Boyfriend says he's a feminist and chivalry should be dead

[pl3asehelp]

@pleasehelp - you'd take your girlfriend to a party and then not introduce her?

 

I would introduce her the same as if I brought a male friend who needed an introduction. Be polite to all people, but don't treat people differently based on their gender. Never in a billion years would I show up to a party with a guy friend and then make it my job to go find him a chair. I would do that for my wife, but I understand that it is rooted in an expectation for different treatment by gender, which is not dual. Chivalry originated as a code for the behavior of knights and they decided to trea women more genty than thy would treat men because man men just raped women at that time. The knights didn't want to be associated with boorish rapists, so they go out of their way to appear non threatening. Google chivalry and rape culture.

[Iggles]

As far as marriage and kids he claims to also believe in equality, which means a woman can work and he'd stay home with kids if that makes more sense financially.

 

Ok.. NO!!

 

I have nothing against stay at home dads but he doesn't seem to ascribe to this view with good intentions (which would be wanting to ensure their kids have a loving parent full time). He's a lazy bum who is content is benefit from male privilege while eschewing any gender roles that would confer responsibility onto himself!

 

Not to go on a political rant, but he reminds of liberal men who "hate" gender roles/are self professed "feminists" yet treat the woman in their lives poorly. I've seen it too many times. The truth is he is whiny little boy not a man, who is more comfortable competing with women instead of other men. In their minds they view working primarily with women or being a stay at home parent as "easier" and prefer that role to careers where they aren't the special (straight) male "snowflake". As much as they tout being equal, the truth is they will not let of their male privilege, so in reality the woman is carrying the heavier burden.

 

Not to mention plenty of "feminist"* men are pretty misogynist in their personal relationships -- cheating, having a harem with women that are hopeful for relationships, etc. One of the most liberal guys I know is a fun loving guy, a loyal friend, and TERRIBLE relationship prospect for those reasons!

 

*I put feminist in quotes because I don't see these guys as true feminist men. These are douchebags in sheeps clothing who sully the word.

[savignon]

I would introduce her the same as if I brought a male friend who needed an introduction. Be polite to all people, but don't treat people differently based on their gender. .

 

I wouldn't expect to be treated differently b/c I'm a girl but because I'm his girlfriend. If I'd be treated the same as a male friend, I wouldn't be interested.

To each his own. I don't treat my boyfriend like my girl friends and would expect there to be something special about being with the person. That said, I don't think being introduced to friends and not letting the door hit me in the face are "special" courtesies.

[agent1607307371]

@pleasehelp - that would be ladies, not women. It was all very class based, and if you were a peasant you were out of luck.

 

It's not about treating people differently because of their gender, it's treating someeone differently because their relationship with you is special. Do you think if I had a boyfriend or husband I cared about I'd treat them the same as the guys in my comic shop? No, because they occupy entirely different places in me.

[Iggles]

I'm thinking this is the same guy - cheap dude with a small penis who doesn't introduce her to others. What a catch.

 

Wow.. This is full of so much fail..

 

What is the female equivalent of a gentleman? I mean what kinds of things are women expected to do for men that they are capable of doing for themselves?

 

Cooking, cleaning, childcare. The traditional "woman's work".

 

My boyfriend can pick up food when he's on his way to my place, but I cook because I want to make a meal for him. I straighten up his clothes without being asked, etc.

 

Just like chivalry, either sexes nowadays do many of these things just to be considerate of their partner. That is, a man cooking dinner for his girlfriend. A woman holding the door for her guy.

 

All in all, being a lady is the female equivalent of being a gentleman.

 

I wouldn't expect to be treated differently b/c I'm a girl but because I'm his girlfriend. If I'd be treated the same as a male friend, I wouldn't be interested.

 

Same here. I better be treated differently than his female friends! Lol.

 

Real talk, I have to come first in importance. Not to say family and friends aren't important to him, but I have to be the special lady in his life. If I'm not treated special then we might as well be friends (or nothing at all!).

[pl3asehelp]

Haha. So you're not a lady if you don't do more than your share share of traditional women's work? I do as much cooking, cleaning, and child care as my wife, if not more. I don't expect it and feel it would be sexist to, but then again I doubt I'd find a woman like this attractive so I've never been close to one. My wife is my priority and I do treat her special but that is because I love her, not because of her gender. I don't treat her special by doing silly things knights used to do though.

[itsallgrand]

I don't get if you are upset that he won't perform the rituals, or that you feel that he is disrespectful/inconsiderate of you in general.

Your stories are inconsistent and you keep retracting, so I don't know.

 

I'm wondering if you are really talking about here about a desire to be wooed a certain way, romanced. You would like him to open doors for you - even if it's not necessary, as a gesture - because it makes you feel good.

