Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This is not about religion, let's please go back to the discussion on topic please. Nostradamus I actually read your entire comment and agree with what you were saying. It's exactly my thoughts to the point of people learning to control their own emotions

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Yup, better throw history's list of terrible things at my feet because I'm totally responsible for, and endorse, all of the above.

entire history? nope, that was just the events from the last couple of years. which parts did you participate in?

Guys, please. Let's not throw 50 tomahawks at a perfectly good thread.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
A young lady at an office I was visiting told me in a non-aggressive way that I was being sexist for holding the door open for her. The way I was raised, you ALWAYS hold the door open for women, the elderly, and the disabled. And if you're ever dining with a woman, the elderly, or the disabled, you ALWAYS pick up the bill.

Is that sexist?

Yes. Textbook definition of sexism.

What an awesome culture we are creating for ourselves where courtesy is a form of discrimination

People totally need to control their emotions, because the world its a harsh place, and we can't control everything around us. Thats obvious.

Now, that its not opposite to, at the same time we encourage people to have ticker skin, we encourage people to be more respectful with others and have more empathy in general.

Going with a very board comparasion: In you go to a conflictive neighborhood you should totally be prepared and be ready to defend yourself. But that doesn't mean that the people in that neighborhood shouldn't be educated to be more mature and civilized.

The first its the apropiate response to a syntom in the harsh world we live in. The second its how you "heal" the cause of the problem.


EDIT: Jasper76, I have present you why courtesy can be discriminatory if you are just reflect that courtesy to some kind of people, and the reasons behind that discrimination (In this case, positive discrimination towards females, old people, etc...). The easy solution its just to have courtesy with everyone. No more discussions.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
A young lady at an office I was visiting told me in a non-aggressive way that I was being sexist for holding the door open for her. The way I was raised, you ALWAYS hold the door open for women, the elderly, and the disabled. And if you're ever dining with a woman, the elderly, or the disabled, you ALWAYS pick up the bill.

Is that sexist?

Yes. Textbook definition of sexism.

What an awesome culture we are creating for ourselves where courtesy is a form of discrimination

What word would you use to describe a situation where someone treats women differently from men because they are women? That is exactly what you said you do. Calling it courtesy doesn't change the fact of the matter.

 Galas wrote:
EDIT: Jasper76, I have present you why courtesy can be discrimination if you are just reflect that courtesy to some kind of people, and the reasons behind that discrimination (In this case, positive discrimination towards females, old people, etc...). The easy solution its just to have courtesy with everyone. No more discussions.

Just because I was raised to be courteous to women, the elderly, and the disabled doesn't mean I was raised to be discourteous to men. If you're a man and you don't hold the door open for women, the elderly, and the disabled, you're not much of a man in my book. New-fangled ways be damned. No more discussions.

Sorry, I don't know what New-flanged ways means.

And I don't know how you interpreted from what I said that I was talking about stoping opening doors to women, elderly and disabled. I was just talking about that you should have that courtesy with everyone, and if you give a different treatement to women, then its reasonable that some of those women say to you to treat them just as you treat men. Even if you are treating them better.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

What word would you use to describe a situation where someone treats women differently from men because they are women?

When it comes to holding doors and paying for meals, I would use the word "courtesy".

If I were to treat women in a negative manner because they are women, I would then be happy to call it "sexism".

 jasper76 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
EDIT: Jasper76, I have present you why courtesy can be discrimination if you are just reflect that courtesy to some kind of people, and the reasons behind that discrimination (In this case, positive discrimination towards females, old people, etc...). The easy solution its just to have courtesy with everyone. No more discussions.

Just because I was raised to be courteous to women, the elderly, and the disabled doesn't mean I was raised to be discourteous to men. If you're a man and you don't hold the door open for women, the elderly, and the disabled, you're not much of a man in my book. New-fangled ways be damned. No more discussions.

Positive discrimination is still discrimination. You've signed your own confession. Now own it. It's not a fatal character flaw.

Also interesting the emphasis on being a man rather than "an upright person" or some other term that doesn't exclude all the nice young women who hold open doors for others. Again, not the end of the world, but denying it will make you look dishonest, which is a much worse problem to have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

What word would you use to describe a situation where someone treats women differently from men because they are women?

When it comes to holding doors and paying for meals, I would use the word "courtesy".

If I were to treat women in a negative manner because they are women, I would then be happy to call it "sexism".

Positive discrimination is still discrimination. If the word offends you, I guess I can avoid saying it in your presence.

 Galas wrote:
Sorry, I don't know what New-flanged ways means.

