|
|
ADR (![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} tekanji) wrote in ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/community.gif){kind=small} otf_wank,@ 2005-03-12 15:37:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Of respect, sexism, patriarchy, and not getting the point
Over in![[info]](http://stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif)
feminist, ![[info]](http://stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
drinkissdaisy makes what (for a feminist community) should be a fairly innocuous post.
What becomes the centre point of the wank is this:
i was at the bus stop and when the bus came i told the boy that wanted to go in too that he could go first with the hand-gesture that you do when you tell people to go first. and he looked at me weird and insisted i go in first... and i did, but i don't know, it made me feel strange that he wouldn't go in first.
Everything is normal, untilratherberucking decides to give her opinion:
It's not an insult, it's a sign of respect.
She anddrinkissdaisy wank all over the post.
ETA: I know a wank thread is the last place you would expect to find voices of reason, but I'm a sucker for linked definitions that clear things up, so I had to sharedegasita's post:
So, I was frustrated enough to look up an article on the topic.
"the media caricature of feminism would have us believe that a dislike of chivalry translates as an objection on principle to any act of kindness from a man (even if there is reasonable evidence that the good will is genuine and can be returned in a similar rather than complimentary fashion). It would also have us believe that feminists are unable to recognise the difference between policing people's private lives and challenging accepted public conventions... It seems to have been forgotten that it is the assumptions behind many chivalrous acts that make them objectionable to feminists. Below the surface, male chivalry has never truly been in the name of fairness or real respect....Like with many other issues around the politics of power, women have been led to believe that there are only two options: smile sweetly and feel like a lady when he opens the door (thus accepting the price attached) or have it slammed in your face. The message is clear- you're never going to make him respect you as an equal so you'd better accept the consolation prize of chivalry. It's his best offer after all. ...It is not the genuinely non-sexist men who are contributing to women's unhappiness but resentful sexist men who can only be convinced to conduct themselves in a reasonable and well-mannered fashion if there is a patriarchal reward at the end of it... The problem with chivalry is that it just gets in the way of good manners."
read the whole article here:
http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/200
Over in
feminist, drinkissdaisy makes what (for a feminist community) should be a fairly innocuous post.What becomes the centre point of the wank is this:
i was at the bus stop and when the bus came i told the boy that wanted to go in too that he could go first with the hand-gesture that you do when you tell people to go first. and he looked at me weird and insisted i go in first... and i did, but i don't know, it made me feel strange that he wouldn't go in first.
Everything is normal, until
ratherberucking decides to give her opinion:It's not an insult, it's a sign of respect.
She and
drinkissdaisy wank all over the post.ETA: I know a wank thread is the last place you would expect to find voices of reason, but I'm a sucker for linked definitions that clear things up, so I had to share
degasita's post:So, I was frustrated enough to look up an article on the topic.
"the media caricature of feminism would have us believe that a dislike of chivalry translates as an objection on principle to any act of kindness from a man (even if there is reasonable evidence that the good will is genuine and can be returned in a similar rather than complimentary fashion). It would also have us believe that feminists are unable to recognise the difference between policing people's private lives and challenging accepted public conventions... It seems to have been forgotten that it is the assumptions behind many chivalrous acts that make them objectionable to feminists. Below the surface, male chivalry has never truly been in the name of fairness or real respect....Like with many other issues around the politics of power, women have been led to believe that there are only two options: smile sweetly and feel like a lady when he opens the door (thus accepting the price attached) or have it slammed in your face. The message is clear- you're never going to make him respect you as an equal so you'd better accept the consolation prize of chivalry. It's his best offer after all. ...It is not the genuinely non-sexist men who are contributing to women's unhappiness but resentful sexist men who can only be convinced to conduct themselves in a reasonable and well-mannered fashion if there is a patriarchal reward at the end of it... The problem with chivalry is that it just gets in the way of good manners."
read the whole article here:
http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/200
Post a comment in response:
