women are some monolithic hivemind borg-thingy. Actually, it's insulting to the particular women Cressida is talking about. It's not insulting to "women" as a class, unless other women's actions or beliefs somehow reflect on me because I'm also a woman---which is exactly what I mean by being treated as though one is representative of the marked category rather than as an individual. Whether the insult is warranted is a separate question, of course, and it's not really what I'm talking about.

[Zikoris]

I'm saying that it's illogical to dismiss Person A's opinion with "Well, you're operating from a position of male privilege" when a person can easily hold the same opinion without being male.

It's a problem you run into a lot if you focus on the person rather than the argument they're making.

[Emilyngh]

I'm saying that it's illogical to dismiss Person A's opinion with "Well, you're operating from a position of male privilege" when a person can easily hold the same opinion without being male.

It's a problem you run into a lot if you focus on the person rather than the argument they're making.

Relevant experience and expertise are very relevant to how much one's "argument" holds water.   If I were to argue with a man about the best way to pee standing up, although I have 0 experience peeing standing up, my argument  is clearly strongly biased by my experience (or lack thereof) and such should be pointed out.   The fact that some random hypothetical other man out there might happen to agree with my opinion would not lend it credibility nor negate my lack of experience.

[Emilyngh]

From an analytical perspective, experience is irrelevant to the merits of an argument in general.

A person's experience with the topic might be loosely correlated with the correctness of the propositions advanced by them, but analytically speaking, experience is irrelevant.

Absolute nonsense.   Going back to my best way to pee standing up analogy, are you really arguing that someone who has never done it has just as likely of a valid argument on how to best do it as someone who practices it every day?   Could any random person who has never had a day's experience in whatever industry you are in just jump in and know how to do it just as well as you do?  If so, why bother to ever learn anything?  Just pull whatever argument you'd like out of your ass, they're all as valid regardless of background knowledge.   

While I do agree that the person with the most experience does not necessarily have the right answer 100% of the time, experience and expertise absolutely matter.

[Emilyngh]

i'm not saying every woman who's not a feminist is in denial of her internalized sexism, but a heck of a lot of them are. you can identify women like this because they often say things like "i'm not like other women" and "i like hanging out with guys more than girls" and they drink whiskey and play pool and disdain everything they see as "girly." this often includes feminism itself. so the implication here is that "girly" stuff is inconsequential and fluffy and stupid, and these "special" women don't identify with it. as though the definition of womanhood is nothing more than liking makeup and gossip.

but one of the trickiest things about patriarchy is how it conditions women to want to "not be like other women," to be different and special and approved of and chosen by men (instead of being shrill harpies who don't like it when people hold doors open for them).

so, any time you hear a woman say "i'm not like other women," you are in fact hearing the voice of thousands of years of cultural patriarchy.

Yup.   ITA.   I would often resort to "I'm not like other girls" type of responses when I was younger.   The implication being that acting like a girl, when one is actually a girl, is silly and undesirable.   

Now, as a woman, I find myself grappling with something similar as I struggle with expectations and roles surrounding motherhood.   While I personally want to reject the expectations of women needing to prioritize their children over all else, I also try not to diminish the type of work that women tend to do (ie., childcare and domestic work).   It can be hard to reject society's sexist expectations without then also implying a rejection/diminishing of other women who are constrained by them.

Anyway, kind of unrelated rant, other than to agree that navigating all of this can be difficult.   

[GuitarStv]

From an analytical perspective, experience is irrelevant to the merits of an argument in general.

A person's experience with the topic might be loosely correlated with the correctness of the propositions advanced by them, but analytically speaking, experience is irrelevant.

Absolute nonsense.   Going back to my best way to pee standing up analogy, are you really arguing that someone who has never done it has just as likely of a valid argument on how to best do it as someone who practices it every day?   Could any random person who has never had a day's experience in whatever industry you are in just jump in and know how to do it just as well as you do?  If so, why bother to ever learn anything?  Just pull whatever argument you'd like out of your ass, they're all as valid regardless of background knowledge.   

