Mom: "I Don't Want My Preschooler to be a Gentleman"

What's this? Another post on chivalry and manners? Is this becoming the "chivalry and manners" blog? (Hmmm, maybe that's an idea...)

I couldn't help myself when I saw this post in the Style section of the New York Times (h/t: I believe it was Instapundit yet again, but it's been a week so I'm not sure).

In the "Motherlode" part of the Style section ("Motherlode?" As the name of a parenting column? Ain't that just adorable?), Lynn Messina writes "I don't want my preschooler to be a gentleman."

Messina opens the blog this way:

"My 4-year-old son, Emmett, swallows a spoonful of cereal and asks me if I know what a gentleman is. Surprised, I tell him I have some idea; then I ask what the word means to him.

“A gentleman lets girls go first,” he says, explaining that every day at naptime all the girls go to the bathroom before the boys."

She is horrified that her young boy "just got his first lesson in sexism" by a teacher who, she says, no doubt means well.

I personally would say that the teacher is making it way too simplistic, though maybe that's because of the age-level she's dealing with. I don't know.

Anyway, she goes on to lament that her views seem out of step with the mainstream. "Almost everyone I mention it to thinks it’s lovely and sweet. What’s the harm in teaching little boys to respect little girls?" (Because I guess respect is a bad thing?)

But wait, there's more! While she doesn't like it as a mother, she's horribly offended as a feminist. Because didn't we get rid of treating women differently thirty years ago? Perish the thought! It's horrible that men would treat with women with respect and courtesy even beyond what they would give to any man! You're an evil scumbag if you beat a woman, but you're also an evil scumbag keeping women down when you open the door for them or offer to lift a heavy suitcase!

Pure evil, it knows no bounds.

But she sees through men's evil plans:

"Letting girls use the bathroom first isn’t a show of respect. It is, rather, the first brick in the super high pedestal that allows men to exalt women out of sight. A true show of respect is paying us equally for the same work, not 77 cents on the dollar, which is the current average. That’s the world I want my son to live in and I seriously doubt it will ever happen as long as women believe men should hold the door open for them."

Yeah, because men just want women out of sight completely, and that's the only reason they would treat a woman with extra respect.

I want to highlight something Lee Habeeb wrote on National Review Online, called "The War Against Black Men," because I think it speaks to the cultural aspect of this issue.

Habeeb talks about how the nation (he's talking about Chicago, but I think it's a societal problem) doesn't have a gun problem, it has a father problem. Or lack thereof.

What pertains to my point is this:

"When young men don’t have fathers, they don’t learn to control their masculine impulses. They don’t have fathers to teach them how to channel their masculine impulses in productive ways.

When young men don’t have fathers, those men will seek out masculine love — masculine acceptance — where they can find it. Often, they find it in gangs."

He's not talking about how men treat women in this article. He's talking more about violence in general.

But it does bring to mind something that I also think is a problem in this society where men aren't taught to respect women, where misguided feminists think that treating a woman with an extra bit of respect and courtesy is somehow demeaning them. The combination of the two can be quite toxic.

When women aren't respected in society, you get this.

Fathers are an important aspect of that training. Boys learn from their fathers how to treat women, because they live every day seeing how their father treats their mother. There are other influences as well, of course. Evidently Messina's son's teacher is an influence too.

Of course, I'm not saying that it can't be taken too far, and some men do treat women this way because they don't think they are capable of doing anything themselves. Holding the door and carrying things for your wife doesn't mean anything when you also verbally demean her and treat her as useless and as somebody who should stay in the kitchen and be quiet.

But do we have to throw out the good stuff with the bad? Why does respect have to be thrown out with the condescension?

Messina goes on to say that in her mind, a gentleman lets other people go first, regardless of gender. "If two boys reach the top of the slide at the same time, a gentleman lets the other one go first." (why do I picture that and see two boys just constantly gesturing to each other for the other to go first, until they start fighting over who gets to go last?)

Her final paragraph is the kicker, though.

