Este site faz uso extensivo de JavaScript.
Favor habilite JavaScript em seu navegador.
Tema Clássico
Tema Thottbot
Who would you give up your seat for?
Resposta da Mensagem
Retornar ao índice do fórum
Postado por
MyTie
Generally speaking, men are physically superior to women. Add in the factor that women can and often do get pregnant, and that seems pretty good reason to allow women to sit.
Postado por
Azazel
And what about women that aren't pregnant? Should they be allowed to sit because they can get pregnant?
Should I get a seat because I -could- lose my balls?
Postado por
MyTie
And what about women that aren't pregnant? Should they be allowed to sit because they can get pregnant?
Should I get a seat because I -could- lose my balls?
Wash the conversation of shock value. Just look at it based on use as a general rule. Individual circumstances will vary, but generally women are weaker than men, so if a man would like to offer his seat to a woman, then generally speaking this is based in reason, and can be a gesture of kindness and politeness. I think what is off-putting about this to me is the belief that an act of kindness is somehow automatically rooted in patronizing chauvinism. That just isn't automatically the case.
Postado por
931961
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Postado por
Thror
If, as you say this is really about being 'nice', why do you offer such niceties to women only?
Because I think it is only nice when those specific things are done with women. If I were to offer such niceties to men, it would make me feel awkward, which is bad. However, the fact that gentlemen do not pull each others chairs and whatnot does not mean they are not nice to each other. They are still nice, just in a slightly different way. Once again, to be clear on the terminology here, In my book, a true gentleman is a man who treats other men with respect and politeness.
Whilst how you are raised may explain your behaviour, it does not make your behaviour 'right'.
And I agree with that. I behave how I chose to behave, and others have the right to choose for themselves. If someone does not wish to act chivalrous, it is his choice, and it does not automatically make him a worse person, or anything. I do not judge people for having different ideas than I do.
But while I do not believe that being a genetleman is the
correct
thing to do, I do say that it is
nice
, and would absolutely recommend it to anyone.
Postado por
MyTie
Edit: @ MyTie, do you think that men are 'more capable' of standing than women? - If so then I totally understand your PoV (even if I don't agree with it)
I think that men should make an active effort to recognize and respect the physical stature of women. Domestic violence usually goes male to female. I think it is a socially reinforced positive to treat women with care and respect, because generally, men can overpower women physically.
Postado por
931961
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Postado por
MyTie
@ MyTie, i've got to be honest i'm getting confused here. Are you saying it has in fact nothing to do with who has an easier time standing up, but its society's way of keeping men's potential for physical domination in check? (I have a feeling i'm getting teh wrong end of the stick, if not the wrong stick entirely)
Neither, both... dunno. If every man in society were always aware of the fact that men are physcially more capable than women and more respectful of that physical superiority, and therefore, more careful, then perhaps there would be less violence. Also, I am saying that women are, in terms of net strength, lower then men, therefore, less physically capable, though it isn't that I doubt most women's ability to stand. Finally, and most importantly, men need to respect women. Men need to treat women as precious gems. The Bible commands me "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" (Ephesians 5:25). Christ, the leader of the Church, and the servant of the Church. I consider myself to be the servant of my wife, and not "better" than her in any fashion. For this reason, I treat women with all the care, respect, and dignity, that Christ gave the Church, the "bridegroom". Giving a seat on the bus seems the least I could do.
It's unfair to assume that giving a seat on a bus is rooted in patronizing self importance.
Postado por
Squishalot
If someone is an employer with some actual employees, and he would just decide to hire a woman and pay her extra, that would be wrong. Employees actually do have a right to expect fairness from their employer. And not just that. The position of an employer is bound by so many laws, that I find the jump in logic you did from chivalry to this ridiculous. Seriously, what the hell. We are talking seats in a bus here, and you are like "oh yeah? and how about <this absolutely unrelated thing>?" Why the hell did I even answer that. Just to be told "HA! That's against the law!" Awesome Squish, you totally nailed this discussion about bus seats here and I feel outplayed, not.
We were talking about positive discrimination towards women. I thought it was fairly clear that comment about jobs was in relation to positive discrimination towards women, which is well known to be illegal in an employment sense. I don't think you can claim that I ambushed you in any way there. What else could I possibly have been referring to when talking about extra jobs and pay?
I'm not trying to 'outplay' you or anything, my point from the outset was to demonstrate that we don't have a tolerance for positive discrimination based on gender in the workplace, why should we have a tolerance for positive discrimination based on gender anywhere else? Really, I didn't expect you to actually agree that it's okay to positively discriminate (on anything!) in the workplace.
Now, irrespective of the number of other laws that employers are bound by, is it morally right for an employer to pay a woman more just because she's a woman? Hell no. So going back to the original statement, if MyTie is going to pay extra respect and care to women just because they're women, let me ask explicitly - is it morally right (as opposed to legally right) to pay extra cash (an employer's sign of respect and care) to women just because they're women?
Being a gentleman is nice. There are also women who find it nice when men are chivalrous. And guess what, that is as good a reason as any. Thinking that every gentleman is a condescending jackass who believes that women can not stand properly and can not open their own doors, move their chairs or put on their jackets, is flawed. I feel happy when I can open the door for my girlfriend, and so does she. That is all there is to it. And you know why we feel like that? Because that is how we were raised. Chivalry is a nice concept because it can bring a little joy into peoples life, and if done properly, it does not do any harm in any possible way. I do intend to raise my children to enjoy chivalry as well.
I do those things, for people that I care about, like my girlfriend, or my mother. Same reason why I might buy my girlfriend gifts. I'm not sure why you would feel the need to do 'chivalrous' actions for the entire female gender to the exclusion of the male half of the population. Does it really feel awkward to hold a door open for another guy?
I behave how I chose to behave, and others have the right to choose for themselves.
As I said to MyTie - that's fair enough.
Postado por
931961
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Postado por
MyTie
I just don't agree with it, for me, discrimination of any kind is not a good thing.
I disagree. Discrimination can be a good thing. I discriminate against registered sex offenders when selecting a babysitter for my children. I discriminate against Muslims when selecting a preacher for my church. I discriminate ALL THE TIME. So do you. I'm just aware of it and do it appropriately. It sounds very "sensitive" to say you never discriminate. Fortunately, that isn't reality.
Edit: I tried, but I can't resist this part:P.S. I really didn't want to bring religion into this at all, it tends to put a huge skew on everything because people tend not to rationalize when talking about religion. That being said... The bible commands a number of things which seem rather outdated (It was written a good
1700
2000 years ago though, so this is hardly a surprise)
- Exodus 21:7
- Exodus 35:2
I don't see the bible as a good starting point for discussing behaviour in the 21st Century.The first sets limits on slavery, not saying it condones the slavery itself. The second is about the sabbath. Don't know what this has to do with women in general.
I root an act of judgement in religion, and Off-Topic says I fail. Also, if I root an act of kindness in religion, Off-Topic again says that is a fail. Pretty much anything rooted in religion, off-topic is hostile and unaccepting of. Why? Because they feel that religion is hostile and unaccepting, regardless of the context or intent (that's right, irony). I'd be so much more willing to discuss and compromise my point of view with you if you didn't just cart-blanch throw out the Bible, my biggest source of inspiration and belief. That is, of course, your prerogative, but it isn't going to win me over.
PS. The act of writing is at least 6 thousand years old, so I guess we should stop doing that because it is dated, and old stuff is pretty much pointless now, RIGHT? Along with those dumb Bible rules like "love your neighbor", and "don't cheat on your wife". Even if we don't agree on the bathwater, let's not be so hasty to toss out baby.
Postado por
931961
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Postado por
MyTie
The examples you choose are what I would call common sense, just like you wouldn't go and approach a 50 stone man to be in your 100 meter sprint team, or a 1 year old child to join your debating team - I didn't realize i'd have to explicitly discount those...
We do 'discriminate' all the time, but it is at a reasonable level.
Discrimination is bad when steps over the boundaries of what society deems reasonable discrimination. No-body is going to accuse you of being discriminatory because you wouldn't entrust the care of your child to a Paedophile.
I don't use social measures as justification for my actions. You have just deemed my discrimination "bad". Why? What is bad about it? Why is this action of mine incorrect? Because others disagree with it?
Postado por
donnymurph
respect their elders.
Another horrible tenet. Respecting anyone who has yet to prove themselves unworthy of said respect is fair. Respecting someone for no other reason than that their mother gave birth to them a longer time ago is stupid.
Postado por
MyTie
respect their elders.
Another horrible tenet. Respecting anyone who has yet to prove themselves unworthy of said respect is fair. Respecting someone for no other reason than that their mother gave birth to them a longer time ago is stupid.
Elders are generally more wise than youth. Elders have usually been through more than youth. Due to these rules, it is socially beneficial for youth to respect them for their wisdom. The timing of a birth is of little consequence, and the real issue here is the amount of problems solved since and amount of life lived. The average 18 year old has achieved less than the average 70 year old, by FAR, and knows significantly less. The need here isn't some abstract reasoning.horribleIs it really? Is it really that unthinkably terrible?
Postado por
Squishalot
Elders are generally more wise than youth. Elders have usually been through more than youth. Due to these rules, it is socially beneficial for youth to respect them for their wisdom.
Spin it around another way, other cultures put more respect on the youth, on the basis that they represent the future, rather than the past. I think the point that Donny is making is that the issue should be about respect generally, rather than making a broad generalisation that it's good to respect someone purely on the basis of age without knowing anything else about them. For example, you're 28, right? Why should someone aged 30 be somehow more deserving of a seat than you, purely on age?
Postado por
Adamsm
Elders are generally more wise than youth. Elders have usually been through more than youth. Due to these rules, it is socially beneficial for youth to respect them for their wisdom. The timing of a birth is of little consequence, and the real issue here is the amount of problems solved since and amount of life lived.True...but why should you respect some 70 year old man who is yelling racist and obscene comments to anyone who walks past? Or an iron side old lady who makes life a living hell for any customer service worker she encounters? Or, such as I encountered, a gym teacher who picked up on nastiness of his students and openly mocked anyone who wasn't a jock? Why should any of those people receive any respect at all?
Postado por
MyTie
True...but why should you respect some 70 year old man who is yelling racist and obscene comments to anyone who walks past? Or an iron side old lady who makes life a living hell for any customer service worker she encounters? Or, such as I encountered, a gym teacher who picked up on nastiness of his students and openly mocked anyone who wasn't a jock? Why should any of those people receive any respect at all?
That's why I said it was a general concept, and that individual circumstances will vary. How would you like it if I asked why you feel you don't owe respect to a kindly WW2 vet who worked for charity his whole life? It's special pleading. We aren't talking about specifics like that.Elders are generally more wise than youth. Elders have usually been through more than youth. Due to these rules, it is socially beneficial for youth to respect them for their wisdom.
Spin it around another way, other cultures put more respect on the youth, on the basis that they represent the future, rather than the past. I think the point that Donny is making is that the issue should be about respect generally, rather than making a broad generalisation that it's good to respect someone purely on the basis of age without knowing anything else about them. For example, you're 28, right? Why should someone aged 30 be somehow more deserving of a seat than you, purely on age?30 vs 28? Geez. I'm not checking people's driver's licenses for their birthdate. Again, this is just a general concept: respecting your elders. I'm not saying youth don't deserve respect. Try to address my point: Elders are generally more wise and learned than youth. Explain how that is incorrect.
Postado por
Adamsm
That's why I said it was a general concept, and that individual circumstances will vary. How would you like it if I asked why you feel you don't owe respect to a kindly WW2 vet who worked for charity his whole life? It's special pleading. We aren't talking about specifics like that.But why should it be specifically elders? Isn't it easier just to treat everyone with that respect, whether it's written in a book or not? And if they aren't deserving of that respect, it's still best to not feed them back on their bile, since that just makes things worse.
Postado por
MyTie
That's why I said it was a general concept, and that individual circumstances will vary. How would you like it if I asked why you feel you don't owe respect to a kindly WW2 vet who worked for charity his whole life? It's special pleading. We aren't talking about specifics like that.But why should it be specifically elders? Isn't it easier just to treat everyone with that respect, whether it's written in a book or not? And if they aren't deserving of that respect, it's still best to not feed them back on their bile, since that just makes things worse.
Yes, I like to treat everyone with respect. I go out of my way to respect those who have gone before me, though. Would you like to address that?
Resposta da Mensagem
Você não iniciou a seção. Por favor, faça
login
para escrever uma resposta ou
registre-se
se ainda não tiver uma conta.