While I do agree that the person with the most experience does not necessarily have the right answer 100% of the time, experience and expertise absolutely matter.

Experience != expertise though.  That's the part you're forgetting.  It's possible to drive a car every day and not know how to change the oil on the car.  Even though a mechanic has never driven your car, the odds are usually pretty good he can inspect it and find the problem when you bring it in.

[boy_bye]

i'm not saying every woman who's not a feminist is in denial of her internalized sexism, but a heck of a lot of them are. you can identify women like this because they often say things like "i'm not like other women" and "i like hanging out with guys more than girls" and they drink whiskey and play pool and disdain everything they see as "girly." this often includes feminism itself. so the implication here is that "girly" stuff is inconsequential and fluffy and stupid, and these "special" women don't identify with it. as though the definition of womanhood is nothing more than liking makeup and gossip.

but one of the trickiest things about patriarchy is how it conditions women to want to "not be like other women," to be different and special and approved of and chosen by men (instead of being shrill harpies who don't like it when people hold doors open for them).

so, any time you hear a woman say "i'm not like other women," you are in fact hearing the voice of thousands of years of cultural patriarchy.

Yup.   ITA.   I would often resort to "I'm not like other girls" type of responses when I was younger.   The implication being that acting like a girl, when one is actually a girl, is silly and undesirable.   

Now, as a woman, I find myself grappling with something similar as I struggle with expectations and roles surrounding motherhood.   While I personally want to reject the expectations of women needing to prioritize their children over all else, I also try not to diminish the type of work that women tend to do (ie., childcare and domestic work).   It can be hard to reject society's sexist expectations without then also implying a rejection/diminishing of other women who are constrained by them.

Anyway, kind of unrelated rant, other than to agree that navigating all of this can be difficult.

i hear you. when i was younger and sometimes even now i fall into the same trap ... so i find it's very important for me to be aware of this, so that i don't fall into a woman-diminishing k-hole.

i would often find myself judging women who stayed in shitty co-dependent relationships until i found myself somehow in one. and i sometimes find myself looking askance at women who dissolve into their families or into their relationships, and wanting to shake them and scream "find something to live for within yourself!"

and it's tricky, because i feel that my life's work (see my blog/book) is about helping women see where our sexist culture has taught us to turn against ourselves in some pretty fundamental ways, and to find new ways of thinking about who we are and what we are worth that liberate rather than diminish us.

so it's a delicate balance, trying to hold compassion for people where they are right now while also shining a light on some things that we have been taught to do that often limit our willingness to speak up and become leaders and demand what we are worth in life.

the way that women are taught to devalue themselves (and each other) is one of the worst of the sexist things that drive me crazy.

[Emilyngh]

Experience != expertise though.  That's the part you're forgetting.  It's possible to drive a car every day and not know how to change the oil on the car.  Even though a mechanic has never driven your car, the odds are usually pretty good he can inspect it and find the problem when you bring it in.

A lack of experience can greatly predict a lack of expertise though.   Eg., even though people on here may not always have much formal financial experience, those who are the most financially savvy have spent many hours learning it all, ie., are often the most experienced.

While a mechanic may not have driven *your* car, he certainly has a great deal of experience with fixing cars.   Otherwise, he'd probably be a pretty shitty mechanic.

[Emilyngh]

It’s not “nonsense” or “poppycock”, but I probably should have anticipated that what I said would be controversial to somebody who has not studied logical reasoning.

Basically, from the perspective of logical reasoning (what I called an “analytical” perspective in my previous post), the correctness of an argument is determined by two factors:

1. Whether the conclusion of the argument can be deduced from its premises (i.e. whether the argument is “logically valid”); and
2. Whether the premises of the argument are true (i.e. whether the argument is “sound”).


When confronted with an argument, you have two possible ways to prove it is wrong:

1. You can argue that the structure of the argument is flawed such that the conclusion of the argument does not follow from its premises; or
2. You can argue that one or all of the premises are false.

Nothing else is relevant to whether the argument is correct.


