Mind Of Man: I Might Be A Sexist
Posted by: John DeVore
Filed in:
guys
11:00AM, Thursday January 22nd 2009
I think I might be a sexist. But since most of you are vagina-enabled, I’ll let you tell me. Many of you possess testicles, as well, and I’ll invite you to chime in, too. To those who have both: All are welcome here.
I’m not proud of the fact that I might be sexist, but it seems more honest to say so than declaring that I’m a feminist. Which I’m not. I’m having a tough enough time trying to figure out how to be a righteous dude. I suppose the best contribution I can make to the struggle for gender equality is to try and be a better man. I can’t allow myself to politicize my inner-struggles, to become, as Gandhi said, the change I want to see in the world. So, yeah, I’m not a feminist, and I might be a sexist. But better I be aware of that, than ignorant to the prejudices that make me oh-so human. And that’s the best I can do.
By endorsing the concept of “women and children first,” you’re endorsing the notion that the feminine is the absence of strength. And we know that’s not true.
So why do I think I’m a sexist?
There were 155 survival stories involving the truly stunning ditching of US Airways Flight 1549 into the frigid waters of the Hudson River in New York City. The entire event is enough to make the cavity where my heart would be—had I not sold it to gypsies for whiskey—echo with melancholy, hopeful little whispers. Sometimes, a cynic is just a deeply disappointed romantic.
But one story that got lost in the hubbub surrounding the recent inauguration is how reportedly during the “controlled chaos” of the evacuation, some men shouted: “Women and children first!” There is already debate as to whether that gallant, chivalrous anachronism has any place in today’s gender political conversations. There are many women who are insulted by the debate, and I suppose I can empathize. By endorsing the concept of “women and children first,” you’re endorsing the notion that the feminine is the absence of strength. And we know that’s not true.
Long ago, I dated a woman whom I loved very much. She was a bad ass. She was a tattooed body-piercer. Our relationship was like burning a July 4 sparkler at both ends. Once, she ended a bar fight I had inadvertently started. She was beautiful, feminine, and a person with whom one does not mess with. I accepted this, never thought twice about it, and never felt emasculated by the fact that her Power Animal Warrior was a jaguar, and mine is more like an armadillo. A really awesome, manly little armadillo.
And I’m not even mentioning the countless examples of emotional and intellectual strength from the various women in my life that I have come to depend upon over the years.
But here’s the thing. When I read about “woman and children first,” I asked myself, Would I do that? And I’d like to think I would have the presence of mind, the instinct for self-sacrifice to allow those women and children who might be smaller, and physically weaker, into safety’s arms. Is this idealized machismo? Gender identity roles so hammered into me that I naturally assume that women, especially, cannot take care of themselves? Was chivalry just a refined, polite method by which to herd women? Plenty of women lost their lives on the Titanic, after all.
There are two maritime calls enshrined in history. One is “women and children first” and the other is “every man for himself.” I want to believe I’m not one who would be for himself. If that makes me sexist, so be it.
Not to bring feminism back into it, seeing as the term seems misinterpreted, misunderstood, and wholly divisive, but gender equality, if it’s ever to be achieved fully, seems dependent on knowing what the sexes have in common, and what makes us different. Special. Unique. That might be patriarchal, hetero-normative claptrap, but I’m being honest here. Life isn’t theory after all, the map isn’t the territory. As a purely speculative, fantastical situation, I want to be a man who ushers those people who need help. Even though there’s always the alternative reality, where I’m trapped in a sinking plane, and I crap myself, ball up into a heap of weeping hysteria, and am bravely carted out of the wreckage by two bespectacled female women’s studies grad students.
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
theothergyllenhaal
wrote on January 22 2009 @ 12:12 pm: [report]
Kind of a half confession, no? If your biggest claim to sexism is hypothetically putting others’ safety before your own in a difficult situation, then I’d say you’re not really in need of much redemption.
Also: “Was chivalry just a refined, polite method by which to herd women?”