And I don't know how you interpreted from what I said that I was talking about stoping opening doors to women, elderly and disabled. I was just talking about that you should have that courtesy with everyone, and if you give a different treatement to women, then its reasonable that some of those women say to you to treat them just as you treat men. Even if you are treating them better.

New-fangled pretty much just means "new", perhaps "new and unfamiliar".

If a woman asks me not to hold doors for them, I will of course comply in the future...as a matter of courtesy.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
EDIT: Jasper76, I have present you why courtesy can be discrimination if you are just reflect that courtesy to some kind of people, and the reasons behind that discrimination (In this case, positive discrimination towards females, old people, etc...). The easy solution its just to have courtesy with everyone. No more discussions.

Just because I was raised to be courteous to women, the elderly, and the disabled doesn't mean I was raised to be discourteous to men. If you're a man and you don't hold the door open for women, the elderly, and the disabled, you're not much of a man in my book. New-fangled ways be damned. No more discussions.

Positive discrimination is still discrimination. You've signed your own confession. Now own it. It's not a fatal character flaw.

If you're trying to get me to agree with you that acting in a courteous manner is a character flaw, just save your breath.

 Galas wrote:
People totally need to control their emotions, because the world its a harsh place, and we can't control everything around us. Thats obvious.

Now, that its not opposite to, at the same time we encourage people to have ticker skin, we encourage people to be more respectful with others and have more empathy in general.

Going with a very board comparasion: In you go to a conflictive neighborhood you should totally be prepared and be ready to defend yourself. But that doesn't mean that the people in that neighborhood shouldn't be educated to be more mature and civilized.

The first its the apropiate response to a syntom in the harsh world we live in. The second its how you "heal" the cause of the problem.


EDIT: Jasper76, I have present you why courtesy can be discriminatory if you are just reflect that courtesy to some kind of people, and the reasons behind that discrimination (In this case, positive discrimination towards females, old people, etc...). The easy solution its just to have courtesy with everyone. No more discussions.

I can not find fault in your thought process, but as for the original topic there is a point where people look for offense where none exists, or should exist. I think that is where the divide is. In that group, the very real attitude of the group owner was simply to prohibit the use of certain words regardless of context. I am no longer in the group so I do not have the link to the list anymore but two off top of my head were slow(obvious word with potential to be offensive) and lame. Lame is different in that its use has meaning that depends on the context. So my stance was simply that banning words because of the possibility of offense was not the correct way to protect the people's ability to speak openly. It's like banning cars because it's possible to run someone over.

People need to be free to make their own decisions and censoring words that are not of them selves "bad" should not be a normal practice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avoid.html

Found the list. The website is done well, and I am not against the website. The initial list of words is what was banned completely.

Obviously using any of the words as an insult should be prohibited, but a few are not necessarily in need of an open ban, some are as they have only one meaning, and are usually slang for describing conditions.

 redleger wrote:

 Galas wrote:
People totally need to control their emotions, because the world its a harsh place, and we can't control everything around us. Thats obvious.

Now, that its not opposite to, at the same time we encourage people to have ticker skin, we encourage people to be more respectful with others and have more empathy in general.

Going with a very board comparasion: In you go to a conflictive neighborhood you should totally be prepared and be ready to defend yourself. But that doesn't mean that the people in that neighborhood shouldn't be educated to be more mature and civilized.

The first its the apropiate response to a syntom in the harsh world we live in. The second its how you "heal" the cause of the problem.


EDIT: Jasper76, I have present you why courtesy can be discriminatory if you are just reflect that courtesy to some kind of people, and the reasons behind that discrimination (In this case, positive discrimination towards females, old people, etc...). The easy solution its just to have courtesy with everyone. No more discussions.

I can not find fault in your thought process, but as for the original topic there is a point where people look for offense where none exists, or should exist. I think that is where the divide is. In that group, the very real attitude of the group owner was simply to prohibit the use of certain words regardless of context. I am no longer in the group so I do not have the link to the list anymore but two off top of my head were slow(obvious word with potential to be offensive) and lame. Lame is different in that its use has meaning that depends on the context. So my stance was simply that banning words because of the possibility of offense was not the correct way to protect the people's ability to speak openly. It's like banning cars because it's possible to run someone over.

People need to be free to make their own decisions and censoring words that are not of them selves "bad" should not be a normal practice.

I totally agree with you in that. Banning words, outside those words that have only one meaning that its 100% offensive (Like the N use to peyorative describe black people), its absurd. The context its all what matters, and the intentionality. Just look at Snowflake. A totally innocent word with totally fair uses, that can be use in a offensive light.

