# Feminism going too far?



## wayneL (22 July 2011)

> OPINION: I am a feminist. I also like men to be chivalrous, kind to women and open doors before I walk through them. It's polite; it's manly and it's darn bloody sexy. So you can imagine my surprise when *I came across a new feminist study the other day, which claimed that chivalry should be banned and that men who practise it are guilty of so-called benevolent sexism.
> *
> Say what!? Yep, according to the study, titled Seeing the Unseen, carried out by psychologists Janet Swim (of Pennsylvania State University) and Julia Becker (of Philipps-University Marburg, Germany), *men who open doors for women are guilty of sexist behaviour and they should be stopped immediately.* Link http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/5322184/Should-chivalry-be-stopped




The study >> http://pwq.sagepub.com/content/35/2/227.full#T1

Should chivalry be banned?


----------



## Gringotts Bank (22 July 2011)

Whether I open a door for a woman or slam it shut in her face depends on whether I feel like opening the door for her or slamming it shut in her face.

I feel like I should have a more sophisticated answer, but that's all I've got.


----------



## Julia (22 July 2011)

wayneL said:


> Should chivalry be banned?



Hope not.  Recently when out walking I passed an elderly gentleman who smiled, said good afternoon, and actually tipped his hat.  I thought that was gorgeous.

The women who have done this so called study are the sort who give feminism a bad name.  I guess it's like any point of view about anything - those who become rabid discredit the rest.

As far as opening doors etc is concerned, I'm not sure why it should be a specifically male thing.  Shouldn't we all simply be considerate and hold a door open if someone is coming up to it, help someone who is struggling with something heavy etc, offer to help e.g. someone in a wheelchair who can't reach the upper shelf in a supermarket?

I'd like to see simply a wider practice of basic everyday human kindness and courtesy regardless of gender.


----------



## dutchie (22 July 2011)

Some of those doors are so heavy - it takes a man to open them.


----------



## springhill (22 July 2011)

I open doors for men and women alike.
Shows how scant common courtesy is these days, when people can't even recognise it.


----------



## wayneL (22 July 2011)

Julia said:


> As far as opening doors etc is concerned, I'm not sure why it should be a specifically male thing.  Shouldn't we all simply be considerate and hold a door open if someone is coming up to it, help someone who is struggling with something heavy etc, offer to help e.g. someone in a wheelchair who can't reach the upper shelf in a supermarket?
> 
> I'd like to see simply a wider practice of basic everyday human kindness and courtesy regardless of gender.




Yep, I've had a door held open for me by ladies countless times.

And courtesy... how we try not to p1ss each other off. It costs nothing and makes the day pleasant.

Totally agree.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (22 July 2011)

springhill said:


> Shows how scant common courtesy is these days, when people can't even recognise it.




^^ spot on.


----------



## Sean K (22 July 2011)

Maybe it's not a sexist thing but an equity thing. 

We're changing from a focus on sex, to gender, to capability, to capacity.


----------



## disarray (22 July 2011)

The Misandry Bubble

pretty long read but interesting



> Executive Summary : The Western World has quietly become a civilization that undervalues men and overvalues women, where the state forcibly transfers resources from men to women creating various perverse incentives for otherwise good women to conduct great evil against men and children, and where male nature is vilified but female nature is celebrated.  This is unfair to both genders, and is a recipe for a rapid civilizational decline and displacement, the costs of which will ultimately be borne by a subsequent generation of innocent women, rather than men, as soon as 2020.


----------



## Liar's Poker (22 July 2011)

kennas said:


> Maybe it's not a sexist thing but an equity thing.
> 
> We're changing from a focus on sex, to gender, to capability, to capacity.




They can call me a benevolent sexist all they want, I hold doors open for people because I'm concerned about reducing wear and tear on hinges.

-Liar-


----------



## Logique (23 July 2011)

disarray said:


> The Misandry Bubble pretty long read but interesting



I'll say. Very interesting work there. 'Turbulent hurricane' indeed. The US '..currently not on the right path..' and Britain '..may be beyond rescue..'  


