Hacker News Reader

Comment by norikki | Hacker News Reader

Don't people think this is sexist? If men and women are equal shouldn't they be treated the same in all situations?

I didn't interpret the intent as being that we should adopt Victorian-era customs today; it seems like it's just a glimpse into the customs of the past.

(And really interesting in that regard, though I wouldn't want to have to deal with all these arbitrary rules!)

Why does equality require a loss of chivalry? Equality does not mean we pretend people are completely uniform.

No, but doesn't equality mean that we treat everyone in the same way, regardless of gender, for one thing?

People aren't equal though. Coming from Russia, the West is really confused about what it wants.

It seems to want chivalry plus equality minus morality. This desire is represented by factions who seem to work together on some level. The end result is a mess.

A mess the end result of which is that people here touch far more rarely than they did in Victorian times. Yet we know that rarely being touched in childhood is a strong risk factor for promiscuity later on.

As for equality, women are far more at risk from sexual predation and assault; I don't think it's rude to let social customs reflect this by having them initiate touch, largely.

Risk factor for promiscuity. Is promiscuity a bad thing?

As long as you take proper precautions, it seems like sex is a good thing.

I like it, anyway

At a young age, yeah, it correlates with quite bad outcomes.

Democracy is messy, slow and complicated because it's build upon compromises between different factions. A lot of things in the west are more of a mess than they are in Russia, but there is a reason immigration streams one way.

What is that reason? Seems there is a lot of money in the US, isn't that it?

Go to JFK international arrivals and ask immigrants why did they come.

I guarantee you would get hundreds of reasons not just one.

Although they are probably gonna be "simple" reasons.

Maybe something like having the right to waive the Rainbow Flag in front of the Whitehouse in case of Russian immigrants.

How many of those reasons are one of "something money can fix" or "something getting a European visa can fix".

Equality in modern colloquial context (esp. regarding social strata) means equal "especially in status, rights, and opportunities". It really means fair treatment, not equal treatment. Another side effect of people using the wrong language and sticking with it.

Treating people different based on their gender(or race) is kind of the definition of descrimination. That said, equality shouldn't mean a loss of civility, politeness, or hell even being romantic. It also doesn't mean treating everyone uniformly. Once you get to know some one or grow closer with them and learn their likes and dislikes, obviously you'll treat them differently. However when you don't know them well you shouldn't default to method A for men and method B for women.

> Treating people different based on their gender(or race) is kind of the definition of descrimination.

Not really, it's also supposed to be unjust or harmful.

Gender based etiquette is based on an idea of a weak and feeble minded gender.

Can you see how that alone is harmful in some contexts?

It is based on two ideas: that one is weak and infirm and the other is strong and healthy.

Attributing strength and health to gender identity carries with is all kind of problems for everyone involved.

A lot of the chivalry seems to be just doing mundane things for women or treating them differently (opening doors, scooting out chairs, shaking hands differently). Women can do these things literally just as well so it's not like most of the "chivalry" we are losing is due to real differences between genders. I still get things off of high shelves or open pickle jars for my girlfriend but those are based on practical differences (she is tiny and I have great grip strength)

Um, you just contradicted yourself.

Sorry for being unclear. My point to was that the vast majority of "chivalry" is in no way rooted in real physiological differences while trying to also highlight some small exceptions. Chivalry is mostly crap but also that you shouldn't avoid helping them (or anyone) when it makes sense. You shouldn't treat women any differently than anyone else who is in a similar situation (I do jujitsu so I have good grip strength and have helped both male and female friends open pickle jars as a weird example).

EDIT: I guess what I'm trying to get across is that it's not your gender or ethnicity that makes you treat someone a different way, it's who they are as an individual. I think that the idea of "chivalry" runs generally counter to this.

My biggest question is why you and yours consume so many pickles that you have established protocols for opening the jars.

Spoken like someone who truly does not hold a high enough appreciation for a good pickle.

Not really. I'm female and hate most of the "chivalry" stuff, because it treats me like I can't do things like open doors or pull out my own freaking chair.

Reaching high boxes or opening jars is different. I'd do the same for a short old man as a woman, and I assume most men would do the same. It is no longer about sex, but about differences in people's strength and height. Gender doesn't matter as much, just ability.

Just like I'll hold the door for someone going through right after me instead of allowing it to slam in their face, or hold it longer for someone who's hands are full. I don't wait for elderly folks, though, since most folks are capable of opening doors.

Chivarly is profoundly sexist - not by chance but by design. It's entirely based on gender roles.

Perhaps you are thinking "politeness", which is meant to be applied equally depending on other people gender, age, wealth...

Putting a urinal in a men's restroom and not in a women's restroom is not sexist, even though they are being treated differently based on sex, because there is no prejudice or unfair discrimination going on.

The handshake rules are not necessarily prejudicial or unfairly discriminatory. Some of them might be, some of them might not. It's best to think of sexism, and other isms, as a spectrum, and not hard and fast rules.

I tend to hold the door open for people (male or female) if they are following close behind, or if I'm exiting just as they are entering. It's a subconscious thing that I don't think about before doing it.

Occasionally, I get a sneer from women. I assume it's an assumption on their part that I'm being sexist.

If you were being sexist, you wouldn't be holding the door after you, you'd be opening it for them to go first.

That is what I do in the situation where someone is following close behind. Again, reflexive, not conscious...would be hard for me to change it. To be fair, I don't really know the reason for the occasional sneer. But it is almost never a male sneering.

Victorian era was sexist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com