EDIT: Reading your article, they began with the the basic conception that Lenguage its a opresive tool used by the system... I just can't agree with that. Its social marxism, a ideology that I just don't share, being a economical marxist still. But that its what happen when you aply the economical analysis of the capitalist world of Karl Marx to human society. A quimera full of absurd things.

And there you have it.

 jasper76 wrote:
When it comes to holding doors and paying for meals, I would use the word "courtesy".

That's not courtesy, it's condescension. You wouldn't give the same "courtesy" to men, so you're implying that women are weaker and/or unable to take care of themselves and therefore need special help.

Well, I believe its unfair to call that condescension because I believe that jasper76 do that with the best of the intentions.

But even when we do things with our best intentions, we can offend other people because they don't want/ask for our help. I have encounter people on a whell chair denied my help for X , because even with more effort, they still can do it.

And I can totally understand that feeling, because I have my own medical problems. Nobody want to feel inferior, a charge to others, even when they are from a objetive and biological term inferior(Inferior in the meaning of less capable of doing X). Thats why I said early that pride and self respect are the basis of our own mental images. And when others asume that you always will need help, that can hurt our autoestime.

This its an exageration in the case of "opening doors", but its the same basis, just in a much lesser degree.

I think actually that this its more important in the case of paying the meal if you go to a dinner with a woman. When I was going to dates with my girlfriend in the past, now wife, we alternated in paying the dinner. 1- Because she earned, and still earn more money than me and 2-Its generated the image that she its dependant of you if you always pay the bill.

But this its offtopic. I just follow the rule of treating everyone with the same respect, and for now, it has worked for me.

 Peregrine wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
When it comes to holding doors and paying for meals, I would use the word "courtesy".

That's not courtesy, it's condescension. You wouldn't give the same "courtesy" to men, so you're implying that women are weaker and/or unable to take care of themselves and therefore need special help.

There is no need to imply that I am physically stronger than most women. It's a fact of biology. It's not a virtue, it's an accident of birth.

I was also unaware that holding a door carries the implication that a woman is unable to take care of herself, and would not be able to open the door if I was not there. Also, I do not agree with you that holding a door is a form of "special" help.

In any case, I have rattled on about holding doors for long enough. It's hard-coded, and I'm not going to change my default behavior on this, even if it means being a relic.

 jasper76 wrote:
Also, I do not agree with you that holding a door is a form of "special" help.

Then why don't you do it for men? It all comes down to this, you treat men and women differently and that's sexism. And it's even more obvious when you're talking about paying for their meals, which is entirely based in stereotypical ideas about men having jobs and women staying at home with the kids.

It's hard-coded

Lolwut? No, it is not hard-coded, not at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Also, I do not agree with you that holding a door is a form of "special" help.

Then why don't you do it for men? It all comes down to this, you treat men and women differently and that's sexism. And it's even more obvious when you're talking about paying for their meals, which is entirely based in stereotypical ideas about men having jobs and women staying at home with the kids.

You are very good at reading things that were never written. Please tell me where I said that I do not hold doors for men.

Paying for a meal = women staying at home with the kids. Lol. Ok

I guess that means that women who appreciate getting their meals paid for them on a date (aka most American women) are weak daisies just waiting for a man to slap on a ring, knock them up, and stay at home with the kids.

 jasper76 wrote:
Please tell me where I said that I do not hold doors for men.

In your own words:

The way I was raised, you ALWAYS hold the door open for women, the elderly, and the disabled. And if you're ever dining with a woman, the elderly, or the disabled, you ALWAYS pick up the bill.

If you give the same "courtesy" to men then there's no reason to single out "women, the elderly, and the disabled". You could just say "you always open the door for everyone".

Paying for a meal = women staying at home with the kids. Lol. Ok

Where do you think it comes from, then, if it's not about stereotypical roles where women can't afford to pay for their own meals?

 Peregrine wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Paying for a meal = women staying at home with the kids. Lol. Ok

Where do you think it comes from, then, if it's not about stereotypical roles where women can't afford to pay for their own meals?

I'd guess it stems form evolution and sexual selection. By providing food for a woman, you are displaying that you are capable of doing so (not that the woman is not), and therefore you may be a potential partner worth considering. If you ask to split the bill, you are by contrast displaying that you are either less capable of providing value, or that you are petty, and therefore less worthy of consideration as a potential partner. That'd be my guess.

