pretentious, chest-pounding, protecting the damsel-in-distress, woman-protecting, hero of Canton speeches

POSTED BY: leadb
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 22:34
VIEWED: 21233
PAGE 1 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

LEADB

Sunday, May 20, 2007 4:59 PM

Having been bodily ejected from our previous thread:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=28755&m=497406#497406
(big smiley face for River :-) )

I'll start quoting of Causal....

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Of course, this raises the interesting question of whether equal in value, dignity and ability means that the sexes should be acted towards and responded to in the same sorts of ways...

Mostly yes.
At work, I must. To do otherwise I risk being fired. I hold doors for women. I hold doors for men. I let women hold doors for me, if they wish; as I allow men to hold doors for me as well. I hope you get the point.

Outside of work, I do my best to be polite to all; but I confess a mild bias to showing a bit more consideration, respect for women; and a bit more expectation to let men hold thier own. However, if a woman's been accosted by a man, and is beating the crap out of him, I'll likely not step in. (other than to hang around to bear witness to the police as needed). On the flip side, if some poor fellow is simply being accosted, I might step in and lend a hand, call police as needed; though I'm seriously hoping not to get called down on that in a genuinely life threatening way.

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

CONSTANCE

Sunday, May 20, 2007 5:03 PM

LOL... Congrats on your own new shiny thread you knights in semi-shining armour..

Constance

DARKJESTER

Sunday, May 20, 2007 5:53 PM

I prefer "Knight in Slightly Dingy Armor" myself

MAL "You only gotta scare him."
JAYNE "Pain is scary..."

http://www.fireflytalk.com - Big Damn Podcast

CAUSAL

Sunday, May 20, 2007 7:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Having been bodily ejected from our previous thread:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=28755&m=497406#497406
(big smiley face for River :-) )

I'll start quoting of Causal....
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Of course, this raises the interesting question of whether equal in value, dignity and ability means that the sexes should be acted towards and responded to in the same sorts of ways...

Mostly yes.
At work, I must. To do otherwise I risk being fired. I hold doors for women. I hold doors for men. I let women hold doors for me, if they wish; as I allow men to hold doors for me as well. I hope you get the point.

Outside of work, I do my best to be polite to all; but I confess a mild bias to showing a bit more consideration, respect for women; and a bit more expectation to let men hold thier own. However, if a woman's been accosted by a man, and is beating the crap out of him, I'll likely not step in. (other than to hang around to bear witness to the police as needed). On the flip side, if some poor fellow is simply being accosted, I might step in and lend a hand, call police as needed; though I'm seriously hoping not to get called down on that in a genuinely life threatening way.

It seems to be the case that if one is to be politically correct, one must maintain that men and women are absolutely identical in all but physiology. But is that true? The dangerous question seems to be, are there things that are true of men or true of women in virtue of their being men or women? If the answer to that is no, I submit that to treat them any different would be some form of reverse discrimination whereby one gender received preferential treatment over another. but if the answer to that question is yes, then maybe it is the case there should be some differnt treatment between men and women. So maybe we should ask first whether it truly is the case that the only real difference between the sexes is physiological. My answer (having lived with a woman for three years) is a resounding, "no!" I think there are differences between men and women that go beyond sexual apparatus.

*ducks for cover*

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

LEADB

Sunday, May 20, 2007 7:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

It seems to be the case that if one is to be politically correct, one must maintain that men and women are absolutely identical in all but physiology. But is that true? The dangerous question seems to be, are there things that are true of men or true of women in virtue of their being men or women? If the answer to that is no, I submit that to treat them any different would be some form of reverse discrimination whereby one gender received preferential treatment over another. but if the answer to that question is yes, then maybe it is the case there should be some differnt treatment between men and women. So maybe we should ask first whether it truly is the case that the only real difference between the sexes is physiological. My answer (having lived with a woman for three years) is a resounding, "no!" I think there are differences between men and women that go beyond sexual apparatus.

*ducks for cover*

It's not a trivial exercise, by any means, to do the "right" thing. One thing at work we -were- encouraged to do was take one of those "personality tests,"
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm
And it was made very clear we -should- value the different personality types, and handle people -appropriate- to their personality. As a consequence, I am permitted to handle an INFP (Introvert, iNtuition, Feeling, Perceiving) person differently than an ESTJ (Extrovert, Sensing, Thinking, Judging) person. If it so happens that women tend toward a different personality type, -that's- fine and cool; and I can handle these different personality types differently (and not get in trouble) (following dicusses Myers-Briggs sex based differences):
http://www.maec.org/beyond.html
Frankly, if I come across a INFP, should I handle one differently because that particular one is a woman vs a man? Dunno. I can only say I try to do my best to handle people as individuals; and especially in my private life (as opposed to business where I must follow the strictures of my employer) and not let race and sex enter into it (unless I'm looking for a date (which I haven't for a while now, being married) in which case I do treat men and women differently).