 

I think you need to clarify if he lets doors slam in your face or not. If he acts inconsiderately towards you by putting himself first all the time. If when you need help, he provides it. If he looks out for you and has your back.

 

I do think it is possible for a person to not go along with the roles of "oh let me get that door for you" when it isn't necessary, pulling out seats for a woman when it isn't necessary, etc. - chivalrous type of behavior - and still be a considerate and kind person and partner.

 

And on the flip side, some of the smoothest 'gentlemen' out there are about as hollow as a tin can when it comes to real regard for other people and a partner, and use it as a con. Playing off the common desires of people to enjoy that type of behavior. Particularly when it comes to men seducing women.

 

And then you have people who are considerate and also enjoy the rituals involved with this, and there is no harm intended nor done.

 

From your other threads, all the rest aside, I get the impression this guy just doesn't like you very much at all. He doesn't even try to get along with you. You are just sort of there...since you seem to want to be. Putting up with things you don't like.

[Tanzi]

Haha. So you're not a lady if you don't do more than your share share of traditional women's work?

 

Maybe I misread but I don't think that was Iggles' point.

 

I do as much cooking, cleaning, and child care as my wife, if not more.

 

.... and I think that was the point that Iggles' WAS making .... that for most of us we are prepared to pull TOGETHER with our partners, regardless of what is or isn't expected from specific gender roles.

 

It certainly doesn't sound as though you would let a door swing back in your wife's face to make some ridiculous point. This isn't so much about the fact that he doesn't hold a door open for her ... it is more about the fact that he makes such a point about not doing it because she is a woman.

 

I really don't think there is any argument here anyway as everyone is in agreement that this isn't to do with him being a feminist stating any valid point but rather him just being an outright jerk.

[pl3asehelp]

So there is basic politeness, there is special concern for a romantic partner, and there is chivalry. Everyone should expect the first two and you can do both of them without following the old knights code or treating anyone differently based on their gender, which is the definition of sexism.

[Tanzi]

So there is basic politeness, there is special concern for a romantic partner, and there is chivalry. Everyone should expect the first two and you can do both of them without following the old knights code or treating anyone differently based on their gender, which is the definition of sexism.

 

Can't we ALL, regardless of our gender, be treated with the respect we deserve (and ourselves show to others) without it having crap all to with the "Old Knights Code" and sexism?

[Blue Spiral]

The truth is he is whiny little boy not a man,

 

When women decided that men no longer had the power to decide what femininity meant (i.e. "If you don't ____, you aren't a real woman!"), they (that is, women) simultaneously lost their ability to decide what masculinity meant. Both genders have the power to say "I don't care what traditional men/women did, this is what being male/female means to me, and I get to decide that, not you."

 

Imagine how ridiculous it would be if a man walked up to you and accused you of not growing up, because you hadn't (insert traditional female rite of passage here). Whenever women have accused me of not being a real man, or not growing up, or what have you, I've just laughed it off. Men decide what being a man means; women decide what being a woman means. Let's keep it that way.

[savignon]

I think this thread has been a little derailed. I can't imagine what knights and raping women in the 1700s has to do with introducing your girlfriend to your friends at a party.

???????????????

The OP seems happy enough with this guy.

[Kendahke]

I think this thread has been a little derailed. I can't imagine what knights and raping women in the 1700s has to do with introducing your girlfriend to your friends at a party.

???????????????

The OP seems happy enough with this guy.

 

it doesn't. The OP is long gone.

 

This discussion petered out about 6 hours ago.

[Iggles]

.... and I think that was the point that Iggles' WAS making .... that for most of us we are prepared to pull TOGETHER with our partners, regardless of what is or isn't expected from specific gender roles.

 

Exactly! Thanks.

 

The OP seems happy enough with this guy.

 

I beg to differ. I think the OP is unhappy and rationalizing her boyfriend's mistreatment of her.

 

But yes, I totally agree this got delayed!

[Lonewing]

When women decided that men no longer had the power to decide what femininity meant (i.e. "If you don't ____, you aren't a real woman!"), they (that is, women) simultaneously lost their ability to decide what masculinity meant. Both genders have the power to say "I don't care what traditional men/women did, this is what being male/female means to me, and I get to decide that, not you."

 

Imagine how ridiculous it would be if a man walked up to you and accused you of not growing up, because you hadn't (insert traditional female rite of passage here). Whenever women have accused me of not being a real man, or not growing up, or what have you, I've just laughed it off. Men decide what being a man means; women decide what being a woman means. Let's keep it that way.

 

I will take feminism serious when it states that its purpose is to campaign for stronger rights and opportunities for women.

 

Because if feminism is the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities, then masculinism is also the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. Equalism is then unnecessary.