If you ask the woman to pay the whole bill, best of luck to you on your quest for love!

Both of you are right. Our social stereotipes and social contracts don't come from air, they are all build upon biology and evolution.

Thats the reason we as social animals can work hard to change things against our own primal instincts, but if you negate the influence of biology, its a battle loss before beginning it.


You just have to look at the Poligamy vs Monogamy debate, bot from a social standpoint and from a biological standpoint.

 jasper76 wrote:
I'd guess it stems form evolution and sexual selection. By providing food for a woman, you are displaying that you are capable of doing so (not that the woman is not), and therefore you may be a potential partner worth considering. If you ask to split the bill, you are by contrast displaying that you are either less capable of providing value, or that you are petty, and therefore less worthy of consideration as a potential partner. That'd be my guess.

If you ask the woman to pay the whole bill, best of luck to you on your quest for love!

IOW, exactly what I said. It's "courtesy" because of sexist stereotypes that men provide food/money/whatever for women.

Also, even if we grant your ideas about evolution (a rather generous concession, given the fact that modern concepts like restaurants and dating are extremely new on the evolutionary time scale), that still falls well short of your generalization about paying for all women. Wanting to impress a date doesn't explain why a man should pay for, say, a female friend they have no romantic interest in.

 Peregrine wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I'd guess it stems form evolution and sexual selection. By providing food for a woman, you are displaying that you are capable of doing so (not that the woman is not), and therefore you may be a potential partner worth considering. If you ask to split the bill, you are by contrast displaying that you are either less capable of providing value, or that you are petty, and therefore less worthy of consideration as a potential partner. That'd be my guess.

If you ask the woman to pay the whole bill, best of luck to you on your quest for love!

IOW, exactly what I said. It's "courtesy" because of sexist stereotypes that men provide food/money/whatever for women.

Also, even if we grant your ideas about evolution (a rather generous concession, given the fact that modern concepts like restaurants and dating are extremely new on the evolutionary time scale), that still falls well short of your generalization about paying for all women. Wanting to impress a date doesn't explain why a man should pay for, say, a female friend they have no romantic interest in.

When I said I was raised to pay for meals for all women I misspoke. I was raised to pay for meals on dates with women. So sorry about that. When I go to lunch with my female colleagues, its split bills all the way.

As far as dates and who pays, I wouldn't guess that most women's preference to have their meal paid for is fundamentally about food or money, nor does it involve sexist stereotypes. Rather, it's about the man displaying to the woman that he is willing and capable of providing value as a potential partner through the gesture.

Maybe thats why I ended with my wife. She provided me with great value as a partner through the years!

 Galas wrote:
Maybe thats why I ended with my wife. She provided me with great value as a partner through the years!

I'm not sure if the chuckle emoji indicates sarcasm, but I certainly hope your wife has provided you with great value, including and especially the more wondrous things in relationships like love, friendship, and fidelity.

OK, I am resposible for a major off-topic tangent here.

Do what you're gonna do, and think what you're gonna think. I'm gonna keep on holding doors and paying on dates, and I'm done on this subject.

No, lucky me, it wasn't sarcasm. I just find funny that in my marriage I tend to be the "woman" in the stereotipic social role models.


But yes, better to end there the "Door debate" tangent. I just want to say that it was a very nice and respectfull debate! Thanks to you Jasper76 for having this nice exchange of ideas. It honours you (At least from my point of view) that you didn't just go to the offensive when I "dispute" something that seems so hard-code as you said!

 Galas wrote:
Thanks to you Jasper76 for having this nice exchange of ideas.

The feeling is mutual! Thank you, as well.

 jasper76 wrote:
When I said I was raised to pay for meals for all women I misspoke. I was raised to pay for meals on dates with women. So sorry about that. When I go to lunch with my female colleagues, its split bills all the way.

Fair enough. Agree or disagree on dating habits, that's certainly different from (and much less objectionable than) buying your co-worker's lunch just because they're a woman.

As far as dates and who pays, I wouldn't guess that most women's preference to have their meal paid for is fundamentally about food or money, nor does it involve sexist stereotypes. Rather, it's about the man displaying to the woman that he is willing and capable of providing value as a potential partner through the gesture.

If it isn't about sexist stereotypes then why isn't the reverse expected? Why isn't a woman expected to demonstrate her ability to provide value by paying for their date's meal?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
The Issue is this Frazz
Whiny people are upset because words hurt.
Whatever happened to
"Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"
Because we need to be saying that ALOT more often.

One of the dumbest sayings around, psychological breakdown from mental abuse is a very real thing