"It’s churlish to argue, so I let it go, and when, a few hours later in the park, I see him grab his soccer ball from a girl his own age, I feel a ridiculous rush of relief at his ungentlemanly behavior. Then I cross the field to remind him yet again how to share."

Why she seems to think that treating women with respect takes the place of basic civility in general, I don't know. Can't a boy learn to share without also losing the basic respect for women?

It is possible to have both, you know.

Another Look at Chivalry

I know it seems that I've beaten this topic to death (namely here, here, and here), but how about one more for the road? I promise it won't get you drunk.

Well, not *too* drunk, anyway.

The reason I'm re-visiting this so close to the last time (just over a week ago) is because Emily Esfahani Smith has a terrific article in the Atlantic called "Let's Give Chivalry Another Chance."

In the article, she brings up something that I hadn't really touched on in all of my posts about chivalry and "benevolent sexism" and all that. I have talked about the wonderful effects of this behaviour and questioned why people would want to get rid of it or be offended by it.

Emily mentions the Titanic disaster in 1912, and how 75% of the men died while 75% of the women and children survived, mainly because of the "women and children first" policy that they all followed. To them, it was important that the women survived, and for a man to survive at the expense of a woman was just unheard of.

Fast forward to earlier this year:

"About a year ago, a group of today's men were tested the way that the men on board the Titanic were. When the cruise ship Costa Concordia hit a rock and capsized off the coast of Isola del Giglio, Tuscany, last January, men pushed women and children out of the way to save themselves. One Australian woman on board reported at the time:

'The people that pushed their way on to the boat were then trying to tell them to shut the door, not to let any more people on the [life] boat after they had pushed their way on...We just couldn't believe it—especially the men, they were worse than the women.'"

What can you attribute this type of behaviour to? I would think it would be obvious. When men start feeling less chivalrous toward women (and you can call it whatever you want if you don't want to go chivalry whole hog), you get men being boorish toward women instead.

But isn't that what these women want? To be treated as totally equal? Not "equal with acknowledged differences," but completely? They should be happy that the men pushed ahead of them to get on the lifeboats first, because they would have done that if it had been a man instead of a woman!

Those who say that "benevolent sexism" is mainly a way to put down women and keep them in their place don't seem to acknowledge that this isn't what being chivalrous is about.

"Chivalry is about respect. It is about not harming or hurting others, especially those who are more vulnerable than you. It is about putting other people first and serving others often in a heroic or courageous manner. It is about being polite and courteous. In other words, chivalry in the age of post-feminism is another name we give to civility. When we give up on civility, understood in this way, we can never have relationships that are as meaningful as they could be."

When that respect is gone, you get cases like the Costa Concordia. You get men who don't know how to behave because they don't know whether the woman they're with goes along with the radical feminists or whether they would actually appreciate being treated with respect. This confusion, Smith says, is killing dating.

Another area I hadn't been aware of, so I'm glad Smith brought this up, is that some women are trying to bring chivalry back.

"Some women are trying to bring back chivalry. Since 2009, for instance, a group of women at Arizona State University have devoted themselves to resuscitating gentlemanly behavior and chivalry on a campus whose social life is overwhelmingly defined by partying, frat life, and casual sex. Every spring for the past three years, these women have gathered for the "Gentlemen's Showcase" to honor men who have acted chivalrously by, for example, opening the door for a woman or digging a woman's car out of several feet of snow."

It's spreading across the country, too.

Who knows? Maybe those who value respect, those who realize that the sexes can be equal and still be different, they will be the ones who ultimately win out.

I encourage you to read the whole article. It's beautifully written and says it a lot better than I can.

Revisiting "Benevolent Sexism"

Some of you may remember my post last year about benevolent sexism (called "The Post in Which I Admit I'm a Sexist Pig") and how stupid the whole idea of it is.

For those of you who didn't catch it (and who are too lazy to go to the link, and what do I pay you for anyway if you don't go to my links? Oh, I don't pay you...never mind), "benevolent sexism" is basically gentlemanly behaviour. Doing nice things for a woman, like opening a door, helping her with a heavy bag, that sort of thing. You're doing it out of the goodness of your heart, but you're still a HEARTLESS SCUMBAG!

Ahem. Sorry. My inner-feminist-idiot reared its ugly head there for a moment. All better now.

Yes, even if you are doing nice things, you are still demeaning the woman by helping her.

Why am I revisiting this subject? Because there's an interesting new post on the topic that I'd like to highlight.

Charles Murray, of the American Enterprise Institute, has highlighted a new study that shows that "benevolent sexism" does tend to make both parties happy. Yes, both the man and the woman.

He quotes from the abstract, which I shall also do now (though his quote is more extensive):

"The results imply that although benevolent sexism perpetuates inequality at the structural level, it might offer some benefits at the personal level. Thus, our findings reinforce the dangerous nature of benevolent sexism and emphasize the need for interventions to reduce its prevalence."

So let me get this straight. It makes the man happy when he does something for the woman. It makes the woman happy when she has something done for her.

So it's dangerous? Something that is beneficial to both sides of the equation is dangerous and must be stamped out?

I don't know about you, but I think the world needs a few doses of injected happiness (no, not that kind of injected happiness) amid all the doom and gloom out there.

That shouldn't surprise us, though. If you see this kind of behaviour as threatening, then making it more agreeable is just going to make it even more threatening to your status quo.

Charles' conclusion is beautiful:

"When social scientists discover something that increases life satisfaction for both sexes, shouldn’t they at least consider the possibility that they have come across something that is positive? Healthy? Something that might even conceivably be grounded in the nature of Homo sapiens?"

Go read the post for the comments as well. Some very good ones in there.

It's "studies" like this that just boggle my mind.

Transit Chivalry - a Lost Art?

Recently on this blog, I wrote about whether "chivalry" can exist in the modern day, or whether it's an out-dated concept.

Little did I know that the question would come up again so soon, and in a context that I hadn't even thought about. Maybe because the idea of not doing this is so alien to me?

Over the weekend, I came across an article in the Washington Post by Dana Hedgpeth, entitled "Pregnant and Hunting for a Seat on the Metro." In it, Dana says that she's 9 months pregnant, actually past her due date, and has gained a lot of weight due to the pregnancy. She talks about the time last month where she was sitting in a senior citizens seat when a blind woman came onto the bus. She tried to give her seat to the woman, and each ended up doing the "no, you go ahead" tango before finally somebody else gave up their seat for the woman.

But this instance is what really got to me.

"Another time, a friend’s husband and I boarded a rather full rail car during the evening rush hour. In a rather loud voice he said — “Excuse me, my friend here is very pregnant. Can someone give up their seat, please?”

Three people in the first row of seats looked up. Two businessmen looked me dead in the eye and then looked back down to their newspapers. A 30-something professional woman appeared to glance at me and then look back out the window."

Has society gone insane?

It seems that basic courtesy has gone out the window these days. I can't even imagine not giving up my seat to a pregnant woman, especially if she was so obviously that far along.

I have to wonder whether it's a gender thing of some kind. Would these same people have acted the same way if a doddering 76-year-old man or woman had struggled onto the bus? Do they think the pregnant woman can fend for herself because she's not struggling to walk around? (and I'm sure some women do struggle to walk around, depending on the pregnancy, so that point may even be moot).

She talked with a fellow pregnant woman on another metro ride, and they agreed that it seemed the most likely to give up their seat were young African-American men and middle-aged women (who may be doing it from remembering their own problems). The least likely seemed to be women in their 20s and middle-aged white men. Of course that's all anecdotal, but it does speak from these women's experiences.

There are two other great articles linked to from Dana's post, so I encourage you to go read that and click through to those as well.

Has it come down to the point where a pregnant woman has to *ask* for a seat on a bus or subway? And even if they do, Dana's experience when her friend's husband loudly demanded it sort of implies that it may not happen even with that. I wonder how much those people felt ashamed afterwards.

Or are they just that oblivious?

It seems that people will go out of their way to make room for mothers with kids in tow, but if you're towing a kid inside you, all bets are off. Lynn Harris asks "where were you people when I was pregnant?"

It's really sad.

The Modern Age of Chivalry

When I was doing last Sunday's post on hugs, I went looking for a picture that fit what I was trying to say perfectly. I found one from an article about hugs on a site called "Hall of the Black Dragon," an online men's magazine that bills itself as the "Online Magazine for the Modern Gentleman."

I was a bit intrigued and decided to browse some of the articles after I was done with that post. It's your typical men's magazine, talking about dating life, relationships, things like that. Even if I were single, I don't know if I would try to live my life like many of the articles suggest.

But one article that I stumbled upon caught my eye a bit. Entitled "A Guide to Being Chivalrous in This Modern Age," it spoke to me because I do picture myself trying to be at least somewhat chivalrous even in these modern times. Within reason, of course. Obviously, things have changed a lot since the original age of chivalry, and you have to make allowances for that. But I don't think there's anything wrong with a bit of chivalry.

The article makes the point that there are basically four kinds of responses to this kind of behaviour, again adopting a style that I wouldn't necessarily choose, but it does get the point across. I'm going to tell you a bit about the article itself before getting into my feelings, so the list below is straight from the article (though not quoted).

These responses are:

1) Demanding it: This type of woman expects to be treated like they're precious, and expects it so much that they don't even bother acknowledging it. You won't get a thank you if you hold a door open for her.

2) Suspicious of it: This woman will look at you funny when you do something for her, wondering what your motive is. There's no way you're doing it just out of the goodness of your heart.

3) Offended by it: How dare you even think that she needs you to open a door for her!

4) Loves it: The only one of the four that makes being chivalrous feel worthwhile. This one doesn't expect it but is very happy to accept it when they do get it. They also don't mind if you do it. She is just generally appreciative that you would even think to do this for her.

Ok, so that's what the article says. It also says that basically it's up to guys to choose how they want to act and not to worry about the reaction they're going to get if they do decide to be chivalrous. If you're going to do it, enjoy the ones who accept it and don't worry about the ones who act weird about it.

We've talked about this sort of thing before, in my "Sexist Pig" post, but I think it bears revisiting here. I like to be considerate and good manners are always a must. Some of those things, the suspicious or offended ladies above would probably not like. The thing is, I wouldn't feel like I'm being myself if I didn't act that way. It's just the way I am. I would never take it to the extent where the woman would feel belittled, unless she's one who feels belittled if a man does anything nice for her. But I don't see anything wrong with just a bit of chivalry.

The world is already a rough place. Why not try to make it a little better by just being courteous? The relationship terrain between men and women is already littered with mines. I guess some would say attempting any sort of chivalry just adds another mine to the ground.

But it doesn't have to be that way.

The true chivalrous man is never doing any of this because he feels that the woman can't do something for herself. And he's also not afraid to realize that sometimes a woman is going to do the same for him. Unlike back in Medieval times, that's certainly to be expected too. I don't know how many times a woman has helped me out in situations where I really could use a hand.

So yes. I do believe it's possible to be chivalrous in this day and age. Yes, it's sort of a modified chivalry from what we remember from history (no wearing something the lady gives you when you go out for a joust, to name one example). But it's chivalry nonetheless. And sure, some women aren't going to like it.

But the ones who do like it, and react appropriately, make all of those other ones worth it.

The post in which I admit that I am a sexist pig

at least according to the Society for the Psychology of Women.

Read on and you'll discover just how much of a monster I really am.

The wife and I were catching up on some recorded Red Eye shows on Fox News the other night, so excuse me if you've all talked this issue to death. It came out back in June.

One of the stories that came up was an article on a "benevolent sexism" study done by the Society. The aim is to show just how prominent benevolent sexism actually is in our society today.

Just what is this horrifying trend?

