maiforpeace wrote:
I always assume chivalrous behavior towards me is done out of civility and politeness.
Isn't the idea of the benevolent sexism is that the civility and politeness in question is only extended to women, by and large, generally speaking? I think that's what the article is getting at. If it's politeness and civility to offer to lift boxes for a woman, but not a man, that's the benevolent sexism.
maiforpeace wrote:
Audley Strange wrote:Rum wrote:I am kind and considerate to pretty much everyone. I hold open the door for anyone - male or female and I offer my seat on the train or bus (long time since I took a bus mind you) to anyone who looks like they need it more than me - male or female. That just about covers it as far as I am concerned, even though some years ago now - maybe ten years - when I held the door open for a female stranger, she looked daggers at me.
Her problem, not mine.
Yes. Precisely
I'm holding the door open because it's civil thing to do, it doesn't matter who's at the other side. If someone wants to assume some hidden or subconcious motivation to my actions, that's their baggage. I'm beginning to think some of our psychologists are engaged in a form of literary criticism, infering elaborate intent from nothing.
Exactly.
It's extremely rare, indeed, to have a woman hold the door open, and wait for men to proceed through, and it is almost as rare to have a man open the door and wait for another man to proceed through. While the idea of doing that for women doesn't bother me - if the suggestion being made is that holding doors is a matter done out of civility to everyone equally, then that is certainly not the general practice. I think if folks here are holding doors open for men as a matter of general practice, then they would be among a very tiny minority of folks who do so.