> I have maintained that the US will still be the only superpower in 2030, and while I am not willing to rescind that prediction, I will introduce a caveat that US vitality by 2030 is contingent on a satisfactory and orderly unwinding of the Misandry Bubble.
> 
> It remains to be seen which society can create economic prosperity while still making sure both genders are treated well, and the US is currently not on the right path in this regard.
> 
> While I had no doubt that the US would eventually gain the upper hand in the seemingly unwinnable War on Terror, I am less confident about a smooth deflation of the Misandry Bubble. Deflate it will, but it could be a turbulent hurricane.  Only rural America can guide the rest of the nation into a more peaceful transition.  Britain, however, may be beyond rescue.


----------



## NewOrder (23 July 2011)

wayneL said:


> The study >> http://pwq.sagepub.com/content/35/2/227.full#T1
> 
> Should chivalry be banned?




No, good manners should always be in style, male, female, child or adult. Honestly I think some out there make too big a deal out of some issues, just get on with it people.


----------



## Wysiwyg (29 June 2013)

Is masculinity required to behave, how should I word this, 'feminine like' as women make their way into masculine workgroups more so these days? By masculine workgroups I mean the hunter/gatherer blokes. A workmate of mine was asked by the company to not swear now as a woman was offended when hearing swear words.


----------



## Calliope (29 June 2013)

Wysiwyg said:


> Is masculinity required to behave, how should I word this, 'feminine like' as women make their way into masculine workgroups more so these days? By masculine workgroups I mean the hunter/gatherer blokes. A workmate of mine was asked by the company to not swear now as a woman was offended when hearing swear words.




I may be old fashioned but I feel uncomfortable when I hear the stream of "f**ks" and its variations coming from the lips of women in the movies. It seems worse when it comes from women who otherwise appear nice. They are now also using that obnoxious term "motherf**ker".


----------



## pavilion103 (29 June 2013)

If a man pulls out a chair for a woman he is a chauvinist.
If a woman pulls out a chair for a man he is a chauvinist.

Women wanting to become more like men and wanting men to become more like women. 

It's a world with tremendous opportunities for women and I'm not sure why these feminists are so insecure about it. 
Women like Opera and other successful women have taken those opportunities available to them while others sit around and sulk. 

I have many female friends who despise these types of feminists because it embarrasses them and makes women look insecure.


----------



## starcorp (29 June 2013)

Women can open their own doors! Don't they want equal oppurtunity? They have it easy in life already.


----------



## Lantern (29 June 2013)

This leaves me speechless.

Ohio State Senator Nina Turner introduced SB 307, which requires men to visit a sex therapist, undergo a cardiac stress test, and get their sexual partner to sign a notarized affidavit confirming impotency in order to get a prescription for Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs.

One thing is certain about the bevy of legislation targeting women being introduced by conservative men. Women are mad and they aren’t taking it anymore. One female lawmaker in Ohio has introduced bill that would regulate men’s reproductive health.

According to the Dayton Daily News, State Senator Nina Turner introduced SB 307, which requires men to visit a sex therapist, undergo a cardiac stress test, and get their sexual partner to sign a notarized affidavit confirming impotency in order to get a prescription for Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs. The bill also requires men who take the drugs to be continually “tested for heart problems, receive counseling about possible side effects and receive information about “pursuing celibacy as a viable lifestyle choice.”"

The bill is a response to the Republican effort to pass House Bill 125, which would ban abortion if the fetus has a heartbeat, which is about six weeks after conception. Turner, an opponent of the bill, says if Republicans are allowed to legislate women’s health, men’s health should also be regulated. “I certainly want to stand up for men’s health and take this seriously and legislate it the same way mostly men say they want to legislate a woman’s womb,” Turner said.



 Turner isn’t the first female politician to fight back against the Republican effort to regulate what women can decide about their own health. In Georgia, eight female legislators walked out of the Georgia Senate in protest of two bills restricting access to abortion and contraception. In Oklahoma, female lawmaker Constance Johnson tacked an amendment to a personhood bill stating that, “…any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman’s vagina shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child.” Female politicians have also introduced measures to ban vasectomies  and mandating rectal exams  for men seeking Viagra. Clearly, women are mad as hell and they are fighting back. All I can say is good for them and keep up the fight. These conservative men should reassess their war on women before it really comes back to strike them where it hurts. In their pants.