It consists of such horrible things as helping a woman carry heavy groceries. Or complimenting them on doing something that's traditionally a "woman's chore." Or, heaven forbid, actually holding the door open for a woman.

The horrors!

(Thanks to DailyBooth)

You know that such a thing is real, because it has its own Wikipedia page. According to the page, benevolent sexism "is defined as subjectively positive attitudes of protection, idealization, and affection towards women in traditional roles..."

With this kind of stuff out there, is there any wonder that members of each gender are confused about what is and isn't proper? Should we just wrap ourselves in bubble cocoons so that we never actually offend anybody?

(Thanks to And Now I'm a Grownup)

Whatever happened to just basic politeness and manners?

I have a news flash for you all.

Men and women are different! Yes, they are. They're different physically (thank God), and they're different mentally and emotionally too.

Why can't we celebrate those differences? Just because we do doesn't mean that we're looking down on anybody. I can consider a woman my equal and still want to help them if they're having a problem with something. If it happens to be something that falls into "traditional gender roles," who cares? If a woman's having problems with heavy groceries, I will try to help her. Does that make me a pig? Hell, I'd help a man if he was having trouble with heavy groceries. It's just the way I am.

I always hold the door open for a woman (and often for a man, too, if he's right behind me, because I don't want to let it slam in his face). Is that because I think she can't open a door? No! It's because it's the polite thing to do. I don't have a negative, "protective" opinion of the woman I'm holding a door for. I just do it. I'm not piggish enough to force myself in front of her if she happens to get to the door first, of course. But if I'm there at the same time or in front, I'll hold it for her.

I guess that makes me a sexist jerk.

Evidently, this term has been around for a while, but it came up again when the Society's study was released in June.

The researchers created a list of such damaging acts as: helping a woman to choose the right computer, calling a group of both men and women "guys" and offering to do the driving on a long distance journey.

Even men who think they are expressing affection might be guilty - the scientists said calling a woman a "chick", showering her with unwanted affection or saying that you cannot live without her could also be sexist.

Ok, I'll give you a woman being called "chick," but I wouldn't count that as "benevolent sexism" anyway. I'd just call that basic rudeness, unless the person in question also calls guys "dudes" or something. Then they're just inherently lame and can be safely ignored.

As for "showering her with unwanted affection or saying that you cannot live without her," that's just creepy, not sexist. If she's a friend, you gauge what level of affection she's comfortable with and give her that (and I guess, if you're comfortable enough, this applies to those of the same gender too). If you go over the line, again you're just rude and a bad friend. Not sexist.

In the society we live in today, I think we could stand to have *more* affection between people, not less. I know I'm a touchy-feely person. Though again, I gauge that based on how much a particular friend is comfortable with.

And who doesn't like to be told they look nice? I know I could stand to hear it more often (though maybe I would if I would stop wearing jeans and t-shirts). Is telling a woman she looks particularly nice (not trying to imply that on other days she doesn't, but that she looks extra nice today) a bad thing? If so, then I guess I showed I'm a sexist asshole just last week! I think she should have slapped me and put me in my place. (Might have made it difficult to do the podcast, though)

How dare I?????

I'll bet you didn't know that I was such a horrible person, did you?

You women don't get off the hook either. If you accept any of this behaviour without complaining, then you're part of the problem.

"Women endorse sexist beliefs, at least in part, because they do not attend to subtle, aggregate forms of sexism in their personal lives."

Look, I'm not denying that these attitudes exist. I'm sure there are guys out there who *do* look down on women, think that they can't do anything, and thus must be taken care of. And they probably do many of these same things, because they *do* think a woman's incapable.

But just because you do them doesn't mean you have that attitude.

It's no wonder men have a complex when trying to figure out how to behave.

Note 1: I normally don't post twice in a day, but after the heaviness of this morning's post, I wanted to post something fairly light-hearted this evening.

Note 2: I can already predict one of the comments that I'm going to see on this post in the next couple of days. Don't disappoint me, mysterious person I'm not going to name!