 

If you turn around and say, "No, masculinism is the belief that men should have greater rights and opportunities," then I'm going to stare at you like you have just insulted my intelligence. Because you have; I had just enough Greek/Latin Education in my background to know what the roots mean when I see them. "Fem-" only means Women, it does not mean Men AND Women...[more specifically: Latin: woman, women; not masculine: neither man nor men].

 

I seen it put by feminism that "The meanings of words change." BullS. When you stop changing the meaning of words to suit your platform, instead of using the right words that already exist in the first place, or understand the full range of the definition that already exists for that word, then I'll take you seriously.

 

All this being said, I DO believe feminism is important and necessary to stick up for the rights specific to women that need to be upheld. Abortion, breastfeeding, segregated bathrooms, rights for mothers, medical conditions, you name it. All this being said, I think it is disingenuous that this group would take for themselves that territory which rightfully belongs to the domain of Equalists.

 

And all this being said, there's a difference between Chivalry and Manner. Being courteous to each other does not require any emasculation of either partner, it just means you stick up for each other when it's necessary.

[pl3asehelp]

Can't we ALL, regardless of our gender, be treated with the respect we deserve (and ourselves show to others) without it having crap all to with the "Old Knights Code" and sexism?

 

Of course we can - as soon as we stop treating people any specific way based on their gender, which is what chivalry is.

[Dragunov-21]

I will take feminism serious when it states that its purpose is to campaign for stronger rights and opportunities for women..

 

That IS the definition, as used by actual feminists rather than lookers-in and people trying to gain the appearance of being pro-women (generally because they're the exact opposite)

 

(As I understand it)

 

You're talking about egalitarianism and seeking to balance the inherent differences between groups of people, which tbh I find native and intentionally ignorant.

[pl3asehelp]

I think this thread has been a little derailed. I can't imagine what knights and raping women in the 1700s has to do with introducing your girlfriend to your friends at a party.

???????????????

The OP seems happy enough with this guy.

 

Well that's what chivalry is - it's a simple fact. Ample evidence out there. If it something someone expects or even wants to talk about, it's prudent to understand it's origin and why it ever came to be in the first place.

[Lonewing]

That IS the definition, as used by actual feminists rather than lookers-in and people trying to gain the appearance of being pro-women (generally because they're the exact opposite)

 

It WAS the definition; open up a dictionary and take a good look...

 

I understand the drive for equality, that being said, the drive at equality on the basis that men and women are the same is wrong. We have different needs, and if you say we don't, let us ban segregated bathrooms, painkillers, sanitary napkins, breastfeeding, all contraception, all forms of abortion, and...oh, all these other issues that don't affect me, and lets see how long we can all live happy under this system. Because myself, none of these issues directly affect me, so they obviously [sarcasm alert] can't be all that important!

 

We're made different, and that's OK. It has no bearing on our abilities, but it may affect our basic comfort needs.

 

Now if real feminists are emerging to champion this important cause and be honest with the language, that I can respect!

[Dragunov-21]

You've just said exactly what I was saying

 

As used by actual feminists. I couldn't give a toss what the dictionary says in this instance; the group in question chooses to identify itself that way afaik, and that is what matters, no?

[annie24]

One of the drives is acknowledging these subconcious biases that people carry around when it comes to men and women.

 

For example, a college professor told me 10 years ago she was on a hiring committee for a new professor in the department. The committee met after the interviews to discuss the applicants. They spoke about the "man from Harvard," the "man from Yale," and "the woman wearing the black suit." She quickly pointed out that they were acknowledging the men by their academic affiliations, and the woman by her clothing. Unknowingly, they were cutting down her qualifications by talking about her clothing, not her academic record.

 

These sorts of "micro-injustices" happen all the time. As a feminist, the professor just asked that the committee discuss her like they do the men - for her credentials.

 

That is getting us way off topic, which is the fact that the boyfriend is an inconsiderate jerk. At my university, everyone holds open doors for everyone else. Men for men, men for women, women for women, women for men. You don't let the door slam on a person 4 feet behind you. That's just rude.

[Tanzi]

All the OP wanted to know was whether she has the right to be treated as she felt she deserved????

[annie24]

All the OP wanted to know was whether she has the right to be treated as she felt she deserved????

 

Yes, she does have a right to be treated kindly, not because she is a woman, but because she is a human. This guy is just a tool.

[Fudgie]

Yes, she does have a right to be treated kindly, not because she is a woman, but because she is a human. This guy is just a tool.

 

This. He's a butthole. Women AND men of all ages deserve to have doors held open for them when it's convenient. It has nothing to do with feminism or women's right.

 

Yes, chivalry should be dead. Everyone should treat everyone well.

[Tanzi]

Yes, she does have a right to be treated kindly, not because she is a woman, but because she is a human. This guy is just a tool.

 

A complete tool ... he actually let the door hit her twice just to prove a ridiculous point that makes no sense. Who in their right mind would let that happen, whoever was behind them?