To run with your urination example [which you edited out of the post before I could reply, but I’ll stick with it], suppose you are confronted with the argument, “Most men are disgusting because they pee on the floor.” The conclusion of this argument is that “most men are disgusting”. The premises are: “most men pee on the floor” and “people who pee on the floor are disgusting”. The second premise was not explicitly stated, but you can see it is there because it is necessary for the argument to make sense. So to write it out more explicitly, this is the argument:

1. Most men pee on the floor.
2. People who pee on the floor are disgusting.
3. Therefore, most men are disgusting.


This argument is logically valid: its conclude can be deduced from its premises.

Therefore, to dispute this argument, you have only one route: argue that one or both of its premises are false. In other words, you could argue that either:

1. The majority of men do not pee on the floor; or
2. That a person pees on the floor is not sufficient to conclude that the person is disgusting.


Those claims are the only way you can refute the argument. Nothing else is relevant. Among other things, the gender of the person who made the argument is not relevant to its correctness.

Zikoris actually already explained why it is an error to focus on the person who made the argument. If you fall into that error, then you are put in the unenviable position of arguing that an argument’s validity can change based on who makes it.

For example, suppose you hear the claim “10% is a safe withdrawal rate for a 50 year retirement”. From an analytical perspective, this claim would be evaluated by reference to historical investment returns, the nature of the stock and bond markets, models for predicting future investment returns, and other such relevant factors. However, the credentials of the person making the argument would not be relevant. Otherwise, you would be in the position of arguing that somebody with a PhD in economics who makes that statement is making a better point than Joe Blow from MMM forums when he makes that statement; but that’s absurd, because the statement is independent of who is making it. Its correctness does not vary with the speaker.


So that is the analytical perspective.

One difficulty with applying the analytical perspective is that it requires being an expert on the field in question. If you aren’t an expert, you might not be apply to determine whether the argument is sound. Instead, you have to rely on heuristics to make a guess about whether it is correct. The following heuristics may be loosely correlated with the correctness of a person’s argument:

1. Whether the person has studied the topic in question;
2. Whether the person has a degree in the topic;
3. Whether the person has professional experience in the topic;
4. Whether the person is speaking based on one or more privileges; etc.

Those factors might all be correlated, on average, with the correctness of a person’s propositions and if your only goal is to make a statistical guess about the correctness of a proposition, those things can be helpful.

However, if you actually want to know whether a particular argument is sound, those factors are simply not relevant: only the logical validity of the argument and the soundness of its propositions are relevant.

Now, to relate this back to the topic, I believe Zikoris’s complaint was that the following is not a logically valid argument:

1. Person Q is male.
2. Therefore, Person Q enjoys male privilege.
3. Person Q says P.
4. Person Q is only saying P because of male privilege.
5. Statements made because of male privilege are wrong.
6. Therefore, P is wrong.


Zikoris is completely right that that argument is invalid, and I believe that is the point she was making.

However, as I explained in my post above, I didn’t think anybody was actually making that argument. The function of calling attention to privilege is not to make an argument: it’s just to educate on the concept of privilege. However, in view of the relies, it may be that people really did intend to make the above logically invalid argument, and is indeed invalid.

Regardless of intent, though, my point is that there is a place for the mention of privilege in the discussion, although it is not directly relevant to the merits of the argument.

It is quite presumptuous of you to assume my *experience* with logical reasoning.   Although, based on your own argument, my with experience with reasoning has absolutely no bearing on the soundness of my argument.   So the fact that you pointed out my presumed lack of experience in your argument is pretty funny in that it directly contradicts the very argument you are trying to make...

As far as your examples, I disagree with your descriptions of the points even being argued.   For example,

"I believe Zikoris’s complaint was that the following is not a logically valid argument:

1. Person Q is male.
2. Therefore, Person Q enjoys male privilege.
3. Person Q says P.
4. Person Q is only saying P because of male privilege.
5. Statements made because of male privilege are wrong.
6. Therefore, P is wrong."

I did not see anyone attempt to argue #4,#5, or #6.   Thus, the entire sequence is a strawman argument (as is the example regarding peeing on the floor, I made none of these arguments either).