Read more: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/0...the-reproductive-health-of-men/#ixzz2XYgwasLc


----------



## MrBurns (29 June 2013)

Everything sorts itself out when the lights go out












(not really but I thought it sounded good)


----------



## Aussiejeff (29 June 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Everything sorts itself out when the lights go out




You use candles???


----------



## Julia (29 June 2013)

It's a complex question.  In so many ways, women have the opportunities now that eg my mother's generation completely lacked, as they were forced to leave jobs if they married, certainly leave if they were pregnant, and were compelled to stay in abusive relationships because there was no social security.

When I reflect on those conditions, I get impatient and irritated with the militant creatures who declare themselves insulted if someone holds open a door for them.

Also, the rapidity with which they yell "sexual assault" in circumstances women of the past would have laughed off.

It seems to me in line with a general preciousness which pervades our wider society where we are so insistent on all our rights but seem to have little comprehension of what contribution we can make or even our basic responsiblities toward others.

Then you have the hideously chauvinistic Republican attitude in the USA where a bunch of men seek to control women's bodies, and all the original outrage seems justified.

To be honest, I'm quite confused about the average woman's take on all this is.  There are so many contradictions and so much of the fury seems confected to me.

This site is mostly blokes:  could more of you say how you experience the attitude of women these days, both about themselves and toward you?


----------



## DocK (29 June 2013)

As a mother of sons, I'm often uncertain myself of which way to guide them.  I taught them to open doors for girls and women, older adults etc without really thinking about it - mainly as this is the sort of behaviour I appreciate whenever it is extended to me.  I guess they also model their father's behaviour when it comes to learning to be a man - and he is of the generation that opens doors, walks on the road side of the footpath, gives up a seat on crowded trains etc.  Having said all that, I've also told them I feel for them as it is almost impossible for a young man to know what is the "right" thing to do these days - most females are happy to have a door opened for them, or a seat given up and offered to them, and see it as chivalrous or gentlemanly behaviour - but there are increasingly more who will take offence.

Personally, I can't help but feel a little conflicted and hypocritical about it all myself.  I appreciate having a door opened for me, but would be deeply offended if it should ever be inferred that this made me unable to take care of myself.  I can certainly swear like a trooper when I'm on my own in my car, but I don't like to have to put up with that sort of language in the workplace, or in shops etc.  I suppose we're all products of our upbringing, and tend to raise our kids in the same way.  So far as my sons are concerned, I've suggested to them that it is better to be thought a gentleman by most and a chauvinist by a few than the other way around, but to never, ever, make the mistake of thinking that just because the average female is physically less strong than the average male that this inequality extends to matters of intellect or general capability.


----------



## Miss Hale (29 June 2013)

So it's OK for a man to open the door for a man, or a woman to open a door for a man, or a woman to open a door for a woman but not for a man to open a door for a woman?  Just ridiculous 

DocK my father to his dying day would walk on the outside of the footpath too, so I wouldn't get mud on my long dress from the horses thundering past


----------



## Lone Wolf (29 June 2013)

First person to get to the door holds it open for anyone behind. Isn't that just good manners? Or are we talking about running to get to a door before a woman just so you can hold it open? If she wants the door opened for her she can wait until I get there. If you can't open a car door by yourself then you'd better have stronger legs than you do arms because you've got a long walk ahead of you. 

Also, I'm not so convinced that the abortion debate is a women's rights issue. The main questions being asked in the abortion debate - At what point does a person first begin to exist and have rights of their own? Do some lives have less value than others? Under what circumstances should a higher valued life have the power to terminate the lesser valued life?

I don't really see these questions as being related to a woman's rights. It's about the rights of the unborn child that the woman is carrying. Sure it may end up taking away some rights women currently hold. Every time you grant more rights to one group, you take rights away from another group. That's just the way it goes. Men have less rights now than they did back when women were second class citizens. But that's just what happens as society learns to respect the rights of people who previously had none.

I'm not pro life by the way. The planet has enough people already, I don't think we can afford to see every accidental pregnancy result in another life.


----------



## Julia (29 June 2013)

Lone Wolf said:


> Also, I'm not so convinced that the abortion debate is a women's rights issue. The main questions being asked in the abortion debate - At what point does a person first begin to exist and have rights of their own? Do some lives have less value than others? Under what circumstances should a higher valued life have the power to terminate the lesser valued life?
> 
> I don't really see these questions as being related to a woman's rights. It's about the rights of the unborn child that the woman is carrying. Sure it may end up taking away some rights women currently hold. Every time you grant more rights to one group, you take rights away from another group. That's just the way it goes. Men have less rights now than they did back when women were second class citizens. But that's just what happens as society learns to respect the rights of people who previously had none.
> 
> I'm not pro life by the way. The planet has enough people already, I don't think we can afford to see every accidental pregnancy result in another life.



So, Lone Wolf, you seem to be rather contradicting yourself here.  Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding your comments.
I'd hope not to see this thread to turn into a 100% focus on the rights or otherwise of abortion.

Comments from more blokes about their present attitude toward women, what you understand by the term feminism, and what you see as the expectations of the women you know would be really appreciated.

PS  Dock, I'd be surprised if those sons of yours don't turn out to be pretty terrific young men.


----------



## Lone Wolf (29 June 2013)

Julia said:


> So, Lone Wolf, you seem to be rather contradicting yourself here.  Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding your comments.
> I'd hope not to see this thread to turn into a 100% focus on the rights or otherwise of abortion.




There's no contradiction there Julia. I said what questions I thought the abortion debate is really asking. I never said what I believe the answers are.

I have no intention of running the thread off topic either. Previous posters brought up the point that it's a woman's issue, I suggest perhaps it's not actually a woman's issue, it just happens to affect them the most.


----------



## bellenuit (29 June 2013)

Julia said:


> Comments from more blokes about their present attitude toward women, what you understand by the term feminism, and what you see as the expectations of the women you know would be really appreciated.




From my own experience with the women I encounter on a daily basis I have never been rebuked for showing courtesy. But then it is the same courtesy I extend to all people. As with Lone Wolf above, I will hold the door open if I arrive at it first and let all others through before I enter or exit, but will not run to the door to get ahead of any ladies just so that I can hold the door open. If I am entering or exiting through a swinging door as part of a large unrelated group (e.g. leaving a cinema), I will only hold the door so as to pass it to the next person behind so that it doesn't slap into them. If seated at a restaurant table and some late comers arrive, in general I will not stand up if I am familiar with the new arrivals, but would probably stand if it includes an elderly lady who I don't know and then only if she is close to me (I wouldn't stand if at the far end of a long table). I wouldn't hold a car door open for someone except if it were an elderly lady or man or someone obviously incapacitated.

I certainly do not show all the courtesies to ladies that were common in the past (who tips their hats nowadays?), but only those that would be classified as just good manners. I have never been rebuked by any lady, feminist or not, for those types of courtesies.   

I think about the only issue I have with feminists and then only with some is when having political discussions. Just like we have seen recently on the national stage, there are quite a few who treat all criticism of female politicians as gender discrimination, even when I list all the issues I believed the politician has failed in, none of which are gender related.


----------



## Tink (30 June 2013)

After the performance we saw on national stage just recently, the pendulum has swung too far.

As a mother to a son and a daughter, the courtesy and good manners works both ways.
It probably does have alot to do with your upbringing as well.


----------



## basilio (11 April 2017)

Not sure if this is the right thread but lets go.
Fascinating/horrifying story in The Guardian on sexual paranoia  gone mad in universities. Truly Kafkaesque

* Sexual paranoia on campus – and the professor at the eye of the storm *
When students objected to Laura Kipnis’s essay criticising the politics surrounding relationships between undergraduates and faculty, she was pitched into a Kafka-esque netherworld that threatened her career




Laura Kipnis photographed in New York last week. Photograph: Christopher Lane for the Observer

  
*Comments* 233 
Rachel Cooke

_  

 Sunday 2 April 2017 19.00 AEST   Last modified on Tuesday 4 April 2017 19.14 AEST 


