Almost a caricature of yourselves.

Eh...as a man, I'm a little conflicted on this. I hold the doors open for men, women and children alike, but without a doubt I feel slightly more compelled to hold it open for a woman. And when I was younger I would jump over a pit of lava to hold the door open for an attractive woman. But I wouldn't say I did that out of any desire to chivalrous, so much as it was a desire to noticed by that young attractive woman. After all, once I'd been dating someone for awhile, I wasn't so quick to open those same doors!

So I think maybe intent matters too. If I'm holding a door open for a woman because I think women have a particular place in a society, and my place as a man is to make sure doors are opened for them, that's not so cool. If I'm holding it open because I just happen to hold doors open for women, as well as men, then clearly there are no sexist overtones.

And I think this clip mostly demonstrates that while this is something that can be talked about at great length, having a strong opinion on whether or not men or women should be opening doors for each other is less useful in day-to-day interactions with people.

I used to open doors out of sexism. But now I've switched from chivalry to outright misogyny and *don't* open doors out of sexism.

In a gesture toward equality I've recently started opening doors for men out of sexism.

I'm thinking of branching out into general misanthropy but I can't decide if it'd require I open doors for everyone or not-open doors for everyone. (Mostly I'm tired of the need to stop people to explain that I'm being sexist.)

I suggest starting an "Ask a Misanthrope." feature. It'd be a real favor. (I imagine Drive-By would also enjoy it.) And if you consistently tie it to government policy you could pull in a lot of libertarian viewers.

I liked the shirt.

Pretty silly. If you think my holding the door open for you has "broader cultural implications," you have the problem, not me. I was just trying to be helpful and kind.

Oy.

Yeah, this is one those cases that displays why feminism seems very strange to most people. It's evil to hold a door open, because that's a sign of sexism. Yet, in real life, if I don't hold a door open I'm a jack-ass who nobody would ever date.

Who am I going to actually listen to, some feminist on the internet or the women I actually have daily interactions with?

I'm wondering why there's no video in the post, only a big blank space.

without a doubt I feel slightly more compelled to hold it open for a woman

This is where it gets a bit tricky, I suppose (can't watch the video at the moment)... I'm a woman who tends to hold doors open without ceremony or making a point of waiting, but it's more of a priority when I see the elderly, the very young, heavily burdened people, etc. Since the subtext there is that these are people who likely can't do as much for themselves, does that assumption carry over to women?

Personally, I'm all for anyone and everyone holding doors for others, but not making a big, formal deal out of it. I also prefer not to have doors held if I'm not close enough to walk through at my usual rate, because holding someone else up makes me rush, IMO requires more of an acknowledgment, and generally makes what should be a an almost automatic courtesy become more of a social exchange than I'd like.

Will you actually comprehend any qualifying statements from the women you have daily interactions with? If so, then listen to them. If not, then it really doesn't matter.

It's sexist if the only people you hold doors for are women. I'm a woman, and I hold doors for pretty much anyone, especially people who are older, have packages or have kids. I hate it when a guy rushes ahead of me to open the door or waits an extremely long time for me to get to the door - I'm like, dude, I can open it myself. Really. It's supposed to be chivalrous, but it just comes off as "oh the poor woman shouldn't have to trouble herself with such things as doors!"

Is it sexist to support laws that reduce women to subservient, baby-manufacturing machines to be owned and operated by their husbands?

Is it sexist to use pregnancy to punish the Jezebels who violate Biblical norms by having sex?

Is it sexist to harass, vandalize and bomb facilities where women receive medical care, because those clinics won't submit to Biblical principles that make women the property of their husbands?

Is it sexist to go the extra mile and murder doctors who won't obey the orders of Christian fanatics that they must stop providing health care to women who need it?

I usually open doors for people of either gender. As both agree, this isn't the point.

Only once have I really "open doors for women" and that was on prom night. During the prom, it seemed appropriate to play up the stereotypes of formal, chivalrous behavior. It was fun for one night. I even stopped my date from opening the door herself, but with a joking smile on my face. This is what Dana alluded to when she mentioned it can be 'playful'.

The funny thing about this set of discussions and the responses is how many people just don't seem to get it. If you actually, honestly think of the genders as equal, the rest really does work itself out.

I hold the door open if I am the first through, and shrug if the men I am with jockey to get there before me (which would be considered rude if they were doing it to men). I hold the door open for people who need help. I ask a disabled person "May I help you?" before I hold the door open because so many of them think I am casting aspersions on them if I do it automatically.

Most of the time if I am in a one man-one woman situation, I let the man race ahead if he wants to, and I hold the door open if he lets the normal flow happen and I happen to be in front. I hate the armpit over my head form of door opening.

So I am old enough not to get excited about it. If a guy closes a door in my face because he is proving his feminism (some weirdos do) I shrug and hope he will get over himself, since no one closes the door in someone else's face except out of rudeness. I have seen men who rushed to open the door for WASPy me turn their back on a woman of color with kids and packages. So I would then walk over and open the door for her and sneer at those sexist racist jackasses.

Yes, people are sooooo weird.

I'd say I hold doors for both men and women, though I could be wrong if I insisted I did so for each with the same frequency.

My feelings on this are that it's not sexist to do something because you think it's nice. Holding doors for women has its roots in patriarchical thought, I'd say (inasmuch as it's rooted in the implication that women are weaker or something like that.) But, that's not the understanding that I or most dudes operate on when doing so. It's just a polite thing to do - like any number of traditions based in anachronistic societal standards.

Dana and Ann aren't really making a big deal of it, though, so it's silly for people to hold this up as an example of feminists always finding something to rage against. I tend to notice that a lot in response to "what feminists think about X" articles, and it's always struck me as a misreading. It's not a crusade against this, it's just another example of how deeply ingrained sexism is in our society and its mores. I'll keep holding doors for women and men, but just because it's polite

This segment feels like a bad joke from that stupid new Mike Judge series?

I don't have sound, but I'm going to guess this is as bad as it sounds; I'll watch it later for a larf.

On the wider social implications front, shouldn't men be the recipients of some affirmative door opening action? Or, at least all those decades of opening doors should count reparations for the Patriarchy's Hegemonical Control.

Just a quick comment-

I'd really love it if you guys could post a transcript or a summary? In addition to not being able to hear the audio portion, not every person has a computer that is acessible with sound. Also, it would be easier for those at work to read it in privacy without using audio.

Thank you! :)

*sigh* They're talking about when a man opens a door for a woman and let's the woman through in front of him. It's not when a man who is walking in front of a woman opens a door, looks behind him, and holds the door open after he's walked through himself. The former situation implies that women shouldn't strain their weak little arms from opening up doors. The latter is a polite gesture, because nobody likes getting a door slammed in their face.

It's very simple: Work? Yes, sexist. Date? No, not sexist.
There's a difference between social and business etiquette, and I wish these young women would have addressed it.
http://www.etiquetteinternational.com/Articles/MannersMomNeverTaughtYou.aspx

But is it sexist when my S.O. walks through a door first, and instead of holding it for me, or even looking to see if I need it held, keeps walking and lets the door hit me as I search for my keys?

Or is it narcissist?

But is it sexist when my S.O. walks through a door first, and instead of holding it for me, or even looking to see if I need it held, keeps walking and lets the door hit me as I search for my keys?

Or is it narcissist?

Sorry for the double post. Typing is apparently too hard for my tiny woman-brain.

I agree with Kate's work vs date point - being treated nicely *beyond* the call of etiquette can be flattering). But as a general rule it should be egalitarian - whoever gets to the door first or is carrying less should open the door, and if it opens towards you, sure, let the other person through first. But it's sexist if accompanied by a pointed "Ladies first" and from the kind of person who stops a conversation to stand up when a woman comes into the room. Thankfully those folks are dying out...

I hold the door for anyone if i walk through first. If I am with a group and I get there first, I'll sometimes hold the door for everyone. I've never done it with a thought to gender, just "hey i've already got the door open, so it makes sense for me to hold it." i don't care if anyone holds the door for me as long as it makes sense. if i'm already holding the door and a man tries to hold it for me (which happens sometimes), that's just stupid. I'll laugh at him and say "none of this holding the door shit! I got here first!" And playfully shove them through. They laugh and learn. If, however, the man gets there first and holds it open, I say thank you and walk through.

Common sense, people.

There is nothing sexist about chivalry, it is about respect and honor and regardless of what anyone says, there is a proper way to treat a lady, something that we have obviously forgoten in this modern age.

And as far the line about behaving as if there are gender differences??? Hmm...there ARE gender differences. Men and women are NOT the same. Why this such a difficult concept. We embrace and celebrate those differences and understand that different does not mean any better or worse but is it not more sexist to deny that difference and try to unisex everything instead of embracing the uniqueness of our gender?

Is it sexist to
say, while opening the door
"Good morning, sweet cheeks"?

Is it sexist to
say, while opening the door
"Good morning, sweet cheeks"?

Posted by: hku | June 4, 2009 10:52 AM

Yes...that is extremely sexist and very rude. You should never use a familiar term such as that or "honey" or "baby" or whatever with someone you do not know and have not been given permission to do so.

Adiaphora, a.k.a "things indifferent." Heard of it?

It is a thing indifferent whether men follow the custom of holding open doors for women, or whether women wear headscarves, or whether women are called "Mrs.," "Miss" or "Ms." Feminists who fuss about this trivia discredit feminism and play into the hands of anti-feminists who claim that women are whiners who don't have any real problems.

Women certainly have real problems, in particular the male-female wage gap and sex-segregation in the labor market. Working class women in particular are still squeezed into a narrow range of traditional pink-collar jobs because de facto they cannot get the blue collar jobs open to their male counterparts.

Those are real problems. It's an empirical question whether fighting over symbolic issues helps achieve equality when it comes to the real issues or wastes time and energy that could be put to better use working for, e.g. an end to sex-segregation in the labor market. Evidence however suggests that it's the latter.

I'd bet that virtually every secretary in the country is called "Ms." and that most are now styled "administrative assistants" because "secretary" has become a dirty sexist word. And of course Walmart drudges are now "associates." Cold comfort that because women are still stuck in boring, dead-end pink-collar jobs, and nomenclature hardly sweetens that bitter pill.

I also suspect that many feminists have chosen these pointless battles because they're easy and winable. Not much hangs on who opens the door for whom--it's a winable battle. It is not so easy to persuade employers to give women serious consideration for traditional guy jobs. As a feminist, I'm furious.

what if it's my wife
and she winks when I say it
and pat her behind?

Are we really discussing whether or not an act of basic politeness indicates sexism when there are life-changing issues like female infanticide, the sex industry and slavery, marginalization of women in the legit workforce, contested birth control rights, and domestic and sexual violence going on?

Short-sighted, zelda,
to neglect small injustice
'cause greater exists

OK, let's have some empirical evidence that trading off the fight over "small injustices" (if indeed they are that) in order to work for the elimination of greater injustices isn't cost-effective.

There's plenty of empirical evidence that in fact fighting over these trivial matters hadn't been cost-effective. The symbolic battles have been for the most part won but there's still that pesky wage gap and all the other big injustices going strong.

Many guys when thinking about sexism, seem to get stuck on the little things like opening doors - and will use that as a reason why they think feminism is bullshit - oh people are required to be "mean" to me when I was just being nice! *whine*

Chivalry is a man who will leap across tables to open the door for his wife - but let her place a huge leg of lamb on the table in front of him for him to eat.

Chivalry is about men "protecting" those women deemed worthy by men of "looking after". Whores and dykes and women of undesirable classes and races won't get the doors opened for them, because they are not approved by the standards of those males.

Why does gender have anything to do with opening a door? Do it if it feels polite or appropriate, open a door for a man if you're a woman, et-cet-er-a. But women are certainly not fragile glass creatures (ick!) on pedestals that can be knocked off whenever the particular woman does something that men find displeasing.

Chivalry is dead.
There are more modern ways of
keeping you down, toots.

Door-holding, when it's mostly men holding the door for women, is a holdover from a more backward time, just like women being expected to go to more grief with their appearance: shaving, wearing heels, blowdrying hair, etc. It makes sense that it's more prevalent in more sexist parts of the country (the south and inland west).

I'd rather see a more unisex world than keep the so-called chivalry, but as long as things still aren't equal for women I guess I'll take it.