I will say that many things which people attribute to race and sex often are easily explained by upbringing, which in turn are clearly affected by location, financial status, and the foibles of family. Sex does seem to bias behavior somewhat (as mentioned above), but it is a bias rather than an absolut, and I find handling folks as individuals "covers" much of that.

CAUSAL

Sunday, May 20, 2007 8:00 PM

Does gender factor into the way you approach people as individuals? Clearly, that's part of who they are as an individual.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

LEADB

Sunday, May 20, 2007 11:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Does gender factor into the way you approach people as individuals? Clearly, that's part of who they are as an individual.

It's certainly a fair question. At work, I will say "No, to the extent humanly possible", in private life, I'll say "No, for the most part." Back to my original post, I concede I'm more likely to leave a man to his own devices unless asked for aid; and am more likely to offer assistance to a woman who is not obviously distressed (to be clear, if a woman is clearly distressed, I will almost always offer aid). But again, circumstances greatly color the response.

For what it's worth, it's not a matter I obsess over either. On the bright side, I don't get too many folks complaining to my face; and of course, what they say behind my back, I can't know ;-) So hopefully I haven't wandered too far down the path socio-deviation.

RIVER6213

Monday, May 21, 2007 4:04 AM

If a guy opens a door for me, unless I know him I don't pass through it. I just stare at him as the patronizing jack-ass that he is until he shrugs and goes through the door himself. I ignore guys who offer me special favors with the automatic assumption that I need it; I see guys like this as complete idiots. I hate the sort of guy that was raised to patronize women with the assumption that she is weak and needs him.

We woman are built smaller and yes this is a reality. We get Pregnant. We have lunar cycle periods. Yes we have a more advanced emotion system than men. Yes we are more communicative, and yes we are more than likely to work in groups than men. I also think we make better lawyers and judges then men.

Men and women have their own strengths that is there's and there's alone. There are things that men can do that I could never do, nor want too. Men are better warriors because men were built that way. Men are all about brute strength, and are totally built for combat and domination, and also force projection. But a man's wife or girlfriend, or just the nice girl next door will knife this mighty warrior in his sleep.

You need us more than we need you. We woman rock and don't you knuckle dragger's forget that.

-River

BROWNCOAT1

Monday, May 21, 2007 10:47 AM

It is a shame that some people see chivalry as men being "idiots". My mother raised me be polite and kind to women, to treat them as the fairer sex. Note I did NOT say "weaker" sex. I respect and admire women and as a Southern male I was raised to be a gentleman in all respects when dealing with a woman.

Yes, I hold doors for a woman, I will help her carry packages, help her pick things up if she drops them, etc. It is not because I think a woman is "weak", needs my help, or is somehow incapable of doing things for herself, rather it is because I was raised to respect and revere women.

It is a shame that some women would feel I am "patronizing" them as that is not the intention. I weep for a world where a man is chivalrous and is found to be "idiotic".

__________________________________________
Holding the line since December '02!

[img] [/img]

Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:

http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org

Color Sergeant

[img] [/img]

http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html

AGENTROUKA

Monday, May 21, 2007 12:01 PM

Wow, River, you sound slightly... bitter..

While some behavior and attitudes - and people - might be rooted in misogyny, in this day and age there is nearly never a way to tell which person holds what views at first glance.

It's probably better to give people the benefit of the doubt. Opening the door for someone is a gesture of helpfulness. How do you know this person doesn't do the same for men?

Unless you are generally opposed to politeness, there is no justification for looking down on someone else's polite gesture. That there's a patronizing intention is your own assumption.

The point where you get assertive, that should be when you are actually treated unfairly.

Men, in general, are not the enemy. Some people are and you'll know them when you see them.

In general, I have had very few experiences that in any way made me feel like my gender was an impediment to what I wanted.

Granted, this may have more to do with my general lack of professional ambition, but sexism has never really factored into my life.

That makes it hard for me to work up personal bitterness about society.

That said, I tend to get very irritated when I do encounter blatantly sexist attitudes, the kind that suggest treating people not like individuals but according to preconceived notions about a group. Or, god beware, those that downright state one gender to be "better" than another.

Why is "different but equal" such a hard concept to swallow? All that can possibly owe each other is mutual respect and honesty, so why does different so often mean wrong or inferior?

Whether men and women are different and whether those differences are biological, social or both... that's largely irrelevant. Their opportunities should be the same. If they are not, that's a problem, but why should we, in general, treat people differently based solely on gender, even if there are appreciable differences?

The largest part of both men and women is that they are both human. We are more alike than we are different, even if both sides sometims like to hide behind either stereotypical strengths or weaknesses.

Every individual has the right to want and strive for certain things. Much more practical to draw lines according to measureable abilities in an individual. The less we get in the way with artificial barriers the better.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE