Chivarly = ''benevolent sexism'

parker kent

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I disagree, as do many feminists. Those attributes, historically anyway, would be typically male. (maybe not intellect, but I didn't come up with the list) Maybe not dependent, but they would be typically male and would be attributes men would be expected to have.

The word in bold is important. They are seen as male attributes as social norms dictated that to be the case. Not because men somehow got a courage gene that women don't have.

Wolfe Tone

parker kent wrote: »

The word in bold is important. They are seen as male attributes as social norms dictated that to be the case. Not because men somehow got a courage gene that women don't have.

Don't you get it? The ideal person, over the years which has been built up, is MALE. Perfect example is the "reasonable man" test which has been put together over the years via case law.

Had women been the dominant force for centuries the ideal would have FEMALE characteristics.

To say that some traits are not, to a large degree at least, gender specific(or at least stronger in general for one of the sexes) is wrong.

Meh, this is all off topic, maybe I will start a separate thread elsewhere and explain it better.

tbh

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Meh, this is all off topic, maybe I will start a separate thread elsewhere and explain it better.

not in this forum, please.

Pherekydes

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Besides, its pretty clear that, historically at least, those are positive, typically male attributes. Masculine attributes that men were always expected to possess. Feminists, such as the one I mentioned earlier, and to a degree Leslie Bender, would argue that in law, and by extension in society as a whole, to make a standard which is MALE is unfair to women as to live up to it, or to be "reasonable" requires a woman to be masculine or possess masculine traits.

Please explain how these are 'typically male attributes'?

rationality, objectivity, intellect, prudence, courage, ability to be dispassionate or calm in time of crisis, ability to deal with principle and avoid the personal.

And how are the standards you speak of 'male'?

Just so's you know, I don't find these 'pretty clear'. You can't just use the term 'pretty clear'. You'll have to actually show it.

Can you use some scientific method to do so, rather than just a bunch of opinions.

Pherekydes

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I disagree, as do many feminists.

Then it's just a matter of opinion?

Wolfe Tone

tbh wrote: »

not in this forum, please.

Why not? Its to do with the two genders being treated unequally, by in fact being treated the exact same. They may be treated the same, but thats not fair, its not substantive equality.

The ideal is currently male and women are attempting to live up to that by adopting male characteristics and traits... See the reasonable man. Thats an ideal constructed by men, about men, for men. But women are being expected to live up to that.

We have a situation where it appears that the differences in gender are not being acknowledged, certainly by the law. We may end up with some mish mash where gender is irrelevant, such would, imo, be unfair for both sexes. There would be no substantive equality.

iptba

Wolfe Tone, it is interesting what you are saying about the law. I don't read much feminist literature so I wasn't aware that there was a call by some for men and women defendants to be treated differently. I think it may happen at least now and again in the sentences given (we had a long discussion on this in this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64566921 ).

tbh

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Why not?.

it's not the type of topic that we want to see in the forum. I'd suggest humanities.

Bloody Nipples

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Why not? Its to do with the two genders being treated unequally, by in fact being treated the exact same. They may be treated the same, but thats not fair, its not substantive equality.

The ideal is currently male and women are attempting to live up to that by adopting male characteristics and traits... See the reasonable man. Thats an ideal constructed by men, about men, for men. But women are being expected to live up to that.

We have a situation where it appears that the differences in gender are not being acknowledged, certainly by the law. We may end up with some mish mash where gender is irrelevant, such would, imo, be unfair for both sexes. There would be no substantive equality.

Nothing of what you're posting is making any sense and is not borne out by anything I have ever seen or heard of in today's society, and seems to be in accord with everyone else here. Your "reasonable man" traits are admirable attributes for anyone not just men and while they may have originally been used as an archetype for the ideal man, they are also admirable traits in a woman.
The idea that women are attempting to live up to masculine traits by being courageous, objective etc. is ludicrous.

OT, I use my own gumption when it come to how to treat a lady. I'll carry something heavy, but I won't stand when a woman comes to the table as I find this unnecessarily archaic. I'll hold a door for anyone as that's just good manners and the only woman I help put on her jacket is my nan

Wolfe Tone

tbh wrote: »

it's not the type of topic that we want to see in the forum. I'd suggest humanities.

Why not if you don't mind me asking?

iptba

I think quite a few people in society do say there are differences between men and women - for example, it's one of the reasons given for the need for gender quotas for parties' election candidates (which have become law - in the sense that parties will lose half their State funding if they don't achieve them). Quite a lot of people switch from one side to the other it seems to me: when it suits them, there are no differences between men and women; when it suits them, there are differences.

tbh

First paragraph of bloody nipples post sums it up I think. The stuff you're posting sets a tone for the forum we don't want set. As mods, that's our call to make.

Bloody Nipples

iptba wrote: »

I think quite a few people in society do say there are differences between men and women - for example, it's one of the reasons given for the need for gender quotas for candidates (which have become law - in the sense that parties will lose half their State funding if they don't achieve them). Quite a lot of people switch from one side to the other it seems to me: when it suits them, there are no differences between men and women, when it suits them, there are differences.

I'm suspicious of the gender quotas idea. I'd like to know what % of different political parties membership is female before setting a bar of 30%.

iptba

Bloody Nipples wrote: »

I'm suspicious of the gender quotas idea. I'd like to know what % of different political parties membership is female before setting a bar of 30%.

And it's going to be 40% after 7 seven years : http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0531/breaking32.html

Wolfe Tone

iptba wrote: »

I think quite a few people in society do say there are differences between men and women - for example, it's one of the reasons given for the need for gender quotas for parties' election candidates (which have become law - in the sense that parties will lose half their State funding if they don't achieve them). Quite a lot of people switch from one side to the other it seems to me: when it suits them, there are no differences between men and women; when it suits them, there are differences.

Exactly!!

Imo, to treat men and women the same is not fair. Even worse, to treat women as men, is not fair.


Anyway I'll leave it at that seen as tbh ain't a fan of this topic.

mick.m

As mentioned above, I can't really see how equality can ever be fully achieved if men and women are different in many ways, particularly physically. Are feminists even asking for full equality, or do they want to retain some aspects of the way things are now with regards to the "chivalry" involved?

Also as prieviously mentioned, alot of it certainly comes down to basic manners. Personally, I feel like I have done the right thing after helping someone with something they're struggling with, or holding a door open for someone. Likewise if something is done for me I feel grateful to that person, not that they have basically implied that I'm not capable of doing it myself based on gender or whatever. Political "correctness" gone mad, how anyone could ever take strong offence to someone trying to help them!

Bloody Nipples

iptba wrote: »

And it's going to be 40% after 7 seven years : http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0531/breaking32.html

But if a political party has a female membership of <40% then you're potentially positively discriminating against people who may actually be better for the role.

iptba

Bloody Nipples wrote: »

But if a political party has a female membership of <40% then you're potentially positively discriminating against people who may actually be better for the role.

The main justification for discriminating against men in this way it would appear is that women are different in some way to men.

Galvasean

Bloody Nipples wrote: »

But if a political party has a female membership of <40% then you're potentially positively discriminating against people who may actually be better for the role.

Yeah, there's a big thread about it on this very forum.

SugarHigh

iptba wrote: »

I think quite a few people in society do say there are differences between men and women - for example, it's one of the reasons given for the need for gender quotas for parties' election candidates (which have become law - in the sense that parties will lose half their State funding if they don't achieve them). Quite a lot of people switch from one side to the other it seems to me: when it suits them, there are no differences between men and women; when it suits them, there are differences.

I think the a good example of this is in fitness tests for jobs like Military or Police forces where women have lower standards. If they can't meet the same physical requirements that a man has to meet they obviously aren't capable of doing the job to the same level.

metrovelvet

SugarHigh wrote: »

I think the a good example of this is in fitness tests for jobs like Military or Police forces where women have lower standards. If they can't meet the same physical requirements that a man has to meet they obviously aren't capable of doing the job to the same level.

I dont think they do have lower standards.

Fitness? Police? HA HA HA HA. Guess you've never been to Dunkin Donuts.

parker kent

metrovelvet wrote: »

I dont think they do have lower standards.

Fitness? Police? HA HA HA HA. Guess you've never been to Dunkin Donuts.

Do we even have Dunkin Donuts in Ireland?

Does anybody have any proof that there are lower standards for women in the Garda Physical Competency Test?

FYI here is the test

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUdxo84uK-Y

opinion guy

parker kent wrote: »

Do we even have Dunkin Donuts in Ireland?

Does anybody have any proof that there are lower standards for women in the Garda Physical Competency Test?

FYI here is the test

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUdxo84uK-Y

Its not exactly GI Joe/Jane now is it ?

bryaner

Some people are just never happy..:rolleyes:

tbh

bryaner wrote: »

Some people are just never happy..:rolleyes:

Bryaner, I had to delete a post of yours earlier on. I'd suggest if you have a problem with a post you either report it or ignore it - if you continue to post like this, it's going to end up with a ban

bryaner

Fair enough no prob.

source

The test is 3 laps in 3min for a male, 3.20min for a female, the push pull element male must achieve 25kg, females 22kg. Not a huge difference but it is there.

Mile and a half run, for males in under 12.30min, females 13.30min.....(if I remember correctly)

Same in military, it's the same test that males and females undergo, but with an altered time. The DF operate under a graded system, If I can remember back to my RDF days, males had to get at least a grade 3 and females a grade 4, cannot remember the timings exactly. But the test was a run with push ups and sit ups.

Wolfe Tone

SugarHigh wrote: »

I think the a good example of this is in fitness tests for jobs like Military or Police forces where women have lower standards. If they can't meet the same physical requirements that a man has to meet they obviously aren't capable of doing the job to the same level.

But they may be better at the job in other areas...

Just because they are "not equal" doesnt mean they are worse.. Thats what I was getting at.

Galvasean

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

But they may be better at the job in other areas...

Just because they are "not equal" doesnt mean they are worse.. Thats what I was getting at.

A strong female presence is needed in the Gardaí. For example, if they were interviewing a female rape victim it would make sense to have a woman handle it than a man. The victim would most likely respond better to being approached by a woman in this case.

iptba

Galvasean wrote: »

A strong female presence is needed in the Gardaí. For example, if they were interviewing a female rape victim it would make sense to have a woman handle it than a man. The victim would most likely respond better to being approached by a woman in this case.

It's a pity men don't have people they can trust/would be sympathetic to them e.g. if a man was a victim of domestic violence and wanted some help, male Gardai might not be particularly sympathetic (perhaps influenced by chivalry in society) ... but a female Garda might not be any more sympathetic either esp. if she talked to the woman also.

parker kent

iptba wrote: »

It's a pity men don't have people they can trust/would be sympathetic to them e.g. if a man was a victim of domestic violence and wanted some help, male Gardai might not be particularly sympathetic (perhaps influenced by chivalry in society) ... but a female Garda might not be any more sympathetic either esp. if she talked to the woman also.

Wow generalisation centre in that post.

Wolfe Tone

Galvasean wrote: »

A strong female presence is needed in the Gardaí. For example, if they were interviewing a female rape victim it would make sense to have a woman handle it than a man. The victim would most likely respond better to being approached by a woman in this case.

Exactly, but you are hardly gonna stick a petite woman on riot duty, she wouldnt be able

Galvasean

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Exactly, but you are hardly gonna stick a petite woman on riot duty, she wouldnt be able

Or a petite man for that matter. As far as I remember, there used to be size requirements which had to be dropped because of some equality legislation law.

iptba

Galvasean wrote: »

As far as I remember, there used to be size requirements which had to be dropped because of some equality legislation law.

Yes in the past:

a man must be at least 5'9" to join the Gardaí, women must measure 5'5".

ref: http://www.rte.ie/news/2000/1201/garda.html

but now

The requirement to be of a specific height has been removed and replaced with a physical competency test.

ref:
http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=333&Lang=1&PersistList=1&PersistPage=213

Actually, it seems a bit odd if having different height thresholds for men and women would be considered breaking equality laws but having different thresholds on the physical competency test(s) isn't [breaking similar laws].

Stheno

iptba wrote: »

Actually, it seems a bit odd if having different height thresholds for men and women would be considered breaking equality laws but having different thresholds on the physical competency test(s) isn't [breaking similar laws].

You could probably correlate the physical competency tests to the difference in world records between men and women.

Interestingly when I worked as a lifeguard there was no difference, every lifeguard was required male or female, to reach a certain level of speed when swimming.

iptba

Stheno wrote: »

iptba wrote:

Actually, it seems a bit odd if having different height thresholds for men and women would be considered breaking equality laws but having different thresholds on the physical competency test(s) isn't [breaking similar laws].

You could probably correlate the physical competency tests to the difference in world records between men and women.

You could probably do the same for height differences also (or rate them on percentiles of the male and female populations which would be a similar sort of point).

Stheno wrote: »

Interestingly when I worked as a lifeguard there was no difference, every lifeguard was required male or female, to reach a certain level of speed when swimming.

Yes, interesting how there are lower qualifications in some areas but not others. Are there areas where there are lower qualifications for men?

parker kent

iptba wrote: »

Yes, interesting how there are lower qualifications in some areas but not others. Are there areas where there are lower qualifications for men?

There has been some suggestions for the Leaving Cert.

It shouldn't be viewed as a game where men and women keep score or an us against them situation. I think we should do everything possible to have a better society. Sometimes that means unequal treatment for some, but a better society in the long term. I view it the same way as I view access to third level, we need to get a fairer mixture of society in everything. Long term it will be better.

caseyann

I hold doors open for men and women.
Am i sexist? :eek:

Wolfe Tone

You are the devil herself!

caseyann

I am

Sexisim went out window in Ireland when men here found out it was ok to go dutch
Damn :mad:

Wolflikeme

Stheno wrote: »

I've seen women on building sites, usually engineers and h and s inspectors. Know a couple of female electricians as well, but no brickies tbf

I've seen tons of women on building sites in Canada. And NOT ONE of them does any heavy work. They stand and direct traffic around road works etc and that's it. It's well known fact there and shockingly (not really), they're OK with not doing the heavy work.

Wolflikeme

opinion guy wrote: »

Its not exactly GI Joe/Jane now is it ?

It's not even the GI Joe rip off - Action Force.

caseyann

Wolflikeme wrote: »

I've seen tons of women on building sites in Canada. And NOT ONE of them does any heavy work. They stand and direct traffic around road works etc and that's it. It's well known fact there and shockingly (not really), they're OK with not doing the heavy work.

I agree,i hate heavy work.I have done it but never felt sexist when someone helped me.And women are not built like men.Well most women arent built like men,but then again some women could out lift and beat a mans ass.:D

But if i wouldnt be caught dead on a building site unless was office work in a suit as an over seer etc..:p

iptba

parker kent wrote: »

iptba wrote:

Galvasean wrote:

A strong female presence is needed in the Gardaí. For example, if they were interviewing a female rape victim it would make sense to have a woman handle it than a man. The victim would most likely respond better to being approached by a woman in this case.

It's a pity men don't have people they can trust/would be sympathetic to them e.g. if a man was a victim of domestic violence and wanted some help, male Gardai might not be particularly sympathetic (perhaps influenced by chivalry in society) ... but a female Garda might not be any more sympathetic either esp. if she talked to the woman also.

Wow generalisation centre in that post.

Which part is "generalisation centre"? That male victims of domestic violence may not feel as sure of the same support from male gardai as female victims of rape might feel from female gardai? Or that female gardai may not be different from their male colleagues in how they deal with male victims of domestic violence?

parker kent

iptba wrote: »

Which part is "generalisation centre"? That male victims of domestic violence may not feel as sure of the same support from male gardai as female victims of rape might feel from female gardai? Or that female gardai may not be different from their male colleagues in how they deal with male victims of domestic violence?

The idea that a male garda would not be sympathetic to a male attacked by a woman is a generalisation. It is playing up the "tough man" generalisation and the generalisation that male victims are not taken seriously. You are generalising for all gardai. The reality is that some men will be sympathetic to male victims, others will not. Some men will be sympathetic towards female victims, some will not. Some women will be sympathetic towards female victims, some will not. Some women will be sympathetic towards male victims, some will not.

iptba

parker kent wrote: »

The idea that a male garda would not be sympathetic to a male attacked by a woman is a generalisation. It is playing up the "tough man" generalisation and the generalisation that male victims are not taken seriously. You are generalising for all gardai. The reality is that some men will be sympathetic to male victims, others will not. Some men will be sympathetic towards female victims, some will not. Some women will be sympathetic towards female victims, some will not. Some women will be sympathetic towards male victims, some will not.

I know you like to criticise and challenge me whenever you can but it all sounds a bit air-fairy to justify "generalisation central" (esp. as the moderators had just said we weren't supposed to use generalisations so you may have been trying to get me in trouble with the mods, or that could have been the effect). I didn't say no male gardai would be sympathetic. And it was in the context of somebody else saying female gardai were needed to help female victims.

Numbers do matter - your "some male/female will ... , some male/female will not ..." rhetoric might have impressed your English teacher but it misses an important point: things do not have to be all or nothing to be of relevance. If a higher percentage of male victims than female victims felt they did not get a good service, that would be interesting - indeed if the percentages were reversed, the word "sexism" (or even "institutional sexism"?) would probably be used by some.

And groups like Amen give the impression that there may be a problem for male victims. But in your world, it seems this should not be mentioned because that's a "generalisation" and doesn't apply to every case. I will keep an eye out to see how many times you use "generalisation central" if somebody says women are treated worse on average in a particular area.

And in my short post that nobody else commented on, I tied all this to the thread as I suggested attitudes of some male gardai to male domestic violence victims may be influenced with chivalrous attitudes. I think I should be entitled to say that chivalrous attitudes could influence some men in more aspects of how they behave than opening doors, holding coats, etc - it'll be a sad day if it ever got to the stage that one couldn't express such thoughts.

the_syco

Stheno wrote: »

Conversely you could look at professions like HR, Nursing and teaching which are dominated by women and ask why 50% of those aren't men? Are they lacking something in that they are not at that level in those workforces?

In HR, most of the men are high up in the ranks - don't usually see "new" HR people. Whilst in hospital, I saw a few male nurses. As for teaching, the government used to have (and may still have) incentives to get male teachers, to get male role models into the schools.

opinion guy

the_syco wrote: »

In HR, most of the men are high up in the ranks - don't usually see "new" HR people.

I thought only demonspawn work in HR never mind men or women:rolleyes:

LegacyUser

Morgase wrote: »

Expecting (not even asking but expecting) a man to cut the lawn for you because you can't be bothered to lift a hand is just lazy.

I never said anything about expecting? I was mentioning an example used by someone earlier, as I outlined in my original post and mentioned it in a light hearted way which I thought was clear. My point was that as a woman I personally feel flattered and thankful when offered help (be it from a male or female), and so disagree with the title of the thread...which was set to be discussed...so please dont read things into what i said which weren't there!

LeeHoffmann

I feel uncomfortable with things like men holding doors open for me, paying for stuff or offering me their seat just because I'm female. I just don't understand the custom - why is it done? I know that men do it to be nice - I just don't get why you'd do it for women and not for men? (obviously this doesn't include basic manners like giving up your seat for a pregnant woman - both men and women should do that).

I'm getting married next year. My parents died and because of this, my uncle wants to give my fiance 'the talk' ('you hurt her, you die' kind of thing) on the morning of the wedding because of some pact he made with my Dad when they were teenagers! I find it very odd. I'll probably allow it because I know he wants to do it out of respect for his brother, but I can't help feeling really offended and insulted at the idea that I need some male protection from the one person I trust most, particularly because there will be no such talk for my brother when he weds.

However, most women I know seem to approve of these customs, so maybe it's just me