In your example, no. Pummel me with vitriol if I’m wrong, but I don’t think I’m perverting science by saying that women (along with children and the elderly), are, on average, less physically strong than the average man. It’s a matter of evolution from that whole hunter/gatherer phase of our lives, and excepting the minor percentage of outliers on either end of the bell curve, it’ll remain that way until we reach Wall-E-esque universal obesity. And on that day, true equality will have been achieved, and you, Mr. DeVore, will be the feminist you always dreamed of becoming.
theothergyllenhaal
wrote on January 22 2009 @ 12:14 pm: [report]
And I forgot…FIRST.
lalaland
wrote on January 22 2009 @ 12:28 pm: [report]
I may well seriously tick of some people by saying this, but I like chivalry. I expect men to open doors for me (granted I hold open doors for others if I reach the door first). I find it sweet when men pull out chairs and stand when a lady enters or leaves a room. So as far as I’m concerned it isn’t sexist to believe in the “women and children first” mentality.
joyy
wrote on January 22 2009 @ 12:38 pm: [report]
I think a good update would be “others first.” Granted, in a life or death situation everyone ideally gets through and your instincts will probably be self-preservation.
But in the small courtesies of day to day life, helping out someone else just to do it (like hold the door for the people behind you) or because maybe they need a hand (giving up your seat on the bus to say, a parent clutching small kids or someone who is limping, older, or maybe on crutches) is a good thing in my book.
Every time I fly, it takes me a minute to put my suitcase in the overhead bin or retrieve it. I can always lift my own bag and it always fits (usually after a few jiggles), but EVERY single time, a guy offers to help or just reaches over and helps me. I’ve had people just see me looking at my bag, getting ready to take it down, and just get it down for me if they’re closer.
It was a little awkward at first, but even though I don’t need the help, it does speed up the process and given the tight quarters and high stress levels in plane cabins, that’s always a good thing.
justme
wrote on January 22 2009 @ 12:41 pm: [report]
As far as I’m concerned, I am equal intellectually / professionally and in partnerships. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t physical differences. This doesn’t mean that men and women don’t have different dispositions. It only means that there is nothing that I can’t achieve based on my gender.
jazzyj
wrote on January 22 2009 @ 12:57 pm: [report]
I have to say that the idea of women and children first is not the worst kind of sexism, but yeah, its kind of sexist. And like lalaland said, many women enjoy that kind of sexism.
Objectively, though, is it fair or even reasonable of women to expect equality with special privileges? How is that truly equal? If a man wants to play gender roles and open a door, that’s lovely, right? But, if we feel entitled to that behavior, isn’t there other behavior that we should anticipate that we might not enjoy so much? Like being told that he paid so we put out?
What about equal pay? If men are expected to open doors for us, why shouldn’t they be expected to earn more? I’ll happily open my own door in exchange for equal pay, the right to say no to sex and actually see rape prosecuted 99 percent of the time rather than 10 percent of the time.
Humble Bee
wrote on January 22 2009 @ 01:07 pm: [report]
I like when my bf opens doors for me, but He’s the only one i’d expect that from. Other than that, I open doors for men all the time. I open them for women, men, children, it doesn’t make a difference. It is obvious that the “women and children first” phrase was worded that way because they are physically smaller. I think men and women air intellectually the same, but physically men are stronger than women, so I don’t think Feminism has a part in this. There are exceptions for everything of course, but in general men are just bigger. (Maybe the Chivalry dervies from the fact that men want to be protector of “woman and children” and it’s not necessarily because we our defenseless).
theothergyllenhaal
wrote on January 22 2009 @ 01:12 pm: [report]
@ jazzyj: How about I still open the door, AND you get equal pay, the right to decline sex, and rape prosecuted every time. That sound so bad?
Seems like we’re confusing sexism with what’s basically mating rituals. In every other species, a man’s got to prove himself worthy of a woman. Only in humans and praying mantises does a guy get his head ripped off for it.
Lynn
wrote on January 22 2009 @ 02:04 pm: [report]
It is not sexist to realize physical or even emotional and intellectual differences between the genders. I hate when people feel bad for noticing these differences and living accordingly. I refuse to feel bad because I know that my boyfriend/brothers/cousins/friends can do certain things better than I can, or that I can do certain things better than they can.
So no, I don’t think you are sexist. It would be one thing if you said “I am so much smarter, and stronger, than these women. I am therefore also better.” But I don’t think that’s what you’re saying. It seems like you’re saying more, “I know I’m probably stronger than most of these women, so I’d want to take care of them the best I could, because we are equals.” And I think that’s a GOOD thing.
EastCoastMale
wrote on January 22 2009 @ 02:32 pm: [report]
@jazzyj
I see your point in that can we have total equality while still maintaining social standards that have been around so long and inherrited. I think that sexism comes into play with equal pay for equal work, being spoken down to obviously and discrimination but not necessarily in the traditional sense would it be perceived in the “women and children first” statement. I always thought women and children were singled out because women can procreate obviously and children were considered innocent and havent lived their life yet. Not trying to sound crass but I meant the procreate statement in that if it was a huge amount of people and all men happened to get to the boats or out of danger, they couldnt keep the population going on their own. This obviously isnt a real concern since it would have to be a global disaster for this to apply. However maybe it is like handicapping, the more physical strength someone posseses the father back in the order they have to start because otherwise 1920’s gentlemen would be throwin’ bows to get to those lifeboats and the petticoated companions wouldnt have a fair chance.
I say open the door for others no matter the sex, and even though I know it is common practice and not a huge deal, paying for both sides on a date plus offering a drink at a bar to talk to a woman is a bit out there in my opinion. Basically if you want to do several activities and have some variety in the evening with someone you just started dating, a guy has to have money for both people even though she may just hang out and not want a 3rd or 4th date. So are we expected to just pay for double in every instance that involved a woman romantically? I know that women say they offer to pay and some probably do split bills and have great and understanding guys but Im sure there are some that only offer as a courtesy and if you took them up on it that might be the last date you have with them.
vanya
wrote on January 22 2009 @ 03:37 pm: [report]
I feel silly typing this, but I figured it was “women and children first” because nursing infants need their mothers for sustenance, and because small children are so often extremely attached to their mothers.
atlgirl
wrote on January 22 2009 @ 03:38 pm: [report]
I don’t know you John, but I may have just developed a crush.
EastCoastMale
wrote on January 22 2009 @ 03:44 pm: [report]
atl, he is quite dashing and definitely has a command of the english language. I think he has a few admirers here on the site, good eye
vanya
you may be correct, wish whoever came up with that saying would have given us some fine print explaining why.
Erin G
wrote on January 22 2009 @ 03:48 pm: [report]
Women and children first? What is this, the Titanic?
benglish320
wrote on January 22 2009 @ 04:35 pm: [report]
I’ve never felt emasculated by having a strong woman for a girlfriend. As a matter of fact, it’s a requirement. I can always go out and buy a dog that will do whatever I tell it to for a treat. When I look for a girlfriend, I look for a partner. Someone who is always honest with me, who I can hold an intelligent conversation with, and someone whom I can share my life with, equally. My girlfriend has a great career and made almost double what I did, but it doesn’t bother me. I’m proud of her, because nothing is more attractive to me than a strong woman with goals. Plus, she bought me an XBOX360 for my B-day, which makes her the coolest girlfriend ever.
All that being said, what is wrong with a man opening the door or pulling out a chair for a woman? It’s not because I don’t think she can’t do it, I do it because it makes her feel special, and I feel good when she feels good. Everyone likes to feel special and be waited-on.
As for the whole “woman and children first” thing, the cold hard truth is that the average woman in the UK is 5’4” and weighs 147 pounds. The average man in the UK is 5’10” and 176 pounds. It’s a statistical and plain fact: women and children are smaller than men, therefore, they are given more consideration in a mob/escape situation.
Lyz
wrote on January 23 2009 @ 07:56 am: [report]
I feel like the author’s dilemma is less about sexism and more about selfishness.
Chelle
wrote on January 23 2009 @ 08:47 am: [report]
There’s a difference between sexism and chivalry. It makes no sense to get upset over something that helps others. I also beleive it’s common courtesy for everyone to hold the door for anyone behind them. It’s rude to let the door slam in their face. I don’t like the chair pulling thing though. That can lead to injury *lol*.
EastCoastMale
wrote on January 23 2009 @ 08:53 am: [report]
I definitely think there may be a difference between the two in some instances but depends on what person you talk to and what sex they are, I guess. Some things considered chivalrous are just plain ridiculous, some are good common courtesy like you said.
Nick at Night
wrote on January 23 2009 @ 09:08 am: [report]
I draw a distinction between “what is equal” and “what is fair”. For example, women and men getting maternity/paternity leave…It would be equal for both to get the same amount of time off work when a child is born. It is fair that a women get more time off, since she needs time for her body to heal, recover from the huge shift in hormones, and return to work healthy and productive. Men just don’t need as much time since we didn’t just squeeze a baby out of our weeners (or have it cut from our stomachs).
So, I vote for fair over equal. Call me a pig if you like. I’m not sorry.
One Big Voice
wrote on January 23 2009 @ 01:03 pm: [report]
To me, “women and children first” implies that their survival is more “important”. In other words, men’s lives have less value than women or children. I don’t know if I can agree with that. I don’t like the idea of ranking someone’s life based on their age or gender. Where does it stop? Are younger women therefore “higher priority” than older ones? Should I save the female child ahead of the male child?
Easier to just treat everyone the same, no?
SummerLane
wrote on January 23 2009 @ 06:49 pm: [report]
Using the plane/Titanic example, if it were just me I will fend for myself. No need to exit me out faster than the next person (but I can’t swim so if I could get a life jacket, that would be great!) But if my two small children were with me, please for the love of god DO help us out to safety first. They can’t fend for themselves and I couldn’t tread water while holding two little kiddos! So how about “parents WITH children first” instead of “women and children first.”
I’m all for treating most everyone the same but is it logical to treat my 11 month old daughter the same as a 30 year old woman? No! And as far as whose life holds more value, I can’t say. But I’ve had the opportunity to live for 25 years and would give the rest of my years up to save my children (or any child) so that they may have the same opportunity.
Jon the Valiant
wrote on January 24 2009 @ 04:43 am: [report]
The traditional reason for “women and children first” was that men asked themselves, “Why do we live?” and answered “We love our wives and children.” Since men were in power, they had the privilege of making the decision. The relative strengths, weaknesses, merits, and deficiencies of men and women was the farthest thing from their minds. When you take account of this origin, it really doesn’t make a lot of sense to be offended.
SeattleMama
wrote on January 24 2009 @ 05:51 pm: [report]
SummerLane nailed it. Civilized people will make sure the most vulnerable among them are kept safe. Pre-kids, I would have put whoever was less able then I ahead of myself in the ‘hypothetical disaster situation’ (and I think that’s the root of the sentiment).
Now that I have kids, THEIR survival is my priority- and if they live and I die, their lives are going to be permanently impacted… seriously, if I wasn’t in the life boat, I could see one or both of them trying to jump back out to get to me.
If anything happened to us in a situation he had been able to escape, that would kill my husband. He’s a lot stronger then I, and a better swimmer, and I know in that situation our survival would be his top priority… more so then his own.
lamaestra13
wrote on January 27 2009 @ 10:46 pm: [report]
Nice try clever boy. I would hope that if ever faced with an emergency evacuation your thoughts might find you instead reflecting on the ability of women and their reproductive organs to carry on the species and raise future generations of men and women ...
AntArt141
wrote on January 28 2009 @ 06:04 pm: [report]
The ability of women to have babies hinges on a man first impregnating the woman’s womb. Women just don’t knock themselves up.
In an emergency situation only children should be allowed to go first. Women wanted equality, so give it to them. It is after all what is fair.
Chivalry is grounded in the paradigm that women are inferior to men. Chivalry is righteously lacking in men under 40 as we have been brought up to believe women are equal to men and so chivalry should be dead.
Honor and respect is what should be practiced. People should treat men and women the same when it comes to non-intimate relationships. That is after all what feminist fought so hard for. Or, was it female privilege, the expectation that men treat women with deference and act gentlemanly while women forego their former ladylike ways.
Sounds like men are the oppressed group now. But, it was to be expected, as the great philosopher Aristotle said,
“The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal. “
And,
“Once made equal to man, woman becomes his superior.” -Socrates
John you have the slave mentality, which women will exploit to become your superior.
lamaestra13, the fact that women like her consider you beneath her because of your inability to give birth should be reason enough to be equality minded and save your own ass.