In March 2015, news reached Laura Kipnis, a high-profile professor who teaches film-making at Northwestern University, Illinois, that a group of students had staged a protest against her in response to an essay she had written in a journal called the Chronicle of Higher Education. She was, to say the least, nonplussed. For one thing, the students had carried with them mattresses and pillows, items that since 2014 have been a symbol of student-on-student assault. (This is due to Emma Sulkowicz, a Columbia University student who spent a year dragging a mattress around as a piece of performance art to protest over the university’s ruling in a sexual assault complaint she filed against another student.) Why, Kipnis wondered, had they done this? Her essay was about new codes in American universities prohibiting professor-student relationships, not sexual assault. For another, part of her argument with these new rules was that in addition to infantilising students, they would only heighten the accusatory atmosphere on campus. When the students spoke of their “visceral reaction” to her article and demanded that the authorities protect them from her “terrifying” ideas, they appeared to her only to be proving her point on both counts.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...s-university-professor-laura-kipnis-interview_


----------



## moXJO (12 April 2017)

PC eating its own tail. 
We bred too many special snowflakes.


----------



## Tisme (12 April 2017)

basilio said:


> Not sure if this is the right thread but lets go.
> Fascinating/horrifying story in The Guardian on sexual paranoia  gone mad in universities. Truly Kafkaesque
> 
> 
> ...




http://laurakipnis.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Sexual-Paranoia-Strikes-Academe.pdf



> February 27, 2015 Sexual Paranoia Strikes Academe
> By Laura Kipnis
> 
> You have to feel a little sorry these days for professors married to their former students. They used to be respectable citizens —leaders in their fields, department chairs, maybe even a dean or two—and now they’re abusers of power avant la lettre. I suspect you can barely throw a stone on most campuses around the country without hitting a few of these neo-miscreants. Who knows what coercions they deployed back in the day to corral those students into submission; at least that’s the fear evinced by today’s new campus dating policies. And think how their kids must feel! A friend of mine is the offspring of such a coupling—does she look at her father a little differently now, I wonder........


----------



## basilio (12 April 2017)

Nice one Tisme.  

That essay by Laura Kipnis was right on the money. The fact that sex and relationships are messy. People get upset, embarrassed, regretful but in the end it is a part of life.
The madness of banning any sort of relationships between Professors and past or present university students. The examples of suits bought against Professors for bewildering dribble.


----------



## Logique (13 April 2017)

There are different streams of feminism these days. The art is to know which one you are dealing with.

There's Plibersek/Gillard/Bishop feminism; and 
living on a dollar a day feminism; and 
having your bits carved up feminism. 

The latter two are most commonly seen in the third world. But least acknowledged in the first world.

Gay feminists? They are to be flung off tall buildings apparently, under the dictates of a certain religion. But we don't talk about that either.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 April 2017)

Logique said:


> There are different streams of feminism these days. The art is to know which one you are dealing with.
> 
> There's Plibersek/Gillard/Bishop feminism; and
> living on a dollar a day feminism; and
> ...




There is another type of feminism which is not complaining, getting on with the job and being successful.

And there are a lot of women who do just that.


----------



## Logique (13 April 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> There is another type of feminism which is not complaining, getting on with the job and being successful.
> And there are a lot of women who do just that.



And plenty of them who are successful, more power to them.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 June 2017)

A new slant on feminism and misandry.

http://www.abc.net.au/radio/brisbane/programs/mornings/cassie-jaye/8600824


----------



## Tisme (11 June 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> A new slant on feminism and misandry.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/radio/brisbane/programs/mornings/cassie-jaye/8600824





She got the short shrift by Channel 7 Weekend Sunrise (Andrew and Monique) today. 

https://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/video/watch/35888333/mens-rights-film-banned-in-australia/#page1


----------



## SirRumpole (11 June 2017)

Tisme said:


> She got the short shrift by Channel 7 Weekend Sunrise (Andrew and Monique) today.
> 
> https://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/video/watch/35888333/mens-rights-film-banned-in-australia/#page1




A fair sign that the feminazis are winning.


----------



## Tisme (11 June 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> A fair sign that the feminazis are winning.




I think they are winning by default..... men have given up trying understand the rules of engagement and paternalistic ethics like Islam are consolidating their firm grip on the back of what they observe as an amoral counter culture


----------



## basilio (13 September 2018)

Is Claudia Perkins "Hot" ?


----------



## SirRumpole (13 September 2018)

basilio said:


> Is Claudia Perkins "Hot" ?




Steaming or coking ?


----------



## wayneL (13 September 2018)

Not my type,  but I certainly enjoyed the left eating itself over that comment


----------

